Posted on 04/11/2019 3:40:50 PM PDT by rktman
One day, five years ago, Luciano Lliuya sat talking with a friend about the many changes and costs that climate change is bringing to the Andes, whose residents have, by global standards, done very little to contribute to the problem. “We wondered,” he said, “whether we could find los responsables” — the responsible ones — and somehow persuade them to change their behavior. He wanted, fervently, to find a way to stop the ice from melting even more.
Luciano Lliuya’s friend introduced him to a contact at a nongovernment organization called Germanwatch, based in Bonn, that works to promote equity between developed and less-developed countries. In 2015, with the group’s support, Luciano Lliuya, who had never left his country, traveled 6,500 miles to file a lawsuit against RWE, Germany’s largest energy utility. The lawsuit claimed that the company, though it does not operate in Peru, had contributed about half of 1 percent of the emissions that are causing the global climate to change and that it should therefore be responsible for half of 1 percent of the cost of containing the lake that might destroy Luciano Lliuya’s house. His claim entered the courts in the form of a demand for $19,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Murder him an the case is out...
Nitwittery is apparently world wide. What a useless idiot.
Interesting legal theory. Suing on the the basis that something might (or might not) happen at some unknown point in the future (or not).
A battalion of beavers could destroy his home, too. Crap like this should be laughed out of court.
“COULD”
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMANDS BASED ON “COULD”, MAYBE.
AFTERWARDS, IF YOU CAN PROVE THEY WERE AT FAULT, YOU CAN TRY TO MAKE DEMANDS
Sorry, I did not mean to have it all in caps, just forgot to turn off my caps lock button and it is too much to retype the whole thing correctly.
Move uphill you stupid Indian.
LOL!
A thought: Let’s say that some idiot judge grants an award under the assumption that his house will be destroyed in ten years. Ten years later, no change. Does the company get to come after him for the money plus interest?
How much worse than an award for a certain weed killer based on it “MAY have contributed” to an individuals cancer. And the lawyers walk away grinning with pockets bulging.
The temp is rising on the other planets too... must be the energy co’s fault.
Since there is no damage how can you argue for compensation?
“Could” - That is a lot of certainty, right there.
Five-thousand years ago in Africa, the Sahara deforested in the space of what could have been just a few hundred years. At the same time in Peru, thousands of years before the Maya and Inca were twinkles in their mommas’ eyes, meso-Americans lived in Peru. They were fisherman, living along the coast and gathering from the sea. The sea started rising, the fishing changed to gathering shellfish and maybe the majority of them moved inland and set up irrigated fields, adapting to farming but still trading for shellfish with those left behind on the coast. The first of several moves inland, and probably always looking for water sources to support irrigated fields, eventually trade broke off and the original seashore settlers became inland dwellers.
Moral of the story is, if Peruvians wants to sue anyone, they should sue ... the Sun.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-abrupt-widespread-climate-shift-sahara.html
So, are the “yoops”* that stoopid? Yeah.
*”Yoops” is my term for those dwelling under the thumb of those in power in Brussels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.