Nowhere, Alaska

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/energy-environment/27lawsuits.html

I chose an article from the Science section of the New York Times website, written by one John Schwartz. It is about an island village in Alaska that is trying to sue some two dozen fuel and utility companies into paying the village's expenses of moving to the mainland. These companies are big producers of heat-trapping gases, and as a result of having them on the island, the sea ice is no longer building up to "protect the town's fragile coast." What it is really about though, is how people are tired of the inaction of legislative bodies when it comes to climate issues, and so are seeking the court room as a battle ground.

The article goes on, many times comparing the Kivalina (the village) lawsuit to the early stages of tobacco industry regulation. Apparently the same thing happened:

Michael B. Gerrard, a professor at Columbia University law school and director of its Center for Climate Change Law, said the first efforts to sue tobacco companies had appeared to be weak as well.

“They lost the first cases; they kept on trying new theories,” Mr. Gerrard said, “and eventually won big.”

This is an interesting parallel Schwartz is drawing here. Obviously we all now know that tobacco is generally bad, it causes cancer, inhibits fetal development, kids should definitely not do it, and so on. This was not common sense until the mid-1990's, when several states sued the tobacco industry, and through litigation, memos were discovered proving that the industry had in fact known about things like the addictive quality of nicotine, and of the cancer-causing effects of the carcinogens in their product. Though not even most of the cases against the tobacco companies were successful, they definitely raised awareness and caused some stricter legislation to be passed that governs tobacco use.

The article states that if the climate change lawsuits "even get to the discovery stage," this could mean potentially exposing these fuel and utility companies, just like those lawsuits against the tobacco industry exposed internal memos belying their full knowledge of what was going on.

What this article suggests is that the industries have something to hide. It is clearly demonizing the fuel and utility companies, comparing them to a well-established demon in our society, Big Tobacco. My first response when reading this article is to think: "What if they do have something to hide?"

The American Justice Partnership, a business-oriented group that is critical of the plaintiffs’ bar, argued in a 2008 report that the conspiracy accusations made the Kivalina case “the most dangerous litigation in America.”

The case could stifle debate over climate-change issues, the report stated, and increase “the threat of being named as a defendant or co-conspirator subject to invasive and costly inquiry.”

What are they so worried about? So some 400-person village in Bum-F-Nowhere, Alaska, is trying to sue some companies who are probably destroying their island, and this group is worried about the multi-million (multi-billion?) dollar companies who might have to give them a part of the truth as a concession? "Most dangerous litigation in America"? Holy crap. This sounds like the businessmen are afraid of the villagepeople carrying pitchforks and torches. To me this quote makes it sounds like Industry knows what's goin' on, and the commonfolk should just mind their own and leave it to the big kids.

I'm sure, though, that things dealing with laws and court rulings are way too complicated to sum up as I just did. I don't even know what I mean to say about that junk. What is obvious to me, after going through this article, is that the NYTimes, at least in this particular instance, is not objectively reporting. Though throughout there are comments and quotes from both sides, the recurring theme is the comparison with tobacco companies. Calling upon history like that, especially such an intense history as that of Big Tobacco, stirs some feelings in a reader. And who knows if that's how these climate change cases are even going to turn out? The writer of the article doesn't reference any scientific research regarding the issue, which may shed light on (or as we have discovered, confuse...) what the real discussions in the court are going to be like, and also on whether or not these suits are even a real "problem"; instead he uses quotes from people (cherry-picked?), and the ominous comparison of the fuel and utility industries to the tobacco industry.