Equally, it could be argued that fossil fuels users are liable, because you don't have to burn them when you buy them. Making oil into plastic doesn't directly cause climate change.
Also, we'd all be willing to pay a lot more for fossil fuels if they were more expensive, and it's this additional benefit (utility) which could be the basis for charging for harm. Finally, fossil fuels companies actually don't make that much money on the transaction. It's a fairly marginal business, just one with a vast market. Taxes, and the bonus utility, is likely much larger than the firm profits. If only it was as simple as bashing oil majors... A On 14 Feb 2014 17:44, "Josh Horton" <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's a quick response to similar comments posted on my blog: > > Consumers and society at large have certainly benefited from the use of > fossil fuels, no question about that. But in terms of direct benefits from > unearthing and selling the stuff, a case can be made that the fossil fuel > industry is the big winner. The industry also constitutes a bounded group > of readily identifiable actors, which is important when figuring out who > will pay in practice. > > I agree that SRM and oil spill liability are not the same thing--a legal > chain tying fossil fuel companies to SRM damages would be longer and more > tenuous than a chain connecting an oil company to an oil spill. But even in > the latter case it's not so straightforward: tanker owners are the > immediately responsible parties under international law and bear primary > liability for spills (the IOPC Funds form a second tier). > > I also assume that governments, not companies, will run any SRM deployment. > > Josh > > On Friday, February 14, 2014 4:51:19 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/13/who-should-pay-for- >> solar-geoengineering-liability/ >> >> A question raised by the normally sensible Geoengineering Politics. They >> come to an odd conclusion:any damages caused by SRM [Solar Radiation >> Management, I believe - W] would essentially be the negative side effects >> of a response measure intended to remediate harms caused by excessive >> fossil fuel use, and fossil fuel companies have been the primary direct >> beneficiaries of this activity, it stands to reason that they should be the >> ones to pay for its cleanupand offer an analogy:This is precisely how the >> international oil spill liability regime works-the International Oil >> Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Funds, financed exclusively by oil companies, >> have paid out more than $700 million in compensation since 1978Now there is >> a problem with this analogy, or rather two. The first and most obvious is >> that oil spills are caused directly by the oil companies, and dealing with >> them is a cost of their operation (or they could tighten up their >> procedures and spill less, which would also cost, but differently). You >> could argue that paying for SRM is analogous to paying for oil spills, but >> paying for getting it wrong is stretching things a bit. If some (company, >> or govt) puts up mirror-satellites to reduce incoming solar, and >> accidentally fries Australia, is that really the fault of those who put the >> CO2 in the atmosphere? This is perhaps part of the fun that things like >> geoengineering will inevitably lead to. After all, GW will have benefits as >> well as costs, so sorting out whether those who would have benefited are >> allowed to sue those who prevented that benefit would be fun.The second >> problem is that spilling fuel is a consequence of extracting or >> transporting oil, but not a necessary consequence. Thus its reasonable to >> expect the companies to minimise it, and to fine (or otherwise force them >> to pay up to clear up the mess) if they do spill. Whereas emitting CO2 >> (most fossil fuel is inevitably going to get burned at some point in its >> use cycle) is essentially a necessary consequence of extracting and selling >> fuels.I'm also dubious about the assertion that in regard to excessive >> fossil fuel use, ... fossil fuel companies have been the primary direct >> beneficiaries of this activity. As I said before, I think the primary >> beneficiary has been the consumer of the fossil fuels, not the companies. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
