Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (71134)	4/15/2009 11:51:23 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 90947

Ah, I just made a mental connection between a snarky comment by Anderson Cooper and why one of the couple might find an aspect of that perversion appealing. Not gonna spell it out.

To: mph who wrote (71134)	4/16/2009 5:21:42 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

The costs, and they're likely to be hefty, will be paid by consumers in dollars and workers with their jobs. For Lawyers, 'Green' Means Money By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:20 PM PT Runaway Litigation: The carbon cap-and-trade idea is bad enough on its own. But Congress will make the climate bill even worse if it tacks on language that encourages lawyers to tie up the courts with frivolous suits. The centerpiece of the climate bill that's soon to be moved through the House is a CO2 cap-and-trade scheme. If it becomes law, it will place limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Businesses that discharge the harmless gas will be forced to buy tradable emissions permits from the government. Utilities, energy companies and other large industries that need to release CO2 beyond their allowed limit can buy cap space from others that won't use, or don't need to use, all of their cap space. In addition to requiring electricity providers to use renewable sources and throwing taxpayers' dollars into "investments" in "new clean energy technologies," the bill also allows those who claim to be victims of global warming, as well as those who expect to suffer from it, to sue the federal government and private companies. Already the country is strewn with frivolous and abusive lawsuits. In recent years, plaintiffs' attorneys have: • Sued McDonald's for gross negligence on behalf of a woman who spilled hot coffee on herself. • Represented a man who claimed that a television show caused him "suffering, injury, and great pain." • Tried to recover damages for a woman who was hit by a New York City subway train while she laid on the tracks trying to commit suicide. • Sued for $67 million a family-owned dry-cleaning business that allegedly lost a Washington, D.C., administrative judge's pants. • Filed suit against six Atlantic City casinos and one in Las Vegas for $20 million, claiming they were to blame for a New Jersey lawyer's gambling habit that ran up $1 million in losses. • Taken a drugmaker to court on behalf of a retired Milwaukee police officer who said the Parkinson's medication he took was responsible for his compulsive gambling. Sometimes the plaintiffs in these cases actually end up with generous awards from juries that often have no problem giving away a lot of someone else's money. The woman hit by the New York City subway train was awarded $9.9 million; the woman who spilled coffee on herself was initially awarded nearly $3 million in damages before a settlement produced a smaller amount; the retired police officer won an $8.2 million judgment. Given these cases — and many others — imagine how plaintiffs and their lawyers will use the climate bill to shake down taxpayers and private companies. They'll squeeze power providers, the oil industry, airlines, trucking companies, any private interest that emits carbon or does business with one that does. The costs, and they're likely to be hefty, will be paid by consumers in dollars and workers with their jobs. Even if they don't win, the trial lawyers will disrupt businesses simply by bringing the suits. Executives defending their companies will have less time to focus on their core duties, and funds that should be used for corporate expansion and paying off the shareholders who took a risk by investing will instead be diverted to unnecessary legal costs. And for what? Though it's been demonized as a greenhouse gas whose growing concentration in the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic global warming, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's not even a strong greenhouse gas. It makes up roughly 0.038% of the atmosphere and is a small part — less than 4% — of the greenhouse gases that surround the planet. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources, with man contributing a bit more than 3% of the volume. There will be no benefit in cutting its emissions. The House is scheduled to begin debate on the 648-page climate bill next week. At some point, a core of congressmen unswayed by the empty global-warming rhetoric will have to take a principled stand against it. They won't be able to stop the entire bill, as lawmakers from both parties have swallowed the anti-carbon propaganda and are eager to prove their green bona fides. But maybe they can have the sue-'em-all provision removed. While that would disappoint a plaintiffs' bar that always itches to litigate, it would be a positive development for the rest of us. ibdeditorials.com