The COP21 Deal Will (Probably) Go Through Tomorrow, Leaving Tough Work for Activists - Pacific Standard

[Mark Kohut]

 My remark on liability came from the click-thru link within the piece
I sent: Here is the relevant stuff: If "unlimited liability" was an
exaggerated phrase then I apologize. "liability claims of massive
proportions" ---which might go on and on as countries work to
sue more is close enough to unlimited to me....but your milage may vary.

"a tactic that some observers say is part of a larger campaign to
strip the Paris agreement of any hard terms on finance—or questions of
historic liability.
Those questions lie at the heart of the debate over loss and damages:
To acknowledge a climate "debt" in an official United Nations
agreement could leave wealthier countries answerable for liability
claims of massive proportions. (Politicohas estimated that, under such
an arrangement, developed countries might be answerable for "hundreds
of billions of dollars for the role their industrialization played in
global warming.")"

On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Sounds like a somewhat exaggerated version of what is asked for. The primary concern is the massive losses due to fall on low island nations and low coastal regions. Where will these people go? Who will aid them to find housing. Shouldn’t those who continue to emit an unfair portion of greenhouse gases bear a financial responsibility to those who suffer as a result? I would be less on Naomi and these nation’s side if the US etc. were making serious credible effort to radically reduce Carbon emissions, but we just aren’t. Our current pledges are a sentence of destruction for many regions.
>   What makes this particularly ugly is that corporations, many in fossil fuel industries, are being given increasing power through international trade agreements to sue nations who try to protect their environment, safety laws and worker rights.  These trade agreements are favored by Obama, the mainstream democratic leadership  and the Republicans. As that is so, why shouldn’t nations screwed by global emissions be able to sue for damage?
>   The US taxpayer is standing by while public lands, the army, surveillance, the courts, the jails and public utilities are privatized and turned over to the profit motive.
>
>> On Dec,, 12, 2015, at 3:27 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a tough policy question which Plisters might want to " talk" about, differ over.
>>
>> Naomi Klein among others are considering it sabotage and a disgrace that the United States ( and some other rich countries) will not open itself to unrestricted liability suits re their role in causing climate change. should it? See link below.
>>
>> http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/weak-cop21-deal-set-to-go-through
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad-
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l