A U.S. judge who held a hearing about climate change that received widespread attention ruled Monday that Congress and the president were best suited to address the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming, throwing out lawsuits that sought to hold big oil companies liable for the Earth’s changing environment. —Associated Press, 26 June 2018
With respect to balancing the social utility against the gravity of the anticipated harm, it is true that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming.
But against that negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted.
Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable? —Federal district court judge William Alsop, 26 June 2018
The Government has refused to back a “world first” tidal lagoon project to generate clean energy from the tides on cost grounds. The company behind the scheme, Tidal Lagoon Power, wanted subsidies similar to those for new nuclear power to build the £1.3 billion scheme, consisting of a U-shaped sea wall with turbines in Swansea Bay. —Energy Voice, 25 June 2018
New solar power installations in the UK have halved for the second consecutive year as a result of the government’s decision to cut green subsidies in a move to protect consumers from increasing energy bills. —The Energy Advocate, 25 June 2018
Weeks after electric carmaker Tesla announced it was to cut 9% of its workforce, it is also to sharply downsize the domestic solar business it bought two years ago for $2.6 billion (£2bn). —Energy Live News, 25 June 2018
The Centre plans to scrap cash incentives currently offered to buyers of electric cars despite having incentivized these clean fuel technologies till just a few months back. The move, experts said, will further dampen sales of private electric cars. —The Times of India, 22 June 2018
David Whitehouse & Benny Peiser discuss the 30th anniversary of James Hansen’s global warming testimony to the US Senate, new research from the Antarctic, the pause and other recent developments in climate science. —GWPF Podcast, 21 June 2018
Liberal Big City Offcials plans to Black Mail Big Oil meets with Justice and Common Sense over the unreasonible demands of the Eco-Nazis/Watermelons
Judicial legislation is the process of by passing legislative bodies and presidents/governors to effectively pass laws that can’t make it through the normal process. Of course usually the reason such laws can’t make is they shouldn’t make it.
In the past liberals have been very successful in using judicial legislation. For a time forced school bussing, unpopular with parents of all races, was implemented via judicial legislation.
Other than being greedy, the major motivation of the law suits against fossil fuel companies is to significantly reduce their production. This would be by bankrupting them or forcing them to pass the cost of huge settlements on to the consumers. However, the judge ruled that, “that Congress and the president were best suited to address the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming.” In other words, this should not be resolved by judicial legislation.
I need to point out that throughout the article it assumes that anthropological climate change is happening. It is not. Man’s emissions have very little to no influence on the climate. Even if it did, our current path is that of lukewarming.
It seems that district court judge William Alsop is a luke-warmist.
Any of you wish to condemn his rationale?
Take this victory and run.