Whether it’s budget cuts or ‘ruin’, the financial consequences of using the courts to promote their so-called climate policies have so far not been as desired by the US city authorities concerned. As the writer points out: ‘The risk that municipal plaintiffs will have to pay defendants’ cost of the trial, plus a penalty, depends on whether courts find the lawsuits to be frivolous.’
As much as we hear nowadays about making America great again, it’s worth asking what made America great in the first place, writes Bob McClure in the Washington Times.
Whenever asked, I point to two often overlooked pieces of the puzzle: Our foundation of private property rights, and a strong rule of law to support them.
After all, if government can arbitrarily take your property, how can one build wealth or plan for the future? Unfortunately, this very thing is happening right now.
Trial lawyers and liberal activists are recruiting cities from California to New York to sign up for litigation against the oil and gas industry. They hope to find a court that will hold the industry solely responsible for “projected damages from climate change” — the key word here being “projected.”
We can debate climate change and what sorts of effects it may or may not have. But lured by promises of big payouts, the municipalities signing on to sue Big Oil are exposing their constituents to much more immediate potential costs that could force tax increases and local budget cuts for essential services such as fire and police departments.
Continued here.
Related news: CASE DISMISSED: FEDERAL JUDGE PUTS FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF CALIFORNIA’S ‘GLOBAL WARMING LAWSUIT’ | The GWPF
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
August 1, 2018 at 03:55AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 