• Let’s see. First I’ll sue the restaurants I eat at for producing garbage…..


  • Back in June, we were nearly ready to write off efforts to hold polluters liable for climate change via litigation. That’s when California dropped its claims against six car companies, ending the state’s three-year fight to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the auto industry for allegedly contributing to global warming.

    Yes it is very sad that their first attempt at extortion failed. But never fear. The legal profession will not give up until they get their pound of flesh.

    Needless to say, Pawa was very excited about the Second Circuit reinstating the cases. “In light of this decision, there’s no way [for the defendants] to get out of these cases.”

    Of course he was excited thinking of the large fee he will make if this litigation is successful. Of course it isn’t the power companies that will ultimately pay. It is their customers.

  • […] than a year from now,  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will require domestic emitters of heat-trapping emissions to report greenhouse gas (GHG) data under new regulations that will cover about 85 percent of the […]

  • Proposed billing line item:
    Litigation/Carbon Offset Surcharge ——————————————– $3.98

  • Well I agree that what comes out of a lot of lawyers’ mouths should be classified as a nuisance.

  • So does this mean that we can sue large law firms for their carbon output?

  • The answer is simple. The utilities being sued just need to shut down all emitting plants for one week.

  • […] Overlawyered: Big Win for Global-Warming Litigators […]

  • […] District Court against power companies so's they would stop gassing-up the joint. (linktrain: Overlawered => PointofLaw) Sep 23, 09 | 5:38 pm AxeBitesVarious guitars I see floating by, mostly Gibson and […]

  • So who will be the first enterprising lawyer to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the plant kingdom for artificially restricting access to the precious carbon dioxide that give its members life?

  • If I were the judge I would state that the utilities can be enjoined to halt carbon emissions for as long as the plaintiffs and their lawyers canhold their breaths, but only if the utilities can do so without incurring cost to consumers. Then I would tell the plaintiffs to take a deep breath and hold it. Then when they either faint or die, I would tell the utilities what the time of breath holding was. Then I would ask the utilities if they could stop making CO2 for that long without cost to consumers. When they say of course not, I would say the case was over.