But those are very different. The tobacco “litigation” was pursued by governments with the power to shut down tobacco companies. They had leverage.

As for the implants cases, they addressed conduct that not every human engaged in, and conduct that not every human benefited from (at least in the short run).

Someone mentioned a “technique called life-cycle analysis that these people use to trace all the energy used by a facility back to something that emitted carbon dioxide.” Under that technique, every defendant can legitimately implead every other human within the jurisdiction. It would be an administrative nightmare. The judge and all jurors will be defendants. It can’t work.

Thanks. And now .. further naivete (in case we needed more!):

Presuming we had even one, just one, fed govt elected one time, and genuinely committed to tort reform, then they could pass such a law. But none of them do.

Naivete reigning strong now, what is the pt of trying to fix the system, by implementing micromanaged rules on what can/cannot be attmepted and how, if the real prob is that the govt passing the laws is just snowing us anyway?

Why bother? Shouldn’t all efforts first be directed to a public campaign, with zero wasted on lobbying govt for reform that it would only water down to nothingness anyway?

Let me help you with that.

Your suggestion, especially with regards to punitives, is spot on, of course… and has been suggested (in numerous variations) by many, many people. All you have to do is find a way to PASS a law to do it… Good luck with that. (Is that sufficint revelation? There’s more available if you need it… You know, just trying help out.)

“These suits will be utterly ludicrous.”

Yes, of course they will… but that dosen’t mean they won’t WORK. See, for examples, the tobacco settlement and the (already referenced) breast implant ligitation.

Will it occur to a judge that life-cycle analysis puts the blame on plaintiffs as well as defendants?

These suits will be utterly ludicrous.

For that matter, why not allow any punitive damages in any case to be paid the same way, as well?

IANAL, for sure, but I see a trend in legal reform proposals in that they seem to all try to outgame the gamers, which looks like a mug’s game to me. Instead, why not remove the incentive to game the system in the first place?

I await the revelation that I am being incredibly naive in some way, so be patient with me.

Second, not emitting carbon dioxide is no defense against lawsuits alleging the emission of carbon dioxide. There’s a technique called life-cycle analysis that these people use to trace all the energy used by a facility back to something that emitted carbon dioxide. For example, a nuclear power plant does not emit carbon dioxide, but the construction equipment used to build the plant did. Thus, the plant is blamed for the carbon dioxide emissions, even though construction is not in and of itself contingent on diesel use, and diesel use is not contingent on releasing the byproducts to the environment. More here, here and here.
No, polluter-pays isn’t good enough any more, apparently.

I suppose it depends on how your paradigm defines progress.

Burning the remains of billions of dinosaurs is good, not bad…say it with me, Burn dino-carcass-good, prevent building of refineries-bad…repeat, now in chorus!