Evil oil companies to blame
This could be interesting. The victims of Hurricane Katrina are to sue oil companies for emitting CO2, fuelling “global warming” and sea-level rise and thereby intensifying Hurricane Katrina. Their enthusiasm is clearly not dampened by the fact that the precise point on which they rely has been debunked so many times I’ve lost count (and recently in the Hurricanegate fiasco). In order to succeed, they would need to establish a causal chain between the oil companies and the intensity of Hurricane Katrina through all the intervening steps: that the emissions from those companies caused an increase in temperature, that the increase in temperature caused hurricanes to be more energetic, and that Hurricane Katrina itself was intensified by that mechanism – an impossible task.
But oddly, they are only suing US oil companies. What if it was Chinese coal burning that was to blame? Or Indian? Or here’s a novel suggestion: it was natural forces at work, with no-one to blame except Mother Nature? No, that won’t do – in our litigation-obsessed culture, blame has to be apportioned for every event in life. If a meteorite that had been circling the sun for 4.5 billion years eventually collided with earth and hit their house, they’d blame George Bush… This action has about as much chance of success as Al Gore getting a degree in climatology:
Victims of Hurricane Katrina are seeking to sue carbon [dioxide? – Ed] gas-emitting multinationals for helping fuel global warming and boosting the 2005 storm.
The class action suit brought by residents from southern Mississippi, which was ravaged by hurricane-force winds and driving rains, was first filed just weeks after the August 2005 storm hit. [By ambulance chasing shysters, no doubt. As if the victims would have been able to formulate their thoughts in three weeks – Ed]
“The plaintiffs allege that defendants’ operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming,” say the documents seen by the AFP news agency.
The increase in global surface air and water temperatures “in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs’ private property, as well as public property useful to them.”
More than 1,200 people died in Hurricane Katrina, which lashed the area, swamping New Orleans in Louisiana when levees gave way under the weight of the waves.
The suit, claiming compensation and punitive damages [of course, we must punish them for being so wicked – Ed] from multinational companies including Shell, ExxonMobile, BP and Chevron, has already passed several key legal hurdles, after initially being knocked back by the lowest court.
Three federal appeals court judges decided in October 2009 that the case could be heard. However, in February the same court decided to re-examine whether it could be heard this time with nine judges.
These guys must have money to burn.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Just to nitpick – Shell is a Dutch company and BP is a British Petroleum company.
My issue is that the oil companies didn’t burn the petrol anyway. Sue the power generators and the car and truck drivers who actually converted oil into carbon dioxide. Stop looking for the softest target. And then you can find out how much impact their carbon dioxide had on your tragedy, compared to the idea of building below sea level, not maintaining waterways, living in houses inappropriate for the conditions, and completely stuffing up the aftermath.
@Russell: Yes, of course you are correct – too early in the morning.
The judge, or defence, only needs to enquire if the plaintiffs emit CO2 themselves.
Yes, this will be interesting. If the Courts actually do their job and look objectively at the facts these greedy fools could be in for quite a shock indeed. I hope costs will be appropriately awarded to “encourage” more of these idiots! (sarcasm) The only concern I have is that it will be heard in an American Court – many of which are notorious for outlandish findings. The outcome of this will depend squarely on whether the Courts “actually do their job”