Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 8 2 hours ago, turbguy said: Hmmmm..... Where are the numbers for gasoline and distillates? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 8 2 hours ago, TailingsPond said: The high rate of monitoring is because they are essentially always on probation for the last time they got caught breaking the laws. Known criminals get more heat from the cops. The laws are straight forward: do not leak oil into fish bearing water, do not leak methane or H2S into the air. Simple. The oil industry is clearly injurious to the environment / climate. The emission laws to the environment are well established. If the energy companies continue to fail to follow the laws there is no other recourse than to continue to punish them for violating the laws through any legal measure available. The government can promote safe and lawful increase of oil products without giving the industry a permission to break laws. I believe that the industry can harvest oil much better than they do. They cut corners, lie on audits, knowingly leave failing equipment in operation, etc. Simple greed. $$$$$ I would give the companies leniency in the case of an act of God type disaster. Those disasters are less common than the routine operation failures due to mismanagement or purposeful criminal activity. Again, that is not the topic here. Of course the laws on toxic emissions (there are no laws on CO2 emissions, in case you do not know) are enforced. Those are not criminal laws but industrial regulations.. The proposed laws by the weird legal screwballs propose suing the oil industry for violating laws which do not even exist. That shows a special brand of insanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,535 May 8 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Where are the numbers for gasoline and distillates? Good point. Here's Gasoline consumption in CA. Seems to be a downward trend to this observer. About a 50+% decrease. Edited May 8 by turbguy 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187 May 8 3 minutes ago, turbguy said: Good point. Here's Gasoline consumption in CA. Seems to be a downward trend to this observer. About a 50+% decrease. To an actual observer... It has dropped not 50% at all. Topic is EV's. There were no EV's in 2016. So, start at ~4750, and then get 2023 data instead of the LIE, the BLATANT LIE of cutting it off at 2021 during rona scaremonger stupidity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,535 May 8 (edited) 2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: To an actual observer... It has dropped not 50% at all. Topic is EV's. There were no EV's in 2016. So, start at ~4750, and then get 2023 data instead of the LIE, the BLATANT LIE of cutting it off at 2021 during rona scaremonger stupidity. Pardon me? You had asked for info, and I made a valid attempt to satisfy that request. I was under the impression of THIS particular forum was: GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES They acually have data to March 2022, but are withholding it to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Feel free to supply more recent numbers. I don't feel you (or any of us here) are in any position to gather this data as a "single observer". Feel free to correct me on that opinion. Tesla started delivering in about 2009. Kinda when the plotted consumption downturn began. And yes, that observation is not very scientifically riggorous Edited May 8 by turbguy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 671 GE May 8 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Again, that is not the topic here. Of course the laws on toxic emissions (there are no laws on CO2 emissions, in case you do not know) are enforced. Those are not criminal laws but industrial regulations.. The proposed laws by the weird legal screwballs propose suing the oil industry for violating laws which do not even exist. That shows a special brand of insanity. I purposely left out any mention of CO2. Industrial regulations are laws. Violating a law is a crime. Yes, some violations are similar to driving a car slightly over the speed limit. Other violations are similar to impaired driving causing bodily harm. The oil industry occasionally goes as far as negligence causing death. Edited May 8 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,243 DM May 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, turbguy said: Good point. Here's Gasoline consumption in CA. Seems to be a downward trend to this observer. About a 50+% decrease. huh coincidence....????? less gas consumed better air quality.......who would of figured????? Less clunkers ....better living...........pretty good reason to drive an EV or a Plug in Hybrid Edited May 8 by notsonice 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,535 May 8 1 hour ago, notsonice said: huh coincidence....????? less gas consumed better air quality.......who would of figured????? Less clunkers ....better living...........pretty good reason to drive an EV or a Plug in Hybrid Be careful with that graph. A LOT of emission controls were implemented across that time period, across a bunch of different markets, facilities, and uses. For instance, a lot of California coal-fired generating units shut down, or re-fueled to nat gas, across that time frame. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187 May 8 4 hours ago, turbguy said: Pardon me? You had asked for info, and I made a valid attempt to satisfy that request. I was under the impression of THIS particular forum was: GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES They acually have data to March 2022, but are withholding it to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Feel free to supply more recent numbers. I don't feel you (or any of us here) are in any position to gather this data as a "single observer". Feel free to correct me on that opinion. Tesla started delivering in about 2009. Kinda when the plotted consumption downturn began. And yes, that observation is not very scientifically riggorous ? I never asked for it. The fact you did not even discuss slight increase population and vast increase in vehicle fleet mpg per vehicle makes you truly a cowardly liar. Tesla was NOTHING before model 3 started delivery in large quantity around 2018. LONG after your graph had cratered and get this plateaud... Is there no depth to your depravity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,535 May 8 (edited) 10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: ? I never asked for it. The fact you did not even discuss slight increase population and vast increase in vehicle fleet mpg per vehicle makes you truly a cowardly liar. Tesla was NOTHING before model 3 started delivery in large quantity around 2018. LONG after your graph had cratered and get this plateaud... Is there no depth to your depravity? Sorry, I had confused you with another poster who had asked. In any event, there indeed are multiple factors involved in the rather large drop in gasoline consumption within California. Particularly federal regulations that drove MPG upwards, the introduction of hybrid passenger vehicles, EV's introduction (very slow at first), amongst others. For instance, here's my home states gasoline consumption. There's not a significant amount of EV's in Wyoming... Edited May 8 by turbguy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,243 DM May 8 (edited) 16 hours ago, turbguy said: Good point. Here's Gasoline consumption in CA. Seems to be a downward trend to this observer. About a 50+% decrease. Here's Gasoline consumption in CA???????? you are not using a graph showing total consumption (next time you post make sure you are posting something that makes sense...the chart you posted in not total consumption...just sales by refiners directly to retail stores......and who knows what is considered retail sales by refiners (probably does not include sales to wholesalers)... try this one Edited May 8 by notsonice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,243 DM May 8 1 hour ago, turbguy said: Sorry, I had confused you with another poster who had asked. In any event, there indeed are multiple factors involved in the rather large drop in gasoline consumption within California. Particularly federal regulations that drove MPG upwards, the introduction of hybrid passenger vehicles, EV's introduction (very slow at first), amongst others. For instance, here's my home states gasoline consumption. There's not a significant amount of EV's in Wyoming... another useless chart try posting total consumption Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 8 16 hours ago, TailingsPond said: I purposely left out any mention of CO2. Industrial regulations are laws. Violating a law is a crime. Yes, some violations are similar to driving a car slightly over the speed limit. Other violations are similar to impaired driving causing bodily harm. The oil industry occasionally goes as far as negligence causing death. There is no criminality in breaching an industrial regulation unless it can be shown that the official committing the breach acted with knowledge of the violation and still persisted in approving or ordering the violation. That is a very rare occurrence, and it rarely happens that sufficient evidence is available to show such a deliberate breach of regulations. Accidents will happen and are not criminal in nature. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 8 14 hours ago, notsonice said: huh coincidence....????? less gas consumed better air quality.......who would of figured????? Less clunkers ....better living...........pretty good reason to drive an EV or a Plug in Hybrid There is no correlation with EVs in your chart, that is a logical non sequitur. The actual cause of reduction in toxic smog is the superior fossil fuel technologies which were introduced in those years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 671 GE May 8 2 hours ago, Ecocharger said: There is no criminality in breaching an industrial regulation unless it can be shown that the official committing the breach acted with knowledge of the violation and still persisted in approving or ordering the violation. That is a very rare occurrence, and it rarely happens that sufficient evidence is available to show such a deliberate breach of regulations. Accidents will happen and are not criminal in nature. The company is still in violation of the laws and will be punished. Very rarely will an individual get singled out and charged. Many accidents are a failure of management (under-staffing, under-training, undue pressure on staff to produce, lack of proper equipment). If a supervisor yells "Get this thing back on-line now! We are losing money!" if that undue pressure leads to employee screw up it is no accident. Another example, an excavator operator is digging a hole and accidentally damages a pipe which leads to a discharge of deleterious substances. It was an accident by the machine operator but it was a failure of management as they did not have the area properly surveyed for underground lines. Outside of acts of God like an earthquake, most accidents are preventable with due diligence. Remember Exxon Valdez? Do you think that was an accident? Total managerial screw up: Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master (ship's captain) and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this practice was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[13] The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[13] Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the radar reflector placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping ships on course. This cause was brought forward by Greg Palast and is not presented in the official accident report.[14] Ships were not informed that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.[20] The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.[21] Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.[21] Coast Guard vessel inspections in Valdez were not performed, and the number of staff was reduced.[22] Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.[20] So you most certainly can get in legal trouble for accidents, mostly just fines and enforcement orders (install containment trench around tank etc.). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: The company is still in violation of the laws and will be punished. Very rarely will an individual get singled out and charged. Many accidents are a failure of management (under-staffing, under-training, undue pressure on staff to produce, lack of proper equipment). If a supervisor yells "Get this thing back on-line now! We are losing money!" if that undue pressure leads to employee screw up it is no accident. Another example, an excavator operator is digging a hole and accidentally damages a pipe which leads to a discharge of deleterious substances. It was an accident by the machine operator but it was a failure of management as they did not have the area properly surveyed for underground lines. Outside of acts of God like an earthquake, most accidents are preventable with due diligence. Remember Exxon Valdez? Do you think that was an accident? Total managerial screw up: Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master (ship's captain) and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this practice was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[13] The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[13] Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the radar reflector placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping ships on course. This cause was brought forward by Greg Palast and is not presented in the official accident report.[14] Ships were not informed that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.[20] The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.[21] Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.[21] Coast Guard vessel inspections in Valdez were not performed, and the number of staff was reduced.[22] Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.[20] So you most certainly can get in legal trouble for accidents, mostly just fines and enforcement orders (install containment trench around tank etc.). Again, those are not violations which carry criminal liability. It must be shown that there was a deliberate and knowing violation of rules, not just a failure of oversight or staffing. To describe those violations as "criminal" indicates a gross misunderstanding of the law. However, if the administration in Washington deliberately ignores or suppresses new climate science which indicates that CO2 is probably not a significant greenhouse gas or may even have a net cooling impact on earth temperatures, or that comprehensive measurements of relative greenhouse gas effects show that CO2 is not a significant factor in global warming, then that could be described as both gross negligence or possibly deliberate misrepresentation. Deliberate misrepresentations with regard to such a central policy matter could be described as violation of a public duty of care. There is no duty of care by the oil industry with respect to science research because the private oil business is not engaged as a research organization serving the public but is rather a production company. That is, the general public does not rely on the oil producers to make public policy on oil. That is the role and function of government, and government owes a duty of care on those issues. Edited May 8 by Ecocharger 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 671 GE May 9 (edited) 10 hours ago, Ecocharger said: . It must be shown that there was a deliberate and knowing violation of rules, not just a failure of oversight or staffing. [] There is no duty of care by the oil industry with respect to science research because the private oil business is not engaged as a research organization serving the public but is rather a production company. That is, the general public does not rely on the oil producers to make public policy on oil. That is the role and function of government, and government owes a duty of care on those issues. Ignorance is not an excuse. The pollution discharge is a crime. "Duh, I didn't know spill oil was bad" is not a defence. There absolutely is a duty of care with respect to scientific research. They must do ecological impact assessments as part of the permits. Please list your top three favourite oil companies for me. Edited May 9 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,747 RP May 9 12 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Again, those are not violations which carry criminal liability. It must be shown that there was a deliberate and knowing violation of rules, not just a failure of oversight or staffing. To describe those violations as "criminal" indicates a gross misunderstanding of the law. Dont know about US law, but in the UK if there is a "failure of oversight or staffing levels" as you put it then thats negligence by management and proper risk assessments havent been carried out to prevent the accident in the first place. The directors of such a business, in particular the MD or CEO, if proven to have been negligent through understaffing, poor training, procedures being incorrect etc leading to severe injury or even death of an employee will automatically be arrested. It is then the duty of the MD or CEO to prove their innocence. Health and safety is generally the only instance in UK law where you are guilty and have to prove your innocence, every other law breach you are innocent and have to be proven guilty. below link shows examples where companies havent followed the correct practices or carried out proper risk assessments. 10 Highest HSE Fines of All Time | Skillcast Reverse burdens 22. When the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish a particular issue, it is often referred to as a 'reverse burden', because it reverses the normal situation in which the prosecution must prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Section 40 HSWA imposes such a reverse burden: where a duty holder is required to do something 'so far as is practicable' or 'so far as is reasonably practicable', the burden is on the defendant to prove that it was not practicable or reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the burden of proof imposed on the defendant by section 40 is a legal burden (see above), which is justified, necessary and proportionate.8 24. Similarly, under section 17 HSWA, if an accused is proved not to have followed a relevant provision in an Approved Code of Practice, the failure to do so will be taken by the court as proof of contravention of the legal requirement in question unless the accused can show that s/he satisfied the requirement by adopting suitable alternative measures. 25. Where a legal burden of proof is on a defendant, s/he can satisfy it if s/he proves the issue on the balance of probabilities9. This is the same standard as that placed on a claimant in a civil action; s/he need not prove the issue beyond reasonable doubt. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bloodman33 + 22 TJ May 9 It is about time! In the guardian today. Vermont poised to become first US state to charge big oil for climate damage If passed, the groundbreaking measure could be a model for other states to hold fossil fuel companies liable Supported by About this content Dharna Noor Thu 9 May 2024 06.00 EDT Share Vermont is poised to pass a groundbreaking measure forcing major polluting companies to help pay for damages caused by the climate crisis, in a move being closely watched by other states including New York and California. Modeled after the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, which forces companies to pay for toxic waste cleanup, the climate superfund bill would charge major fossil fuel companies doing business within the state billions of dollars for their past emissions. The measure would make Vermont the first US state to hold fossil fuel companies liable for their planet-heating pollution. Big oil spent decades sowing doubt about fossil fuel dangers, experts testify Read more “If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up,” Elena Mihaly, vice-president of the Conservation Law Foundation’s Vermont chapter, which is campaigning for the bill, said in an interview. 00:00 03:12 Read More If passed, the bill will face a steep uphill battle in the courts. But supporters say the first-of-its-kind legislation could be a model for the rest of the country. Four other states are weighing similar initiatives. Senators Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also attempted to include a federal version in the infrastructure bill passed in 2022, though it was omitted from the final draft. (The measure would have raised $500bn.) Advocates for the Vermont bill notched a major win on Friday when the state’s house of representatives advanced the measure with a preliminary vote of 100-33 – enough support to overcome a potential veto by the state’s Republican governor, Phil Scott. On Monday, the bill passed the House in a 94-38 vote. Within the next week, it will receive a final vote in the senate, where it received preliminary approval on a 26-3 vote last month. It will then head to Governor Scott’s desk for final approval; if he shoots it down, supporters are confident that they have the votes to override a veto. “Climate impacts are mounting everywhere and they’re coming with a price tag” said Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, which is campaigning in support of climate superfund legislation across the US. “Of course we’re going to see efforts to force the companies responsible for disasters to pick up the bill.” Climate impacts Vermont is known for its temperate summers, but last July, catastrophic floods pummeled the state. Roads became rivers, bridges were decimated and two people were killed by the rushing waters. “It was devastating,” said Mihaly. She is originally from California, a state that has seen widespread devastation from wildfires and other climate-related disasters. “I had before considered Vermont a haven, a safe choice from a climate perspective. Last summer was a wake-up call,” she said. The floods wreaked more than $1bn in damages, just 11 years after Tropical Storm Irene devastated nearly all of Vermont. As the climate crisis persists, research shows future flooding events could be even more devastating and costly. The legislation would compel Vermont’s state treasurer, Mike Pieciak – who supports the effort – to set up a fund for climate damages. To do so, he would be required to determine how much money to collect to pay for climate-related impacts to Vermont’s public health, biodiversity, economic development and other damages. (The bill text does not include a specific figure to be collected, but an initial rough estimate from the Vermont Public Interest Research Group suggests the figure could be as much as $2.5 bn.) View image in fullscreen A car swept up in flood waters in Montpelier, Vermont, on 11 July 2023. Photograph: Cj Gunther/EPA The state would also have to work with scientists to figure out how much of that damage is attributable to climate change. Then, officials would calculate how much each major oil and gas company within the state contributed to it, based on the emissions from their products between 1995 and 2024. To do so, they would use the Carbon Majors database – an account of the world’s largest polluters’ contributions to the climate crisis. The money collected would be used to fund projects to improve climate adaptation and resilience, as determined by the state’s Agency of Natural Resources. A new model for liability If passed, the measure could serve as a model for the rest of the country as interest in climate accountability is growing, and as New York, California, Maryland and Massachusetts weigh similar initiatives. New York’s measure, which would collect $30bn, sailed through the state’s senate this week after being omitted from the state’s budget earlier this year. Advocates are now hoping for a full state assembly vote before the session ends on 6 June. “While New Yorkers brace for the rising and costly impacts of climate change, fossil fuel profiteers are reaping record profits,” said Eric Weltman, senior New York organizer with the environmental group Food and Water Watch. “It’s time these big oil corporations paid to clean up their mess.” Meanwhile, the California measure will face a challenging vote in a in senate committee next week. Massachusetts’ and Maryland’s measures have stalled. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Down to Earth Free weekly newsletter The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential Enter your email address Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion All five states considering climate superfund bills have also filed lawsuits against big oil for allegedly attempting to sow doubt about the climate crisis despite longstanding knowledge of the dangers of burning fossil fuels. But unlike the lawsuits, the legislative proposals do not requite proof of that history of deception. “This bill is not about punishing big oil for deceiving the public,” said Mihaly. Spreading knowledge of that deception, however, has helped build support for the measure. During a state senate committee vote on the bill in March, for instance, the Republican senator Robert Norris said he was initially “hesitant” about the bill but chose to support it after learning about the fossil fuel industry’s misinformation campaigns. “I was not aware … the large companies knew about this in the 50s and 60s and so forth and still did nothing to address this,” he said. Climate impacts are mounting everywhere and they’re coming with a price tag Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media Jennifer Rushlow, dean of the Maverick Lloyd School for the Environment at Vermont Law and Graduate School, noted that the lawsuits have often run into “roadblocks” when judges question whether or not the litigation should be the purview of legislators rather than courts. “In that way, the climate superfund bills are a well-designed response to the challenges many climate lawsuits have faced,” said Rushlow, who has campaigned for the bill. The bills enjoy widespread support from voters, said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director at Fossil Free Media. April surveys conducted by her organization and the polling firm Data for Progress found that 70% of likely California voters would support a climate superfund bill, while 66% of all likely US voters would support such a measure, as would 89% of Democrats. Court challenges If the Vermont bill becomes law, fossil fuel interests are expected to challenge it in the state’s courts, the bill’s detractors have noted. “We’re a mosquito compared to a giant,” the Vermont senator Randy Brock, a Republican who voted against the bill, said on the Senate floor last month. “ExxonMobil alone has an annual sales of $344.6bn, and Vermont has an annual budget of about $8.5bn.” Governor Scott has not said whether or not he would veto the measure. But he has voiced concern about the state facing steep litigation costs. View image in fullscreen Streets are flooded from recent rain in Montpelier, Vermont, on 11 July 2023. Photograph: Brian Snyder/Reuters The American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil and gas lobby group in the US, sent a letter to the Vermont senate opposing the bill, claiming it “retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal” and “violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large”. But Rushlow said to avoid “damaging litigation”, lawmakers had worked to write a “good solid law where the legislature makes clear what they want other branches of government to do”. Mihaly said supporters had worked to build a “robust record to demonstrate that there’s a rational basis for this law”, adding that the Vermont attorney general, Charity Clark, supported the bill and said her office was “ready to proudly defend the law”. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,323 RG May 9 On 5/7/2024 at 8:54 PM, notsonice said: huh coincidence....????? less gas consumed better air quality.......who would of figured????? Less clunkers ....better living...........pretty good reason to drive an EV or a Plug in Hybrid Obama did a clash for clunkers. There is your answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,243 DM May 9 40 minutes ago, Boat said: Obama did a clash for clunkers. There is your answer. time to do it again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 9 (edited) 10 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Ignorance is not an excuse. The pollution discharge is a crime. "Duh, I didn't know spill oil was bad" is not a defence. There absolutely is a duty of care with respect to scientific research. They must do ecological impact assessments as part of the permits. Please list your top three favourite oil companies for me. No, oil companies do not do science climate change research intended for the public, and there is no statutory obligation to advise the public, and therefore no duty of care in tort law. However, there are statutory requirements for the governments to research climate change and advise the public on climate change, and failure of the government departments to consider all of the relevant science research is a breach of responsibility and a violation of a public duty of care. Those are actionable offenses which could give rise to class action lawsuits. Refusal by the government to consider and discuss recent climate science constitutes a violation of duty of care. Edited May 9 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 9 (edited) 7 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Dont know about US law, but in the UK if there is a "failure of oversight or staffing levels" as you put it then thats negligence by management and proper risk assessments havent been carried out to prevent the accident in the first place. The directors of such a business, in particular the MD or CEO, if proven to have been negligent through understaffing, poor training, procedures being incorrect etc leading to severe injury or even death of an employee will automatically be arrested. It is then the duty of the MD or CEO to prove their innocence. Health and safety is generally the only instance in UK law where you are guilty and have to prove your innocence, every other law breach you are innocent and have to be proven guilty. below link shows examples where companies havent followed the correct practices or carried out proper risk assessments. 10 Highest HSE Fines of All Time | Skillcast Reverse burdens 22. When the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish a particular issue, it is often referred to as a 'reverse burden', because it reverses the normal situation in which the prosecution must prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Section 40 HSWA imposes such a reverse burden: where a duty holder is required to do something 'so far as is practicable' or 'so far as is reasonably practicable', the burden is on the defendant to prove that it was not practicable or reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the burden of proof imposed on the defendant by section 40 is a legal burden (see above), which is justified, necessary and proportionate.8 24. Similarly, under section 17 HSWA, if an accused is proved not to have followed a relevant provision in an Approved Code of Practice, the failure to do so will be taken by the court as proof of contravention of the legal requirement in question unless the accused can show that s/he satisfied the requirement by adopting suitable alternative measures. 25. Where a legal burden of proof is on a defendant, s/he can satisfy it if s/he proves the issue on the balance of probabilities9. This is the same standard as that placed on a claimant in a civil action; s/he need not prove the issue beyond reasonable doubt. Rob, you are still confused. Such terms as "carelessness" do not rise to the level of criminal offenses. To show criminality it must be proven that the relevant official was knowledgeable of violations and despite that knowledge proceeded with the violation. That is a very high burden of proof. Edited May 9 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,446 DL May 9 3 hours ago, bloodman33 said: It is about time! In the guardian today. Vermont poised to become first US state to charge big oil for climate damage If passed, the groundbreaking measure could be a model for other states to hold fossil fuel companies liable Supported by About this content Dharna Noor Thu 9 May 2024 06.00 EDT Share Vermont is poised to pass a groundbreaking measure forcing major polluting companies to help pay for damages caused by the climate crisis, in a move being closely watched by other states including New York and California. Modeled after the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, which forces companies to pay for toxic waste cleanup, the climate superfund bill would charge major fossil fuel companies doing business within the state billions of dollars for their past emissions. The measure would make Vermont the first US state to hold fossil fuel companies liable for their planet-heating pollution. Big oil spent decades sowing doubt about fossil fuel dangers, experts testify Read more “If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up,” Elena Mihaly, vice-president of the Conservation Law Foundation’s Vermont chapter, which is campaigning for the bill, said in an interview. 00:00 03:12 Read More If passed, the bill will face a steep uphill battle in the courts. But supporters say the first-of-its-kind legislation could be a model for the rest of the country. Four other states are weighing similar initiatives. Senators Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also attempted to include a federal version in the infrastructure bill passed in 2022, though it was omitted from the final draft. (The measure would have raised $500bn.) Advocates for the Vermont bill notched a major win on Friday when the state’s house of representatives advanced the measure with a preliminary vote of 100-33 – enough support to overcome a potential veto by the state’s Republican governor, Phil Scott. On Monday, the bill passed the House in a 94-38 vote. Within the next week, it will receive a final vote in the senate, where it received preliminary approval on a 26-3 vote last month. It will then head to Governor Scott’s desk for final approval; if he shoots it down, supporters are confident that they have the votes to override a veto. “Climate impacts are mounting everywhere and they’re coming with a price tag” said Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, which is campaigning in support of climate superfund legislation across the US. “Of course we’re going to see efforts to force the companies responsible for disasters to pick up the bill.” Climate impacts Vermont is known for its temperate summers, but last July, catastrophic floods pummeled the state. Roads became rivers, bridges were decimated and two people were killed by the rushing waters. “It was devastating,” said Mihaly. She is originally from California, a state that has seen widespread devastation from wildfires and other climate-related disasters. “I had before considered Vermont a haven, a safe choice from a climate perspective. Last summer was a wake-up call,” she said. The floods wreaked more than $1bn in damages, just 11 years after Tropical Storm Irene devastated nearly all of Vermont. As the climate crisis persists, research shows future flooding events could be even more devastating and costly. The legislation would compel Vermont’s state treasurer, Mike Pieciak – who supports the effort – to set up a fund for climate damages. To do so, he would be required to determine how much money to collect to pay for climate-related impacts to Vermont’s public health, biodiversity, economic development and other damages. (The bill text does not include a specific figure to be collected, but an initial rough estimate from the Vermont Public Interest Research Group suggests the figure could be as much as $2.5 bn.) View image in fullscreen A car swept up in flood waters in Montpelier, Vermont, on 11 July 2023. Photograph: Cj Gunther/EPA The state would also have to work with scientists to figure out how much of that damage is attributable to climate change. Then, officials would calculate how much each major oil and gas company within the state contributed to it, based on the emissions from their products between 1995 and 2024. To do so, they would use the Carbon Majors database – an account of the world’s largest polluters’ contributions to the climate crisis. The money collected would be used to fund projects to improve climate adaptation and resilience, as determined by the state’s Agency of Natural Resources. A new model for liability If passed, the measure could serve as a model for the rest of the country as interest in climate accountability is growing, and as New York, California, Maryland and Massachusetts weigh similar initiatives. New York’s measure, which would collect $30bn, sailed through the state’s senate this week after being omitted from the state’s budget earlier this year. Advocates are now hoping for a full state assembly vote before the session ends on 6 June. “While New Yorkers brace for the rising and costly impacts of climate change, fossil fuel profiteers are reaping record profits,” said Eric Weltman, senior New York organizer with the environmental group Food and Water Watch. “It’s time these big oil corporations paid to clean up their mess.” Meanwhile, the California measure will face a challenging vote in a in senate committee next week. Massachusetts’ and Maryland’s measures have stalled. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Down to Earth Free weekly newsletter The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential Enter your email address Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion All five states considering climate superfund bills have also filed lawsuits against big oil for allegedly attempting to sow doubt about the climate crisis despite longstanding knowledge of the dangers of burning fossil fuels. But unlike the lawsuits, the legislative proposals do not requite proof of that history of deception. “This bill is not about punishing big oil for deceiving the public,” said Mihaly. Spreading knowledge of that deception, however, has helped build support for the measure. During a state senate committee vote on the bill in March, for instance, the Republican senator Robert Norris said he was initially “hesitant” about the bill but chose to support it after learning about the fossil fuel industry’s misinformation campaigns. “I was not aware … the large companies knew about this in the 50s and 60s and so forth and still did nothing to address this,” he said. Climate impacts are mounting everywhere and they’re coming with a price tag Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media Jennifer Rushlow, dean of the Maverick Lloyd School for the Environment at Vermont Law and Graduate School, noted that the lawsuits have often run into “roadblocks” when judges question whether or not the litigation should be the purview of legislators rather than courts. “In that way, the climate superfund bills are a well-designed response to the challenges many climate lawsuits have faced,” said Rushlow, who has campaigned for the bill. The bills enjoy widespread support from voters, said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director at Fossil Free Media. April surveys conducted by her organization and the polling firm Data for Progress found that 70% of likely California voters would support a climate superfund bill, while 66% of all likely US voters would support such a measure, as would 89% of Democrats. Court challenges If the Vermont bill becomes law, fossil fuel interests are expected to challenge it in the state’s courts, the bill’s detractors have noted. “We’re a mosquito compared to a giant,” the Vermont senator Randy Brock, a Republican who voted against the bill, said on the Senate floor last month. “ExxonMobil alone has an annual sales of $344.6bn, and Vermont has an annual budget of about $8.5bn.” Governor Scott has not said whether or not he would veto the measure. But he has voiced concern about the state facing steep litigation costs. View image in fullscreen Streets are flooded from recent rain in Montpelier, Vermont, on 11 July 2023. Photograph: Brian Snyder/Reuters The American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil and gas lobby group in the US, sent a letter to the Vermont senate opposing the bill, claiming it “retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal” and “violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large”. But Rushlow said to avoid “damaging litigation”, lawmakers had worked to write a “good solid law where the legislature makes clear what they want other branches of government to do”. Mihaly said supporters had worked to build a “robust record to demonstrate that there’s a rational basis for this law”, adding that the Vermont attorney general, Charity Clark, supported the bill and said her office was “ready to proudly defend the law”. More craziness from ill-informed agitators. Here is the bottom line, "Governor Scott has not said whether or not he would veto the measure. But he has voiced concern about the state facing steep litigation costs." Mark this effort D.O.A. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 671 GE May 9 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Rob, you are still confused. Such terms as "carelessness" do not rise to the level of criminal offences. To show criminality it must be proven that the relevant official was knowledgeable of violations and despite that knowledge proceeded with the violation. That is a very high burden of proof. Careless driving can get you 6 months in jail in Canada. You are right that it is not under the criminal code but to pretend it is not a serious law violation is silly. You are using semantics to pretend no crimes are occurring due to the act they fall under. The energy companies pay millions in fines for violation of law. Full stop. Edited May 9 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members