Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change Legal Action

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
all roads lead to Rome :smile:

Cool! This is a very well known motto in Italy. Didn't know that it was known also abroad. :smile:

- - - Updated - - -

My personal opinion on choosing the best road is that punishing people is far less effective than educating them.

Sometimes some people are educated by being punished IMO. Spreading misinformation on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue for economical and/or political reasons is a crime IMO considering the gravity of such an issue.
 
Cool! This is a very well known motto in Italy. Didn't know that it was known also abroad. :smile:

- - - Updated - - -



Sometimes some people are educated by being punished IMO. Spreading misinformation on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue for economical and/or political reasons is a crime IMO considering the gravity of such an issue.

The gravity of an activity does not qualify the activity as criminal, the law does.

Here are some activities that are defined as environmental crimes in Australia:

Pollution or other contamination of air, water or land
Illegal discharge and dumping of, or trade in, hazardous and other regulated waste
Illegal trade in ozone depleting substances
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
Illegal trade in protected flora and fauna
Illegal logging and timber trade
Illegal native vegetation clearance
Water theft

Perhaps some unlucky people do get educated by being punished but I can think of much better ways to get educated.

If it is true that all roads do lead to Rome, why not choose the most pleasant ones?:smile:
 
As previously discussed, there is no such thing as a "free speech" defense to the charges and claims which may and should result from knowingly misleading the public to advance commercial interests.
I don't know who you're quoting here, but I disagree. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, perhaps it's a matter of a Canadian perspective vs. an American one.
 
There are limits to free speech... you cannot make patently false claims without legal consequences...

You can't claim your cars are more efficient than they really are...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/03/kia-hyundai-mpg-epa/18410431/

Sadly there's a homeopathy loophole in the US but in most places you can't claim magic water works as a vaccine...
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...-homeopaths-for-claiming-vaccine-alternative/

Outside that loophole there are rules...
http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/mercola.shtml

Imagine a similar letter sent to Foxnews from NASA or NOAA... informing them that certain claims are simply false. If they make them again they will be held criminally liable.

Free Speech applies to OPINIONs not FACTs.
 
There are limits to free speech... you cannot make patently false claims without legal consequences...

+ 1

- - - Updated - - -

Outside that loophole there are rules...
http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/mercola.shtml

Imagine a similar letter sent to Foxnews from NASA or NOAA... informing them that certain claims are simply false. If they make them again they will be held criminally liable.

+ 100

- - - Updated - - -

Free Speech applies to OPINIONs not FACTs.

+ 10000
 
The gravity of an activity does not qualify the activity as criminal, the law does.

Agree. That's why we (I am using pluralis maiestatis but I don't think I am the only one to think like this) would like misinformation on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue be punished by law.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps some unlucky people do get educated by being punished but I can think of much better ways to get educated.

If it is true that all roads do lead to Rome, why not choose the most pleasant ones?:smile:

IMO people having economical and/or political interests spreading misinformation on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue are in the "unlucky people" sector.
 
What Should Be Done About Denier Propoganda?

The following are a few examples of materials disseminated by professional climate deniers, with a view to derailing rational public debate about climate change and providing cover for the climate denier caucus in Congress to take environmentally damaging positions.

How do you feel about the attempt to classify those who support rational, evidence-based climate action as being akin to terrorists, anarchists, and torturers?

The following "current" example comes from the Koch Brother-supported American Energy Alliance:

EPA Torture Report.jpg


See: http://www.newsweek.com/energy-indu...cia-least-cia-isnt-torturing-americans-292647

And then there is the ever-popular Heartland Institute billboard ad:

Unabomber Billboard.jpg


See: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...llboard-heartland-institute-article-1.1073052

While this particular ad was taken down as a result of a backlash, the Heartland Institute continues its relentless campaign to create doubt through its ongoing disinformation campaign.

The inaptly named Environmental Policy Alliance (EPA) ran this ad earlier this year in the USA Today and Politico:

USA Today Ad Against EPA.jpg


As noted in the Washington Post:

The Environmental Policy Alliance, a subsidiary of another group called the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE) that is run out of the D.C.-based PR firm Berman and Company, has been running a campaign against the EPA since March. In an earlier incarnation CORE had been named The Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization originally formed by Phillip Morris to fight smoking bans in restaurants.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../the-ad-war-over-epas-climate-rule-has-begun/

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_Policy_Alliance and http://www.reddit.com/r/Green/comments/1znm8i/who_or_what_is_the_environmental_policy_alliance/

As noted in the Reddit post regarding the EPA:

Richard B. (Rick) Berman is a former labor management attorney and restaurant industry executive who currently works as a lobbyist for the food, alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries. He is the sole owner of Berman & Co., which sponsors many non-profit front groups that defend his corporate clients' interests by attacking their critics, allowing his paying clients to remain out of public view.

Should corporations be permitted to hide behind non-profit front groups, and to use them to make public statements which the sponsors' are not prepared to make or to be associated with themselves? Should the front groups be permitted to set up and use dark money pools in to further conceal the principals on whose behalf they are acting. Aren't such arrangements contrary to the purpose of free speech?
 
Wow those are some really blatant "ads" you posted Richard. If anything like that got published in Norway or Sweden (countries I have lived) I'm 100% sure that whoever was behind it would get fined for slander and the newspaper running the ad would also be fined for taking part. And all this would happen without any one individual or organization needing to sue or take other legal action - we have something called "The Press' Ethical Board" which would handle the matter.
 
So, when climate change advocates made rather stark (and now proven incorrect) statements should these people be prosecuted?

Or is it just climate change skeptics that should face legal jeopardy?
It's clear that, at this point, there isn't a legal theory that will support any prosecution. There are good lawyers working on this issue, and the prize is very large if they can find a route to success. So we're talking about hypothetical prosecutions.

I don't think most here are talking about prosecuting advocates, but rather the companies that fund systematic spread of disinformation. I believe what is proposed is that corporations that promote information that they know to be false in order to sell more product should be prosecuted under the same legal theory that prevents companies from making false claims about the safety or efficacy of their products. Such suits could, in principle, be brought against either companies sponsoring anti-climate-change propaganda in order to continue selling oil, gas, coal, or whatever without limits, or companies sponsoring false claims about how bad climate change in order to sell their wares.

I confess I'm struggling to think of any companies in the latter category, @James Anders.
 
So, when climate change advocates made rather stark (and now proven incorrect) statements should these people be prosecuted?

Or is it just climate change skeptics that should face legal jeopardy?

There's a difference between making future predictions that don't pan out because known processes don't work together as predicted and making blatantly false statement. But a false statement is a false statement. If MSNBC claimed burning fossil fuels released 100B tons of CO2 annually and refused to retract that statement there should be legal liability. In regards to what you think has been 'proven incorrect' I would love some examples...

Here are a few gems from Faux News that in a sane would they would be sued for saying again...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/31/10-dumbest-things-fox-said-about-climate-change/191859

False or intentionally misleading scientific claims should receive the same treatment as false or intentionally misleading scientific claims about drugs. Maybe NOAA could be self-funded...
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidanceco...forcementactionsonunapproveddrugs/default.htm
 
Last edited:
The points were raised in the previous discussions on how best to fight climate deniers and the role of government in that fight.

I have doubts that prosecution of deniers is the best way to go, unless they break the existing laws. There are a multitude of existing laws that provide protection of common interests in various areas, including climate change.

Fighting propaganda from deniers takes a lot of energy and resources that could be better employed in more effective ways.
Propaganda is only effective if it manages to influence intended audience. If we understand what sort of audience is targeted by the deniers and for what purpose, we might be in a better position to counteract in the most effective way.

People with no financial freedom, no opportunity for education or access to information are more likely to fall prey to manipulation and misinformation. An educated informed empowered audience is at significantly diminished risk to be influenced by rubbish propaganda.

Perhaps in this day and age, when large populations lack access to good education, and more importantly information, both government and personal responsibility need to be carefully appropriated and balanced. It is no wonder that the least developed countries have authoritarian regimes and dictators. More developed societies need less of a government involvement to provide adequate structures for support.

Delegating task of evaluating deniers propaganda for truthfulness to a government body tends to promote disempowerment of individuals as responsibility is shifted to the government. That may be an easier choice as it allows individuals to abandon personal responsibility and blame their government if they do not like the outcome.

Rather than putting energy into correcting deniers’ propaganda and criminalizing them, that energy is much better utilized if it were focused on enabling access to information, quality public education, affordable fast internet, improving economic conditions and similar measures that empower general public. Empowered informed public will simply not listen to nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: voyager
Rather than putting energy into correcting deniers’ propaganda and criminalizing them, that energy is much better utilized if it were focused on enabling access to information, quality public education, affordable fast internet, improving economic conditions and similar measures that empower general public. Empowered informed public will simply not listen to nonsense.

Muddy water is more easily made clear by removing some of the the mud than by adding more clear water... doing both is even more effective.

I think most people consider Germany to be a very free and liberal country... this is a law on their books that is still used from time to time...

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

When there is great ideological pressure to twist reality opposing information is very often insufficient.
 
Last edited:
Muddy water is more easily made clear by removing some of the the mud than by adding more clear water... doing both is even more effective.

I think most people consider Germany to be a very free and liberal country... this is a law on their books that is still used from time to time...

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

When there is great ideological pressure to twist reality opposing information is very often insufficient.

I find it difficult to distinguish between climate deniers propaganda and so much other rubbish that is broadcast in public via different channels. If we wish to be consistent, then we should prosecute anyone else for false propaganda. There are so many religions that defy common sense yet they are free to preach.
 
I find it difficult to distinguish between climate deniers propaganda and so much other rubbish that is broadcast in public via different channels. If we wish to be consistent, then we should prosecute anyone else for false propaganda. There are so many religions that defy common sense yet they are free to preach.

There is a world of difference between false propaganda and false facts. This thread pertains to SPECIFIC, FALSIFIABLE, QUANTIFIABLE FACTS.

- CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING
- CO2 DOES CHANGE EARTHs radiative balance to make it warmer
- Burning fossil fuels emits ~40B tons/yr vs ~0.3B tons from volcanoes

So when Faux news says CO2 levels are not rising, CO2 cannot cause warming and volcanoes are a bigger problem that is just as wrong as if Pfizer tried to sell Ibuprofen as a cure for the flu... the legal consequences should be the same.
 
It's clear that, at this point, there isn't a legal theory that will support any prosecution. There are good lawyers working on this issue, and the prize is very large if they can find a route to success. So we're talking about hypothetical prosecutions.

Didn't know this. VERY GOOD!

Hope to have soon a legal system defending the environment at Global Level.
 
Last edited:
I find it difficult to distinguish between climate deniers propaganda and so much other rubbish that is broadcast in public via different channels. If we wish to be consistent, then we should prosecute anyone else for false propaganda. There are so many religions that defy common sense yet they are free to preach.

There is a world of difference between false propaganda and false facts. This thread pertains to SPECIFIC, FALSIFIABLE, QUANTIFIABLE FACTS.

- CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING
- CO2 DOES CHANGE EARTHs radiative balance to make it warmer
- Burning fossil fuels emits ~40B tons/yr vs ~0.3B tons from volcanoes

So when Faux news says CO2 levels are not rising, CO2 cannot cause warming and volcanoes are a bigger problem that is just as wrong as if Pfizer tried to sell Ibuprofen as a cure for the flu... the legal consequences should be the same.

Perhaps it might help to phrase the problem differently. The issue seems to boil down whether there should be legal sanctions for lying.

My understanding is that in some circumstances people can be prosecuted for lying whilst in some other circumstances, people lie and there is no legal recourse available. There are multitude of Acts that can be applied to intentional lying that causes harm or damages.

The argument posed in this thread is that climate deniers should be prosecuted (by government?) for spreading misinformation.

The stumbling block is that someone has to do an enormous amount of work to make a case prosecutable - gathering evidence, sifting through the multitude of laws to establish the intentional breach, proving and quantifying the culpability and damages etc. The odds of winning in the court of law may be very long.

It is likely that the cases with better odds (provable quantifiable damages and culpability) do end up in the court.

The endeavours that require a lot of energy for small returns are inefficient and may distract from more efficient ways of dealing with the problems.
 
Perhaps it might help to phrase the problem differently. The issue seems to boil down whether there should be legal sanctions for lying.

My understanding is that in some circumstances people can be prosecuted for lying whilst in some other circumstances, people lie and there is no legal recourse available. There are multitude of Acts that can be applied to intentional lying that causes harm or damages.

The argument posed in this thread is that climate deniers should be prosecuted (by government?) for spreading misinformation.

The stumbling block is that someone has to do an enormous amount of work to make a case prosecutable - gathering evidence, sifting through the multitude of laws to establish the intentional breach, proving and quantifying the culpability and damages etc. The odds of winning in the court of law may be very long.

It is likely that the cases with better odds (provable quantifiable damages and culpability) do end up in the court.

The endeavours that require a lot of energy for small returns are inefficient and may distract from more efficient ways of dealing with the problems.

Auzie,

I understand and have some sympathy for the views that you have expressed, but strongly disagree. It is my contention that the freedom of industry-funded denier groups to intentionally and repeatedly lie to and otherwise mislead the public about AGW with impunity is a major impediment to effective regulatory action (and may well be the principal impediment). Consequently legal action, whether brought by private parties or the government, to prevent the continuing spread of denier disinformation may well be the most efficient and effective form of action that can be taken to address the climate change issue.

There is no possible way that environmentally-minded citizens can match or overcome the hundreds of millions of dollars that industry groups spend on lobbyists and campaign contributions, or the billions of dollars that industry groups can spend on advertising and public relations. The ability of industry interests to co-opt and subvert the political system leaves the judicial branch as the best remaining option. Grass roots movements and environmental groups should be supported but, as reflected in the most recent mid-term elections, are no match for the resources of the fossil fuel industry and its ability to found and fund astroturf groups and to co-opt political and media channels.

For some real world evidence of the effectiveness of the denier propaganda and related initiatives, you need look no further than the differing positions of European and North American governments on the question of climate changes. The similarities and contrasts are quite striking:

  • The countries have similar ethnic and cultural roots.
  • The levels of literacy and education are generally similar.
  • The levels of economic, technical and social development are generally the same or similar.
  • All have equal access to the clear and compelling scientific evidence of climate change.
  • I assume that the populations, as a whole, have roughly similar intellectual capacities.

And yet, the governmental responses to climate change are wildly dissimilar.

The EU governments have accepted the science as a given and have generally taken rational and effective steps to reduce their GHG emissions as follows:

See: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/

EU leaders have committed to transforming Europe into a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy. The EU has set itself targets for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions progressively up to 2050 and is working successfully towards meeting them.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the 15 countries that were EU members before 2004 ('EU-15') committed to reducing their collective emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by the years 2008-2012. The latest emissions monitoring and projections show that the EU-15 is on track to over-achieve this target. Most Member States that have joined the EU since 2004 also have Kyoto reduction targets of 6% or 8% (5% in Croatia's case) which they are also on course to achieve.

For 2020, the EU has committed to cutting its emissions to 20% below 1990 levels. This commitment is one of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 growth strategy and is being implemented through a package of binding legislation. The EU has offered to increase its emissions reduction to 30% by 2020 if other major emitting countries in the developed and developing worlds commit to undertake their fair share of a global emissions reduction effort.

In the climate and energy policy framework for 2030, the European Commission proposes that the EU set itself a target of reducing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
For 2050, EU leaders have endorsed the objective of reducing Europe's greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% compared to 1990 levels as part of efforts by developed countries as a group to reduce their emissions by a similar degree. The European Commission has published a roadmap for building the low-carbon European economy that this will require.

On the other hand we have Canada, with one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries (ranking a dismal 28th out of the 29 OECD countries), (see: http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/execsum.htm) and the US, where in the most recent midterm election, "climate deniers won a slew of races across the country, fueled by big spending from fossil fuel interests such as the Koch brothers. Their money overruled increasing public support for reigning in carbon-spewing industries to address climate change." See: http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/dark-money-fuels-election-wins-climate-deniers/

See also: http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/05/climate-deniers-election-wins/
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...change-denial-scepticism-republicans-congress
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/11/09/bill-maher-on-newly-elected-climate-deniers/
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/11/meet-new-climate-denier-caucus
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/

Climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and a shocking number — over 58 percent — of congressional Republicans refuse to accept it.
163 elected representatives from the 113th Congress have taken over $58.8 million from the fossil fuel industry that is the driving force behind the carbon emissions that cause climate change. They deny what over 97 percent of climate scientists say is happening — current human activity creates the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat within the atmosphere and cause climate change. And their constituents are paying the price, with Americans across the nation suffering 430 climate-related national disaster declarations since 2011.

I would argue that the ability of fossil fuel industry proxies to lie to the public in support of climate inaction (and in support of their well-funded denier politicians) is one of the principal differences between the EU and North American approaches to climate change, and suggests that effective action to expose and stop such intentionally misleading activities could be a critical step toward the possibility of effective global action to address climate change.

What would you suggest is likely to be more efficient?





 
What would you suggest is likely to be more efficient?

Rather than putting energy into correcting deniers’ propaganda and criminalizing them, that energy and resources are much better utilized if it were focused on enabling access to information, quality public education, affordable fast internet, improving economic conditions and similar measures that empower general public. Empowered informed public will simply not listen to nonsense.

I would just add to above, any efforts to promote transparency will be far more efficient that any lawsuits. Transparency renders lawsuits almost obsolete.

Perhaps in the old opaque world in which access to information was controlled and monopolized by select gatekeepers, it might have been more sensible approach to pursue the truth in the way you describe.

I just think that the world is becoming more and more transparent by the day, thanks to technological innovations. The transparency is the most efficient way of weeding out undesirable behaviors. People do not speed if they know there is a speed camera on the road.

The transparency is galloping into our lives whether we want it or not.

Public pressure is much easier to mobilize now, with connected devices, to correct undesirable behaviour. Check Rupert Murdoch's Twitter account for an example of public voice counteracting his rubbish broadcasts. In this case, he did not lie, he was just himself and Twitterati's dished it to him. That was unimaginable just few decades ago.
 
Last edited: