Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Can Big Oil be sued like Big Tobacco was?
http://globalnews.ca/news/1722953/mu...ands-of-judge/
Can the Koch Brothers be charged with crimes against humanity?
http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate...e-contrarians/
There are two definitions of crimes against humanity in international law that could apply to the campaign of the climate change contrarians. The first is “grave offences that are part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population,” and the second is “inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical harm.” (Brown, 2013)
It is not possible for a variety of reasons to charge the Koch brothers and the other contrarians in their vast network with crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court at The Hague. But we could at least begin to call them by a name that is more appropriate for those who have committed crimes against humanity. |
It is an interesting question in the abstract. I suspect that they have also learned from the cautionary tales there and have taken steps to prevent it, but given the way we communicate electronically now and the sheer volume of stored e-mails, I'd say yeah there's probably some info in a database somewhere that could have people picking up the torches and pitchforks when it ultimately does come out.
But we're talking about two different impacts: tobacco's fostering of nonsense and deliberate dishonesty, not to put too fine a point on it, makes them directly complicit in millions of negligent homicides. That's a classic class action scenario. The propagandists in this case are contributing to the gradual degradation of the planet - it's not clear who exactly has legal standing. It's not like the arctic ice caps can sue Exxon.
The other point is that Tobacco did the studies demonstrating nicotine addictiveness and links to cancer and heart disease and other such things
themselves - and then withheld the results. Very different scenario here. The information is out there for all to see. All they're doing in this case is obfuscating, and there is no law against that. In fact, the law protects their right to talk gibberish. It turns out that it doesn't matter if you withhold the information or not.