The Associated Press reports, "Pennsylvania county joins other local governments in suing oil industry over climate change."
Dozens of municipalities (the kind usually run by the Democrat Left) as well as solid blue states like California are seeking to recover money from oil companies to pay for the impact of climate change.
Potential jurors need to remember that litigants hope to appeal to their emotions rather than facts and reason, and not only reject these junk lawsuits but also award legal fees and costs to the defendants.
Suppose what the plaintiffs say is true; fossil fuel consumption is entirely responsible for climate change and the communities in question have suffered damage as a result.
We need to remember, however, that the communities in question have themselves used fossil fuels and enjoyed their benefits, including jobs and economic growth. If they want to be made "whole" through a genuine return to pre-fossil fuel days, they should make do with horses, wagons, wood stoves, and no home appliances or computers that use electricity. The Amish have in fact made this work for them and, while they are not wealthy, they have necessities like food, clothing, and shelter.
It is probably impossible in practice, however, to determine how much climate change is due to fossil fuels and how much results from whatever Nature chooses to do at any time in geological history.
There was a time long ago when a good part of North America was under water and, had humans been around, they could have sailed from the Arctic Circle (where no ice caps existed) to the Gulf of Mexico right through the middle of what is now the United States. This is why fish and marine reptile fossils can be found in many of our western states. There was also a time when all of Canada, as well as a good part of New England and New York, were covered with glaciers; the same glaciers excavated the Great Lakes.
My perception is that efforts to blame the petroleum industry, which played a huge role in making our modern economy possible, is a greed-driven scam to raid productive industries for money. That would be my decision as a juror in any lawsuit of this nature.
This is not to say that genuine pollution cannot cause harm. My position would be very different if, for example, a corporation violated environmental laws by sending genuine pollutants, such as harmful chemicals or particulates, downwind to harm people and animals.
People have a right to safe air and, if you were on the receiving end of smoke from Canadian wildfires last year, you will know what I mean by particulates. I fortunately had some respirators left over from the COVID-19 epidemic, and I made good use of them. Respirators are also available to protect dogs.
Smoke is however particulate pollution; carbon dioxide is a gas and is not harmful in ordinary concentrations. The litigants depicted above want to sue over something we exhale every few seconds, and is used by all green plants.
Remember that the plaintiffs are relying on the prospect of getting six people who cannot get out of jury duty who will respond to appeals to emotion rather than facts and reason. They hope these jurors will side with communities of real people against faceless corporations, and award them hundreds of millions of dollars of which a decent share will go to the plaintiffs' law firm. Don't let them insult your intelligence if you are on the jury.
Junk Lawsuits Against Firearm Manufacturers
Mexico is suing American gun manufacturers for $10 billion because Mexico alleges that they are arming drug cartels.
I can see them having a case only if they can prove that the manufacturers sold the firearms outside the approved distribution channels, namely, federal firearm license (FFL) holders who have been vetted by the federal government. These gun dealers can meanwhile sell firearms only to people who pass background checks. Neither the manufacturers nor the dealers are responsible for what criminals do with stolen firearms, or firearms acquired through straw purchase, although traffickers in stolen guns and straw purchasers are subject to very serious criminal penalties themselves.
Mexico might however have a much better case against the Obama administration whose "gunwalking" operation provided Mexican criminals with the firearms they used to kill hundreds of Mexican citizens along with at least one American law enforcement professional (Bryan Terry). The responsibility must be placed where it belongs.
If you are selected for jury duty in a gun liability case, you should have exactly two questions for the litigants. (1) Did the manufacturer sell the firearm to a FFL dealer? (2) Did the FFL dealer follow all regulations by performing a background check on the buyer? If the answer to both questions is "yes," it is a junk lawsuit and you should award all litigation costs to the defendant.
Remember, your job as a juror is to judge the facts and the law, not award a plaintiff the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket at the expense of a real corporation, its employees, and its customers.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. He or she is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/time_for_jurors_to_reject_junk_lawsuits_on_climate_and_firearms.html
