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.
#121
Cross-posting from the "free speech" thread, as the content seems more appropriate to this thread.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jerry33 viewpost-right.png The problems are:

A. How to distinguish the Culpable Deniers from the Innocent Deniers and Faux Skeptics.

B. How to prevent these laws from being used against the Climate Acceptors by the Culpable Deniers.
Click to expand...

Hi Jerry,

In response to A: The laws of most countries make the conduct of Culpable Deniers illegal. In Canada, misrepresentations may result in criminal, civil or regulatory proceedings. Using the criminal law provision (Section 52 of the Competition Act, reproduced below) as an example, the requirements are that the misleading representation:

  1. be false or misleading in a material respect;
  2. be made knowingly or recklessly; and
  3. be made for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest.

In response to B: The representations of climate scientists and the IPCC (which have been accepted by every science academy on the planet and all major oil companies) would have to be proven to be false and misleading (which is clearly not going to happen).

Excerpts of Section 52 of the Competition Act and from the Competition Bureau website on misleading advertising follow:

False or misleading representations

  • 52. (1) No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever, knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.
  • [hide] - [top]Marginal note:proof of certain matters not required
    (1.1) For greater certainty, in establishing that subsection (1) was contravened, it is not necessary to prove that
    • (a) any person was deceived or misled;
    • (b) any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or
    • (c) the representation was made in a place to which the public had access.
Click to expand...


See: http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/e...eng/00513.html



False or Misleading Representations



The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations.

Section 52 of the Act is a criminal provision. It prohibits knowingly or recklessly making, or permitting the making of, a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 52(4) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
Any person who contravenes section 52 is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year on summary conviction, or to fines in the discretion of the court and/or imprisonment up to 14 years upon indictment.

Paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to paragraph 74.01(1)(a), it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice, to pay an administrative monetary penalty and/or to pay restitution to purchasers. When the court orders the payment of administrative monetary penalties, on first occurrence, individuals are subject to penalties of up to $750,000 and corporations, to penalties of up to $10,000,000. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation. The court also has the power to order interim injunctions to freeze assets in certain cases.

Additional information on Restitution Orders and Interim Injunctions to Freeze Assets
In order to proceed on a criminal track both of the following criteria must be satisfied: (1) there must be clear and compelling evidence suggesting that the accused knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading representation to the public. An example of such evidence is the continuation of a practice by the accused after complaints have been made by consumers directly to the accused; and (2) the Bureau must also be satisfied that criminal prosecution would be in the public interest. More information on the choice of track is available from the following publication Misleading Representations and Deceptive Marketing Practices: Choice of Criminal or Civil Track Under the Competition Act.


- - - Updated - -
Click to expand...

- - - Updated - - -

Robert.Boston said:
Thanks to @nwdiver, this opinion issued yesterday from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, holding a newspaper guilty of defamation against a climate scientist for intentionally misrepresenting his statements. http://www.desmog.ca/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Judge Burke, re Weaver v. Corcoran, 02-05.pdf

If this approach is going to have any meaningful impact on the publication of misrepresentations, the $50k (Canadian!!) damages will not be enough.
Click to expand...

I agree - there need to be substantial consequences for such conduct!
 
#123
#124
#127
Leading Canadians call for investigation of climate change denier groups

Six prominent Canadians, including a former Ambassador to the United Nations, have filed an application with the head of the Canadian antitrust agency to have misrepresentations made by climate denier groups investigated under the Canadian laws against misleading advertising.

The application (copy available here: http://www.ecojustice.ca/wp-content...limate-science-misrepresentations-updated.pdf) describes the strategy for creating public doubt about climate change as being similar to that employed by the tobacco companies to create doubt about smoking (which ultimately gave rise to a successful RICO prosecution in the US).

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in Canada, and whether the same approach is adopted in other jurisdictions.

Those wishing to sign the petition supporting this investigation can do so at: https://www.support.ecojustice.ca/ea-action/action

The press release describing the application may be found at: https://www.ecojustice.ca/pressrele...nvestigation-of-climate-change-denier-groups/ and follows:
False representations mislead Canadians and violate the Competition Act

TORONTO — Six leading Canadians are calling on the Commissioner of Competition to investigate false and misleading representations made by climate change denier groups, such as Friends of Science.

Ecojustice lawyer Charles Hatt filed the complaint today on behalf of Stephen Lewis, Tzeporah Berman, Dr. David Schindler, Dr. Thomas Duck, Dr. Danny Harvey, and Devon Page.

“Canada needs to have an honest conversation about climate change and how we are going to accelerate our transition to clean, low-carbon energy sources,” Hatt said. “Our ability to do that is undermined when denier groups pollute the public square with falsehoods and junk science.”

Canada’s Competition Act prohibits the making of materially false or misleading representations for the purpose of promoting any business interest, such as fossil fuel development.

“These groups attempt to discredit the established scientific consensus that global warming and climate change are real and caused by human activity,” said Dr. Thomas Duck, an atmospheric scientist at Dalhousie University. “The reality, causes, and consequences of climate change are well understood.”

The Competition Act gives the Commissioner investigatory powers to examine witnesses and order the production of documents — lists of donors, for example — to advance an inquiry on climate change denier groups. If the information gathered by the Commissioner shows that the Act has been violated, the Commissioner may refer the matter to the Attorney General of Canada for prosecution or bring his own civil proceeding before the courts.

Misrepresentations made by denier groups have the effect of promoting the business interests of the denier groups themselves — allowing them to raise funds and continue their activities — and their anonymous donors, who appear to profit from the production and use of fossil fuels.

“These denier groups use the same ‘open question’ strategy pioneered by shills for the tobacco industry,” said Tzeporah Berman, an author and adjunct professor of environmental studies at York University. “The links between global warming, climate change and pollution from fossil fuels are not ‘open questions’. Our policy must reflect the urgent warnings of our best science.”

The confusion denier groups sow can also make low-carbon technologies less competitive and distort capital investment toward high-carbon industries, undermining efforts to reduce carbon pollution and transition toward clean energy sources.

“The Paris climate conference is a reminder that Canada must do everything it can to address this increasingly desperate planetary crisis,” said Stephen Lewis, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN and chair of the 1988 World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, which drafted the first comprehensive policy on climate change. “The decades of denialism and specious rhetoric must give way to concrete action.”
Click to expand...


 
#131
Last edited:
#133
rays427 said:
So what would you have Exxon do, shut down production??
Click to expand...

No... I expect MASSIVE fines similar to the last time something like this happened... when it was revealed that the Tobacco companies hid the fact that their own research showed that their product was harmful and addictive they paid >$200B in fines.

What Exxon and others did was FAR more atrocious. $1T would be a good place to start. That money can be used to help subsidize wind, solar, EVs, EV infrastructure and other projects to help undo some of the damage fossil fuels have done. Exxon didn't just reject the scientific conclusions of other scientists... they rejected the conclusions of THEIR scientists. That's not free speech... that's fraud and they need to held accountable.

What the tobacco companies did and what the fossil fuel industry has done is nearly identical but the damage fossil fuels have done is far greater. Why should the tobacco companies be punished but not the fossil fuel industry?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaff, GSP, AndreN and 1 other person
#134
nwdiver,

I know me and you are on different sides of this issue. Fossil fuels have saved a lot more lives than they have hurt. Please read The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels if you want to see a different side of this issue. I read Clean Disruption to get your side but still disagree.
 
#135
rays427 said:
nwdiver,

I know me and you are on different sides of this issue. Fossil fuels have saved a lot more lives than they have hurt. Please read The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels if you want to see a different side of this issue. I read Clean Disruption to get your side but still disagree.
Click to expand...

Yes; Fossil Fuels WERE a necessity. A necessity that carried significant negative consequences. Negative consequences that companies like Exxon discovered with their own internal research. Research that was ignored and covered up through lies and fraud. That fraud delayed the transition to renewable sources and must be punished. The fossil fuel industry kept us hooked on fools fuel longer to stay profitable as long as possible. Now they need to help us kick this addiction faster to make up for the lost time that their lies cost us.

And yes... I've read 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels'. It's one-sided propaganda that largely ignores the devastating social cost of ignoring the negative effects of CO2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaff, AndreN and SageBrush
#136
nwdiver said:
No... I expect MASSIVE fines similar to the last time something like this happened... when it was revealed that the Tobacco companies hid the fact that their own research showed that their product was harmful and addictive they paid >$200B in fines.

What Exxon and others did was FAR more atrocious. $1T would be a good place to start. That money can be used to help subsidize wind, solar, EVs, EV infrastructure and other projects to help undo some of the damage fossil fuels have done. Exxon didn't just reject the scientific conclusions of other scientists... they rejected the conclusions of THEIR scientists. That's not free speech... that's fraud and they need to held accountable.

What the tobacco companies did and what the fossil fuel industry has done is nearly identical but the damage fossil fuels have done is far greater. Why should the tobacco companies be punished but not the fossil fuel industry?
Click to expand...

Agreed. This case and cause of action has absolutely nothing to do with the production of oil or gas. The offence at issue relates to the intentional misrepresentations made to advance the business interests of the culpable parties. In Canada material misrepresentations made for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest are subject to a fine in the discretion of the court and up to 14 years of imprisonment. Section 52 of the Competition Act provides as follows:

False or misleading representations
  • 52 (1) No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever, knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect. ...
  • (5) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable
    • (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or to both; or
    • (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaff, nwdiver and SageBrush
#137
nwdiver said:
Yes; Fossil Fuels WERE a necessity. A necessity that carried significant negative consequences. Negative consequences that companies like Exxon discovered with their own internal research. Research that was ignored and covered up through lies and fraud. That fraud delayed the transition to renewable sources and must be punished. The fossil fuel industry kept us hooked on fools fuel longer to stay profitable as long as possible. Now they need to help us kick this addiction faster to make up for the lost time that their lies cost us.

And yes... I've read 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels'. It's one-sided propaganda that largely ignores the devastating social cost of ignoring the negative effects of CO2.
Click to expand...

I can say the same about Clean Disruption. By the way what are the current devastating social costs? Remember more folks die from indoor pollution (from a lack of cheap energy) than outdoor pollution. There is no way that we would now have 7 billion humans without fossil fuels. I guess from a standpoint of lessening man made pollution that would be a good thing.

Do you actually believe Exxon changed the minds of folks on climate change? From where I stand everyone seems to want to vilify oil companies no matter what they do. This is from extremely liberal folks to Bill Oreilly. If they produce too much at a cheap price they are hurting the environment. If they produce too little and the price goes up they are gouging the public. Without fossil fuels we would not be enjoying our current lifestyle. Converting to wind and solar where it makes economic sense is great but it is going to be tough to completely replace fossil fuels until an economic method of storing energy from day to day and month to month.
 
#138
rays427 said:
I can say the same about Clean Disruption. By the way what are the current devastating social costs? Remember more folks die from indoor pollution (from a lack of cheap energy) than outdoor pollution. There is no way that we would now have 7 billion humans without fossil fuels. I guess from a standpoint of lessening man made pollution that would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

The most common source of indoor air pollution is a Kerosene lamp. They use Kerosene not due to a lack of fossil fuel electricity but a lack of a grid... something easily solved by solar (The sun doesn't require a grid). The more solar we deploy the easier it is for people without grid access to use solar powered LED lighting vs dirty Kerosene lamps due to Swansons law.

But... you're getting kind of off-topic... this thread is about 1 thing specifically. Exxon scientists told their bosses that their product was causing harm and their Bosses told the public that their product was harmless. Same thing the tobacco companies did. Were we wrong to punish the tobacco companies? If not they why should Exxon and other fools fuel companies escape punishment?

I call fools fuel use an addiction for a reason. Alcoholics would literally die without alcohol. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep being an alcoholic. You need to wean yourself off the addiction. Same goes for our society and fools fuel. What Exxon did was intentionally spread propaganda to convince the public that there was nothing wrong with being an fools fuel addict. Did this misinformation campaign have an effect? Well... Alex Epstein who wrote 'A Moral case for fossil fuels' that you love so much is an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute which was a large recipient of Exxons misinformation funding... so you tell me.

Aside from that the US has the highest percentage of climate change deniers in the western world and any Republican that has plans on staying in office has to deny climate science... so... yeah... I'd say that AGW denial propaganda has been fairly effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SageBrush, GSP and AndreN
#139
The most common indoor air pollution is not from Kerosene lamps but from burning wood, dung etc for heating and cooking. The problem with solar and wind until fairly recent is that it just wasn't economic even with subsidies. Right now it's economic but that may not be the case once we produce enough wind and solar to meet summer demand. Cost to maintain winter requirements will increase dramatically. This is especially the case if you use some form of electric heating. You will either need a lot of electrical storage, excess solar and wind that will be shut in during the summer or sum other source of power that will be needed in the summer. For instance, if a utility needs to maintain gas fired generation for just a few months it will be costly.
 
#140
rays427 said:
The most common indoor air pollution is not from Kerosene lamps but from burning wood, dung etc for heating and cooking. The problem with solar and wind until fairly recent is that it just wasn't economic even with subsidies. Right now it's economic but that may not be the case once we produce enough wind and solar to meet summer demand. Cost to maintain winter requirements will increase dramatically. This is especially the case if you use some form of electric heating. You will either need a lot of electrical storage, excess solar and wind that will be shut in during the summer or sum other source of power that will be needed in the summer. For instance, if a utility needs to maintain gas fired generation for just a few months it will be costly.
Click to expand...

You are still missing the point. People still smoke but the effects are known and you don't have tobacco companies telling you it isn't harmful. Because of that use is decreasing and fewer people have died. Similarly I don't see posters here asking for an immediate cessation of oil use. However, there are many ways we can mitigate climate change without destroying the world economy. Had Exxon been upfront about the impact of carbon emissions we could be much further along. We would still consume oil. As far as the economy, clean energy will is grown in it economic impact. Old industries die and are replaced by new ones that also employ people and drive the economy.

As far as poor people are concerned solar together with batteries is actually helping them more than oil since it doesn't require a grid. A decrease in demand for oil from the rich nations will drive oil prices lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nwdiver and GSP
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CCANActionFund
  • Article
Vendor Win a $135k Model X or S Plaid. Support a Small Climate Change Nonprofit.
Replies
1
Views
5K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
Tzla2
T
CXCRaffle
Vendor 7th Annual Climate XChange Raffle - with a new twist!
Replies
5
Views
3K
EVents
PeterK
PeterK
T
Repair that building instead of tearing it down
Replies
7
Views
1K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
ItsNotAboutTheMoney
I
R
Self-driving cars UK Discussion
Replies
276
Views
14K
The UK and Ireland
Mrklaw
M
tps5352
Possible Opportunity to Participate in a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Study
Replies
2
Views
866
Off Topic
tps5352
tps5352
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu