H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°The residents of a small island in Alaska are in danger of losing their livelihood. The winds of climate change threaten to destroy the coast of Kivalina, Alaska, and the inhabitants of the area are reacting in typical American fashion; they are filing a lawsuit.
According to The New York Times, this small island village of only 400 residents may be forced to relocate if high sea winds persist in eroding the shoreline. Historically, the coast sees an accumulation of protective sea ice during colder months to guard the shore from damaging winds. Due to increased temperatures, however, the formation of the ice has diminished, leaving the coast vulnerable to attack during the high wind season. Citing businesses like ExxonMobil as the cause for heightened temperatures, the village plans to hold 24 energy companies accountable for the cost of relocation.
Some would say these Alaskan citizens have joined their former governor in “going rogue” by bringing about such a frivolous lawsuit, but opponents should not be too surprised that this case made it to court, given our nation’s history of filing copious amounts of lawsuits blaming large corporations for endangering citizens’ lives. Take the cases of Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman for example. These two girls garnered fame back in 2002 after they filed lawsuit against McDonald’s for making them obese by failing to provide appropriate nutrition information for their unhealthy food. Although the case was ultimately thrown out because the judge ruled that it was an individual’s responsibility rather than a company’s to ensure one has proper knowledge of a healthy diet, the lawsuit created quite the stir among the fast food industry.
Despite the failure of the McDonald’s cases, lawsuits of this nature do have the power to drastically change an industry. Some liken this case against oil companies to the fight against Big Tobacco, which forced companies to dole out large sums of cash and held them accountable for the deaths and diseases associated with smoking cigarettes. If this climate suit goes the way of Joe Camel, it could signify major change for the oil industry.
Whether you are a believer in the eminent doom of global warming or a skeptic shaken by the allegations of “Climategate,” the ruling on this case could potentially have lasting effects for how our government deals with carbon emissions. A verdict in favor of the citizens of Kivalina, although unlikely considering the case was initially dismissed and is now in the appeals process, could trigger even more lawsuits and lead to new legislation targeted at reducing emissions.
Is this the best way to spark environmental change? Probably not. Certainly the oil companies themselves are not the only ones responsible for increased carbon emissions. Dozens of other companies pollute heavily by manufacturing products which run on non-renewable energies. At the same time, we as consumers continue to fuel the demand for such commodities by purchasing and using all types of products which are known to harm the environment.
However, with the exception of activist groups and some individuals who are committed to promoting long-term change in the name of preserving our planet, many are simply apathetic about environmental issues until the problem destroys their habitat as with the citizens of Kivalina. In the case of oil companies, there is too much capital invested as well as lucrative profits to be made for them to change their ways purely for humanity’s sake. It is not until a threat (usually in the form of money) shakes up the status quo and forces revolutionary change that large companies start to rethink ways they could better serve the public interest.
What options does one have when no one will listen to your message that a certain behavior is harmful? When it comes to environmental issues, acting as an army of one can prove to be quite difficult. Even if you take care to reduce your carbon footprint by practicing the three R’s whenever possible and biking to work instead of driving, there is no guarantee that your neighbor isn’t thwarting your efforts by driving a gas-guzzling, oil-leaking car from the ’60s or that large manufacturers aren’t pumping all kinds of toxins into the atmosphere.
In an ideal world, we would all be conscious and mindful to the effects our actions have on the environment and would recognize the social implications of our actions for mankind. Yet, the topic of climate change is not immune to the collective action problem nor to the tendency to seek the most profitable option. If reducing carbon emissions is deemed a must, then certain monumental changes need to be made in order to change the institutions that allow environmentally harmful actions to persist. However absurd it may seem to bring about a lawsuit because of the negative effects of bad weather, the ability for this particular case to bring about new legislation, which would force those in violation of new emission standards to be held accountable for their actions, could prove to be a major turning point and catalyst for institutional changes toward greener options.
Holly Hartung ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
If this survives 12(b)(6) I will be astounded.
IP hash: d90cd3a0
The other planets were getting warmer too. Maybe the Sun had something to do with it? Or are there CO2 villians in outer space?
IP hash: 67b6905e
I had too many onions last night and farted. Sorry for the global warming.
IP hash: 1088e3f7
Why don’t we just do that blue state secession thing? That’s one legal action that no judge can throw out. And it would be fun to snub our noses at the federal government for a change. Face it, folks, no one in Washington has a clue. This recession is far from over. We won’t see an uptick in economic activity until we put some real fire under the idiots who are running the country…into the ground.
I wouldn’t expect Obama to turn the economy around completely in one year, but there are plenty of things he could be doing right now, like bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, closing all US military bases in foreign countries, getting tough on illegal immigrants and the employers who hire them, imposing a ten-year moratorium on immigration to the US and shrinking the Defense Department by at least 60%. We don’t need higher taxes, we need to spend the money more wisely. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough wise people in Washington at the moment.
This April 15th, I’m not filing a federal income tax return. I don’t care what anyone thinks of me. I’ll probably only owe about $100, but I need that money more than a big bank or a defense contractor does. Hell, I’m lucky to be working! I graduate in June, so there but before the grace of God I will go. While I face the same uncertainty as my fellow graduates, I refuse to contribute one dime to a failed administration that obviously has its priorities mixed up. The rest of you, liberal and conservative alike, should also be disgusted.
We should have learned a long time ago that our clueless leaders in Washington don’t care if we starve to death, as long as we vote and pay our taxes. What will it take to get us all united and start pushing back? Will it take a pink slip? Will it take a sit-in? Will it take a suicide of a friend or relative who became to distraught over his/her loss of everything they ever worked for due to a layoff or foreclosure? What will it take?
IP hash: b8e53789
If they hire Bob LobLaw, they are destined to win the case!
IP hash: f151ec33
But “climate change” is an environmentalist hoax and a fraud. Every day more and more evidence of this fact is being exposed. Why continue to pretend otherwise?
Carbon emissions are good. Look at the massively greater prosperity of carbon emitting societies compared to a pack of Eskimos.
Climate changes, it always has and always will. Get used to it.
IP hash: 6ee7f1f4
With no evidence to back up what you are saying, you still speak with so much conviction, enough to overturn the majority opinion of leading climate scientists around the world.
IP hash: 1088e3f7
I have to admit I’m pretty skeptical of the climate change data. This may be just a phase the planet is going through and I’m not so confident that it has anything to do with us. We may be responsible for hermaphrodite frogs in city lakes and the Asian carp crisis, but I’m not about to buy into every attempt at hysteria.
On the B-side of the record, I’d like to see an effort at curbing the US’s population growth. I propose a ten-year moratorium on new immigrants to the US. I’m sure I’ll make a lot of enemies on the left, but hey, look at the population figures! The population of the US went from 250 million in 1990 to 300 million in 2005, an explosion of 50 million new residents in just 15 years. This surge in population growth will lead to overcrowding, more welfare cases in the event of a recession, accelerated depletion of our natural resources and increased dependency on foreign oil. Where does it end?
Is the United States the only country worth living in? Surely, other countries could fix their own problems instead of just sending their overflow our way. And I don’t feel so guilty for wanting to change the immigration laws to stem the tide of new immigrants landing on our shores. Before 1950, there was still plenty of room for more. That was then, this is now. It’s getting pretty crowded over here and we’d better start taking this fact seriously. Liberals, who have long supported a liberalized immigration policy, are going to have to accept the fact that we’re filled beyond capacity now. Diversity can still be achieved with the population we already have. Our natural resources and our future is at stake. They’ll have to learn to compromise.
IP hash: d90cd3a0
How about just a moratorium on new ILLEGAL immigrants?
IP hash: f151ec33
How about repealing immoral laws like those against immigration?
IP hash: 9e712b95
How are they immoral?
IP hash: fd1f5b9d
How about a moratorium on moronic comments like yours, 1:45PM? Name one thing that liberals have done lately to turn the economy around. Name one time in the past year when liberals protested the war in Iraq. Name one problem this country has right now that Obama hasn’t addressed without blaming Bush, and not that Bush doesn’t share any blame.
The USA is grossly overpopulated, plain and simple. The stats that 12:08PM stated are accurate. We simply have too many people residing in the US! We don’t have enough jobs and 95% of the illegals we have here came from Mexico, another country to which we’ve lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. Is really our fault that other countries suck? And what precisely is our obligation to take immigrants from them? We have enough problems here already. Why is it always up to us to solve the world’s problems? They send their kids over here for college, who tend to outperform our kids, and then they go back home, end of story. Their countries still suck. Too bad! We’ve been the promised land of choice for too many for too long.
IP hash: 7b607b9e
As liberals political power base is restricted to a couple individuals like Barney Franks and Russ Feingold, I find blaming liberals for the woes of the Obama administration troubling.
IP hash: 5ad675d2
You know, new people don’t just move here—they’re also born here. Abortions for everyone, right? I vote YES.
IP hash: fd1f5b9d
For your sake, we’ll just legalize assisted suicide. Who need a stupid liberal punk like you anyway?
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
We should just adopt the Mexican policies when dealing with illegal immigration from their southern neighbors.
Maybe we could leave out the raping and robbery part?
IP hash: 336bb155
yes, filing a lawsuit because your town is slipping into the ocean. what’s the title of the case: CITIZENS OF BUMBLEFUCK ALASKA V. THAT SPITEFUL BITCH, MOTHER NATURE? oh, wait it must be those damn oil companies up there! my bad. CITIZENS OF BUMBLEFUCK ALASKA V. THOSE VILLAINOUS CORPORATIONS WHO EMPLOY PROBABLY THE ENTIRE TOWN. normally, when towns that i have lived in have been engulfed by the sea, i normally move to higher ground. that’s generally a viable option. but the air particles and water molecules up there must carry with them a tag (re: a product of EXXON MOBILE) and, therefore, can easily be traced to the perpetrating corporations (and, hence be sued) because it’s not like we live in a world where weather knows no political boundary and countries like india or china could contribute to “climate change”. scientists and lawyers must dismiss that as an option too or, simply, just fudge the data. but i regress.
but without frivolous lawsuits, we’d never have john edwards to laugh at so i thank all the sue-happy individuals out there for that.
IP hash: fd1f5b9d
Why can’t the American people sue the government for wasting their taxes on stupid bullshit like the war in Iraq and bailouts for the rich-ass bankers? It would be an open-and-shut case.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
12 inches of Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5A2ahIn05M
IP hash: 75719279
Call me immoral. Call me a bigot. Call me whatever you want. I DONT’T CARE! No more immigration. Period.
Unlike you, I refuse to sell this nation’s soul. If you have a problem with that, let’s step outside.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Which tribe are you from again?
IP hash: f8a9960f
If I’m conquered forcefully that’s one thing. But I’m not going to hand it over like you all want to. Get real.
IP hash: 67588e1c
The POR economy kicked in during the latter part of 2007, when its architects � Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid � decided that starving the economy of energy by refusing to allow more offshore drilling in the face of $4 gas prices was a winning political position. Pelosi claimed that because we couldn�t totally �drill our way out of this,� we shouldn�t increase drilling at all. Reid put an exclamation point on Pelosi�s stubbornness by insisting that fossil fuels are �making us sick.�
What Pelosi, Obama, and Reid should do is expand tax cuts, ditch all of the alleged �investments� in so-called “green” (globaloney) technology, open up Alaskan oil and gas exploration, and watch the royalty money pour in. I know— that’s way too much to �hope� aboriginal Alaskans be allowed to sell their own resources and become as wealthy as aboriginal Arabs.
That’s their answer for everything— more lawyers. But only the most devoted Obamateur cultists buy this tired redistributionist nonsense anymore.