🚀 go-pugleaf

(gary hammell) writes:

>Why doesn't someone sue an oil company or a car manufacturer for the 
>environmental damage they cause through the promotion/production of 
>their products.  Couldn't GreenPeace, or some other organization, 
>afford to do this.  The organization could act on behalf of both 
>humanity and every other species on earth.  What a precedent this 
>would set--if a company knowingly produces and promotes a substance or 
>product which is in anyway harmful to the biosphere, it would be 
>punished for putting all living organisms, including the owners of 
>whatever company it is, at risk of damage and/or extinction.
>

>Maybe if the case is won by the environmental group, that group could 
>demand that the company it won against release any suppressed patents 

Isn't there a 7-year limit on patents in the US, and after that time
the idea goes into the public domain?

I am skeptical about stories of suppressed patents, maybe because I have
heard too many preposterous claims (the 200 mile/gallon engine and
variations thereof).  I think that many brilliant ideas can die very
easily by simple neglect or lack of funding, it doesn't require active
suppression. 

>it had and pour money into research and development for clean fuel.

>One thing I don't understand is why oil companies haven't 
>themselves exploited the environmental movement yet.  If they, right 
>now, offered the public a clean burning fuel, they'd corner the market 
>and make tons of money.

It is true that whoever can figure out how to make fuels burn cleaner
earns lots of money. For this reason, oil companies and auto companies
spend lots of money trying to figure out how to do this.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "exploiting the environmental 
movement". I would hope that this would include using the interested 
people and new information to identify important problems and solve them. 

>What do you all think about the "sue an oil company today" idea?

I think that if there are specific cases where harm is done, and a 
company refuses to try to help the victim or mitigate the damage, then
legal action may be in order. However, what you have described,

   "if a company knowingly produces and promotes a substance or
    product which is in anyway harmful to the biosphere, it would be
    punished..."

sounds more like you are fundamentally opposed to companies that do
certain kinds of business.  You don't leave much room for most of the
industries in the world.  If you were to sue all industries that
pollute, you would be in court a long time.  I think we all have better
things to do, fix and create.

Isn't it the responsibility of county, municipal, state, and
federal government, and developers to provide better mass transit and 
bike trails. We need to encourage and support this type of action.
And finally, isn't it the responsibility of the people 
to ride their bikes to work and use public transit instead of driving?

-Mitchell Craig, Geophysicist - hcrms@chevron.com