So SUE Me! — Waxman-Markey might make it legal to sue over Global Warming
The Waxman-Markey bill that recently was introduced into the House has already caused quit a stir, and that was before someone found a provision tucked in it’s 600 plus pages that would make it legal to sue the Government if you suffer from Global Warming.
The bill is big, robust, and in many cases even more aggressive in it’s battle against C02 then the Obama plan (maybe for a reason: to make the Obama plan seem palatable in comparison?). This one little subsection, however, has the Washingtin Times all up in arms. They are worried about the huge number of new lawsuits that this could cause tying up the legal system. Wait a second… does that mean that they are admitting that these hypothetical lawsuits would be justified? That the realize there would be a reason to be upset at the Feds for their inaction on Global Warming? Nah…
Legal Options for Those “Harmed” by Global Warming.
According to the Times, the bill opens up a direct legal action option for individuals who feel they have been harmed in some way by Global Warming. I located the passage they are talking about in the bill, and the Times seems to have it about right: here’s a line or two from the SEC. 336. ENFORCEMENT bit of the bill.
The persons authorized by subsection (a) to commence an action under this section shall include any person who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part, to a violation or failure to act referred to in subsection (a).
What is harm, you ask? Well as near as I can tease out, it’s a wide open definition: “any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.” Well, I’m an asthmatic, and it’s been getting worse my whole life. Does this mean I now have someone to blame!?
Seriously though, class action legislation is a wild little way to get the people’s attention on this issue. Money talks, right? It also appears (I’m not a lawyer here, but the Washington Times agrees with me) that the bill also allows people to sue private companies under this provision, a sort of legal umbrella for targeting big polluters. Those companies found guilty by a judge would line themselves up for having to purchase more and more Carbon Offsets (once the Obama administration decides exactly what that is).
Reactions, obviously, have been mixed.
“Perhaps a more accurate title of the bill would be ‘The Lawyer Full-Employment and As-Seen-on-TV Global Warming Act of 2009,’ ” said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House committee.
From the left, the spin is different:
Democratic staffers said the measure provides guidance to the courts on how to apply existing Clean Air Act provisions. Private citizens can sue the government based on harm caused by pollutants currently regulated under the Clean Air Act - including nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide - but they lack standing to sue for damages resulting from climate change.
[...] requests, but this one is a big deal to me, and it should be a big deal to you. So. Read up on the bill. (or, if you are feeling super motivated, read the actual bill. I like [...]
[...] Waxman-Markey’s main function as a climate change mitigation bill is to create a cap-and-trade system limiting overall emissions but allowing the market to set the price of permits for those emissions. It’s stated goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 (*cough cough* not enough *cough cough*). I remain unsold as to how that is better than a carbon tax, but for the moment, I will bask in the glow of those few short words emanating from the suddenly green halls of Congress: “Reduce global warming pollution.” [...]