Talk:Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.

Comments

The entry for Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al - should move out of just the scope of the WikiProject Alaska. It is a Federal suit with national and global impact. It should also be associated with the global warming wiki group. And is there a group for US law?

This lawsuit may be one of the most important of our time because it directly intersects Federal case law with global warming. Filed as a nuisance suit, it charges "defendant's contributions to global warming through emissions of large quantities of greenhouse gases".

Perhaps just as important, The Kivalina suit charges fossil fuel companies with civil conspiracy "intended to suppress the knowledge of the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, thereby furthering the defendants' abilities to contribute to global warming." And they are asking for damages from un-named co-conspirators; that could be PR agencies, think tanks or media outlets -- any media with a relationship with big coal/oil - possibly even those who made and delivered advertising.

The case will define how far Federal courts can reach into the issue of global warming, free speech, CO2 industries. There may be much passion and politics around this case.

However it resolves, it will be a huge precedent. And if it prevails we will see more cases filed leading to a substantial halting of CO2 ouput... otherwise it will be hands off and the heat is on full blast.

Recently, some climate science blogs (realclimate.org, climateprogress.org) are discussing the subject of denialism and the curious phenomenon of coordinated and strident denials of global warming science. The Kivalina lawsuit may now reveal whether much of the global warming denial effort is a well-funded business tactic.

We might expect much more scrutiny of this specific suit. Rpauli (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Article III

Can this be explained a bit more. What does the Constitution article actually say and how does it related to the standing of Kivalina ? Shyamal (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to see this added. I added a link to Article_III#Cases_and_controversies, but it's still a bit obscure to this non-lawyer. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Here are some comments - some are already fixed Shyamal (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• https://www.uchastings.edu/wnw/docs/Kivalina-Amicus-Gray-Faulk.pdf - perhaps this has something to add
• bare links are considered bad practice - use Template:cite news - have done up a few
• Some links have gone dead - replacements would be needed, this is why print references which are also visible online are still considered superior
• some terms would be nice if introduced and used with links - the terms plaintiffs, appellants, defendants, appellees, standing etc for instance can be hard to place immediately for non-law-literate readers.
• the lead does not need referencing as it is a summary of the main text where sources need to be indicated

Peer Reviews

Your case is written very well! Just minor suggestions to clean up your article. You should indent the quotes that you have under the Village issue and Kavalina’s Standing sections. Also under the Kavalina’s standing, there’s no need for bullets. You can replace it with numbers and delete the “first” and “second.” (See the Mass v. EPA case as an example) Slum125 (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to expand on why Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong dismissed the ruling. You ended it with her quote but I don't quite understand "This court is not so sanguine." Slum125 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Slum125 for the great tips, I made the changes let me know what you think. Hle37 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Hle37

Peer Review

Hey Josh and Huy-

The article is so well written and organized efficiently. I only have a few minor suggestions.

• Maybe expand on Kivalina’s standing section by giving some information on “Article III.”
• Under the section “Nature of suit” you have a sentence; “The lawsuit was filed in California because that's where many of the defendants do business” is sort of vague. Why do many of the defendants do business there? Maybe expand on that or take it out.
• A very very minor issue. I think that in your headers for the sections having unison lettering might have a better overall look. Either all capital first letters or capital first letter and lowercase EX: Nature of the suit and District Court Ruling

Other than that it looks really great. Keep up the good work.Kkihara (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

Josh and Huy,

Your article is very well written, concise and straight to the point. I also really like the layout of your article. I just have a couple minor suggestions:

• I was left wanting a little more information on how the village residents were able to relocate to the new town under the Village Issue section. Perhaps just a sentence or two on how they were able to relocate and whether or not it played a role in the case.
• Under the Kivalina Standing section you have a quote "there is no way to trace emissions...." I would suggest adding a little context - who said it, when, etc.
• In the District Court Ruling section I noticed the text doesn't tie back to your very first paragraph in the article about the court decision that "regulating GHG emissions is a political rather than legal issue". This is an interesting statement so I would suggest describing it a bit more.
• Lastly, where does the case stand now? I see that Kivalina appealed in 2009 but I'm curious as to what happended after that.

Overall, great job! Elyane (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Great feedback, thanks again Hle37 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Hle37

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828090915/http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf to http://climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110926111301/http://www.climatelaw.org:80/cases/country/us/kivalina/kivalina to http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/kivalina
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123091754/http://www.globalclimatelaw.com:80/2009/10/articles/climate-change-litigation/kivalina-global-warming-litigation-dismissed-on-political-question-grounds/? to http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/2009/10/articles/climate-change-litigation/kivalina-global-warming-litigation-dismissed-on-political-question-grounds/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080920094236/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2008/WORLD/americas/02/26/us.warming.ap/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/02/26/us.warming.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100808193722/http://www.kivalinacity.com:80/kivalinarelocation.html to http://www.kivalinacity.com/kivalinarelocation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828090915/http://climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf to http://climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321034317/http://www.pawalaw.com/assets/docs/kivalina-final-relay-brief-ecf.pdf to http://www.pawalaw.com/assets/docs/kivalina-final-relay-brief-ecf.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of San Francisco supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)