Right. It's never succeeded because we've had enough grown-ups around to prevent brainless pandering like this. That is no longer true.Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.
Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.
"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment.
It would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million, committee staff said. It is unclear whether the provision would actually cap damages at $75,000 per person, because the U.S. law referenced does not establish payouts by the government.
"Perhaps a more accurate title of the bill would be 'The Lawyer Full-Employment and As-Seen-on-TV Global Warming Act of 2009,' " said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House committee.
Expansion of the Clean Air Act to allow "citizen suits" on climate change has been a goal among environmental groups and moderate to liberal Democrats for many years - although the measure has never succeeded.
Let me tell you what this is: it's a gift from the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers to one of their core constituencies, trial lawyers. And if you think trial lawyers are out of control now, just wait until they sink their teeth into this one. Hot McDonald's coffee has nothing on the rising seas, you know?
A couple of points deserving mentioning. First, the premise: global warming is occurring, and is caused by man. Wrong and wrong. As has been well documented on this blog, the planet is clearly now in a cooling trend, and has been for a couple years now. And, it's absolutely laughable to think that man can do a damn thing to modify the climate of the entire planet. Wake up and put down the Kool-Aid!
Next, we have to understand that most of those climate change models or computer programs that this entire thing will be based upon are known to be inaccurate because they all start out with a given set of assumptions. Guess who programs those assumptions? You got it, the same people who want climate change to be 'discovered'. There's no possibility for subjectivity there, right? Especially when grant money may be at stake...? Nah, surely not.
Third, the loophole on capping damages doesn't get any bigger than this. Who thinks it's a good idea to set a cap based on a law that contains no cap? It's the kind of tortured and convenient logic that only Washington could apply with a straight face.
Finally, the entire purpose of the law is flagrantly fictional. 'Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it'?! Is this supposed to be a joke? This is essentially saying that any lunatic who thinks they've been harmed by global warming -- or thinks they might be harmed by it in the future -- can sue the U.S. government for a payout! This is unreal!
This law is the icing on the cake of the demise of a free and prosperous America if Obama's cap-and-trade policy gets passed. It proves nothing more than the fact that the entire global warming concept is a hoax designed to play upon people's guilt in order to transfer wealth.
I hope you've enjoyed your stay in the United States of America. It's not going to last much longer if these lunatics keep running things.
I wonder if I can sue the government for being economically harmed by their global warming legislation...?
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment