What knowledge is necessary to 'effectively counteract' Enviro claims?

[ewv 0]

People may also bring a civil suit against the factory. If they do, they would have the burden of proof and need to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were damaged, that the factory alone caused the damage, that they did not consent, directly or implicitly, to the factory's damaging actions, that the damage was forseeable, etc.

But to what extent should the factory be liable if no one previously knew the effects? Certainly not criminal liability as can be imposed today. Who is responsible for changing something that is and has been harmful but which no one knew about? Who should be held financially accountable for it and for changing it under those circumstances?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Therefore the logical solution to air-plant-taking-too-much air or excessively heating it up...

Assertions of 'too much' and 'excessive' beg the question. Such terms are an indication that the amount of heat etc being put out is not proper. But that is the very question under debate.

By itself, the fact that the factory heat etc is "seriously adversely affecting others" who use the air in the same area does not mean the factory is somehow exceeding their own proper usage of that self-same air.

I understand that you have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of your own property. If someone does something that demonstrably prevents you from enjoying your property as you once did (poisoning your well, sucking up all the air around your house, etc.) you can bring suit to have them stop doing that and reimburse you for the damages they caused you.

[Brian Smith 0]

People may also bring a civil suit against the factory. If they do, they would have the burden of proof and need to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were damaged, that the factory alone caused the damage, that they did not consent, directly or implicitly, to the factory's damaging actions, that the damage was forseeable, etc.

The example was one where the damage had not yet occurred. As such, it would not be possible to show that "they were damaged" etc.

Essentially, it is a similar argument to the viro one about rising sea levels. There is a projection that damage will occur in the future (permanent and devastating flooding of coastal cities etc) due to human activity (AGW). And so the question is, what should legally be done about it?

Given my understanding of the premises being used and the arguments put forth in the thread, the answer is that government action should be taken to stop the human activity from causing this devastating flooding. I disagree with that answer, and the premise which leads to it.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

People may also bring a civil suit against the factory. If they do, they would have the burden of proof and need to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were damaged, that the factory alone caused the damage, that they did not consent, directly or implicitly, to the factory's damaging actions, that the damage was forseeable, etc.

But to what extent should the factory be liable if no one previously knew the effects?

That is why the damage has to be forseeable. It would be wrong to hold someone responsible for something nobody could have known about. Usually, the plaintiff in such a case has to show that the factory owners knew that they were causing damage, were warned they could cause damage, etc.

Certainly not criminal liability as can be imposed today.

All such cases, except for things done with extreme negligence or as a deliberate violation of rights, would be civil, rather than criminal, cases.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

People may also bring a civil suit against the factory. If they do, they would have the burden of proof and need to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were damaged, that the factory alone caused the damage, that they did not consent, directly or implicitly, to the factory's damaging actions, that the damage was forseeable, etc.

The example was one where the damage had not yet occurred. As such, it would not be possible to show that "they were damaged" etc.

In such a case, you could go to court for an injunction to prevent the factory from taking potentially damaging action. The injunction-seeker would have to prove that, without injunctive relief, damage would occur.

[Brian Smith 0]

If someone does something that demonstrably prevents you from enjoying your property as you once did (poisoning your well, sucking up all the air around your house, etc.) you can bring suit to have them stop doing that and reimburse you for the damages they caused you.

The fact that you previously enjoyed certain conditions on your property does not mean you have the right to expect them to remain constant. And, as your previous post indicated, there are other factors to consider as well. For instance, given the nature of the factory, and given the nature of production (that it can increase or decrease), I would suggest a very good case could be made that implicit consent exists for an increase in the intrusive conditions (heat, co2, decrease of 02, etc), because one can rationally expect that a company will prosper rather than stagnate or decay. As such, one implicitly consents to the possibility that one will not be able to 'enjoy the property as one once did".

[Brian Smith 0]

In such a case, you could go to court for an injunction to prevent the factory from taking potentially damaging action.

The factory wasn't taking an action. The action had been ongoing since its creation - but was only just discovered to be a problem.

However, the example is immaterial because it was simply used to illustrate the proper way to address AGW and the damage it would cause. And, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe you are suggesting injunctions or civil suits against humanity itself is the proper way to deal with AGW. (That is why I much preferred sticking with my 'city' example, since it was the most comparable to the actual issue at hand. All the rest of the issues introduce additional factors which do not apply and just confuse the issue rather than clarifying it.)

[ewv 0]

The example was one where the damage had not yet occurred. As such, it would not be possible to show that "they were damaged" etc.

The statement quoted was ...

Time passes and the effects of the output begin to become clearer.

... which implies that the cause was already present in the past, but not whether or not demonstrable damage has yet occurred. But a fundamental point is still that no one knew that the established use was harmful, leaving open the question of why the factory alone should be held responsible for the results of continuing an established use only now known to be damaging to others. A case has to be made for two situations: a) immediate replacement or equipment upgrades and eventual replacement when existing equipment is no longer useable. They may or may not have the same answer. Are you arguing that in neither case is the factory responsible for changing its current impact because it became accepted before anyone knew the damage? Weren't the people living there also an established use believed by everyone to be safe at the time? Are the homeowners the only ones who should shoulder a risk that knowledge changes?

[Brian Smith 0]

The example was one where the damage had not yet occurred. As such, it would not be possible to show that "they were damaged" etc.

With my statement I was simply pointing out that they could not show damage - as Betsy claimed must be done in the type of suit she referenced - because (as I understand the full example) no damage had supposedly occurred yet. Nothing more - nothing less. The statement was not meant to indicate who must do what, when, where, how, or why.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If someone does something that demonstrably prevents you from enjoying your property as you once did (poisoning your well, sucking up all the air around your house, etc.) you can bring suit to have them stop doing that and reimburse you for the damages they caused you.

The fact that you previously enjoyed certain conditions on your property does not mean you have the right to expect them to remain constant. And, as your previous post indicated, there are other factors to consider as well. For instance, given the nature of the factory, and given the nature of production (that it can increase or decrease), I would suggest a very good case could be made that implicit consent exists for an increase in the intrusive conditions (heat, co2, decrease of 02, etc), because one can rationally expect that a company will prosper rather than stagnate or decay. As such, one implicitly consents to the possibility that one will not be able to 'enjoy the property as one once did".

That kind of distinction is for a court to decide -- and civil courts generally decide these things very well. When I look at the existing case law for similar cases, I find an amazingly rational attention to facts and sound inductive reasoning to sensible principles providing elegant solutions to such problems.

[PhilO 0]

Therefore the logical solution to air-plant-taking-too-much air or excessively heating it up...

Assertions of 'too much' and 'excessive' beg the question. Such terms are an indication that the amount of heat etc being put out is not proper. But that is the very question under debate.

By itself, the fact that the factory heat etc is "seriously adversely affecting others" who use the air in the same area does not mean the factory is somehow exceeding their own proper usage of that self-same air.

I think you're missing the critical point here. The only reason that the air-sucking factory could operate is because of the atmosphere itself as a "free" substance. When they start using so much that it significantly affects the area outside of their physical property, then they are arguably using something that isn't theirs to use without permission.

Similarly with excessive heat, noise, etc. Furthermore, although the principle "who was first" is important, it's not a free pass for precedessors in the area to cause objective harm to newcomers. Matters of degree *are* ultimately qualitative differences. Raising the air temperature from 80 to 81 deg. F is objectively irrelevant. Raising it from 80 to 180 is objectively relevant and qualitatively different. The same goes for noise, chemical emission, etc. Ultimately these are all answerable by property rights; if a company dumps cyanide on their own property and it doesn't leak away or have any chance to do so, that's their business. If it leaks onto the neighbor's property, the one who moved in 10 years after they started, it is certainly their problem and certainly a violation of the rights of the new neighbor.

[ewv 0]

The statement quoted was ...

Time passes and the effects of the output begin to become clearer.

... which implies that the cause was already present in the past, but not whether or not demonstrable damage has yet occurred.

The example was one where the damage had not yet occurred. As such, it would not be possible to show that "they were damaged" etc.

With my statement I was simply pointing out that they could not show damage - as Betsy claimed must be done in the type of suit she referenced - because (as I understand the full example) no damage had supposedly occurred yet. Nothing more - nothing less. The statement was not meant to indicate who must do what, when, where, how, or why.

The damaging action would be the continued operation of the factory, now accepted as damaging.

[Brian Smith 0]

That kind of distinction is for a court to decide...

I didn't think the factory owner and the next door neighbor were going to duke it out in order to resolve the issue.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

In such a case, you could go to court for an injunction to prevent the factory from taking potentially damaging action.

The factory wasn't taking an action. The action had been ongoing since its creation - but was only just discovered to be a problem.

However, the example is immaterial because it was simply used to illustrate the proper way to address AGW and the damage it would cause. And, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe you are suggesting injunctions or civil suits against humanity itself is the proper way to deal with AGW.

Of course not. AGW lacks an identifiable responsible defendant, provable damages (or potential damages), or anything necessary to win a civil suit. It should be thrown out of court.

[Brian Smith 0]

I think you're missing the critical point here. The only reason that the air-sucking factory could operate is because of the atmosphere itself as a "free" substance. When they start using so much that it significantly affects the area outside of their physical property, then they are arguably using something that isn't theirs to use without permission.

I am not missing the point at all. You have just stated that the issue is arguable. And that is all I pointed out - that it is the issue in question. So one cannot rightly identify it as 'too much' etc until that argument has been settiled.

That was my point.

Furthermore, although the principle "who was first" is important, it's not a free pass...

Then it is a good thing I never claimed it was.

[Brian Smith 0]

Of course not. AGW lacks an identifiable responsible defendant, provable damages (or potential damages), or anything necessary to win a civil suit. It should be thrown out of court.

I agree.

Is there anything the government should do to humanity in order to curtail AGW?

[Arnold 0]

Of course not. AGW lacks an identifiable responsible defendant, provable damages (or potential damages), or anything necessary to win a civil suit. It should be thrown out of court.

I agree.

Is there anything the government should do to humanity in order to curtail AGW?

Stop them eating beans.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Of course not. AGW lacks an identifiable responsible defendant, provable damages (or potential damages), or anything necessary to win a civil suit. It should be thrown out of court.

I agree.

Is there anything the government should do to humanity in order to curtail AGW?

Like I said, the part of the government that handles such things -- the courts -- should judge and publicly declare that such claims as meritless and throw them out.

[Brian Smith 0]

...the courts -- should judge and publicly declare that such claims as meritless and throw them out.

Right. Which is why laymen like ourselves do not have to engage in all sorts of in-depth scientific study to effectively address the issue with viros.

[Cometmaker 0]

...the courts -- should judge and publicly declare that such claims as meritless and throw them out.

Right. Which is why laymen like ourselves do not have to engage in all sorts of in-depth scientific study to effectively address the issue with viros.

Yes, and if any time is spent on in-depth study of viros' claims, laymen can spend it on keeping abreast of trends in judgments of claims depending primarily on principles of torts involving liability for reasonable foreseeability of harm.