Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Kathleen Bacheller
434 followers
434 followers
About
Kathleen's posts

Post has attachment

Just learned about this----too cool!

Post has attachment
Cute story.😚👍

Post has attachment
It doesn't cost a thing to click and help feed these needy animals plus they sell some really cool stuff! Everything you buy earns bowls of food, win/win! 😍

Post has shared content
I am ashamed.
What do you guys think about this ? 
Photo

Post has attachment
Love the comment about the Gulf!  He's right...give it a BREAK!!!!! Stop FRACKING!

Post has attachment
Just like the thought. I love Jules Vernes' work. :)
Photo

Post has shared content
Surely this should not have happened. 
What do you guys think about this ? 
Photo

Post has shared content
Bad news.
Opinion analysis: Court’s narrow reading of Superfund’s preemption provision leaves victims of toxic exposure without legal recourse

Yesterday in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, the Court ruled – by a vote of seven to two –that the provision of the federal Superfund law (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA) that tolls state statutes of limitations until after victims of toxic exposure have discovered their harm, 42 U.S.C. § 9658, does not apply to state statutes of repose.  Statutes of repose set deadlines on the filing of litigation that do not turn on when harm is first discovered.  The decision rested on the majority’s interpretation of the statutory language of CERCLA, which refers only to “statutes of limitations” and not “statutes of repose.”  Even though two of the Justices in the majority admitted at oral argument that they were not aware until recently of any distinction between the two, the majority concluded that Congress had been aware of the distinction when it amended CERCLA in 1986.  

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer dissented, finding that Congress had implicitly preempted statutes of repose because they interfere with the congressional purpose of preserving legal recourse for victims of toxic exposures that cause harm with long latency periods.

The decision reverses a Fourth Circuit judgment that had reinstated a lawsuit by a group of North Carolina homeowners who discovered that their well water was contaminated by toxic chemicals decades after an industrial facility owned by CTS Corporation had ceased operations. Because North Carolina has a statute of repose that bars lawsuits from being filed more than ten years after the defendant’s last action, the trial court had dismissed the lawsuit.  As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the homeowners’ lawsuit once again will be dismissed.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opinion-analysis-courts-narrow-reading-of-superfunds-preemption-provision-leaves-victims-of-toxic-exposure-without-legal-recourse/#more-212829

Supreme Court Decision Is A Boon For Polluters, Critics Say

"Ludicrous." "Unconscionable." "A slap in the face."

A Supreme Court ruling on Monday in favor of a corporation accused of contaminating a North Carolina community has been met with words of outrage from victims and advocates.

The 7-2 vote in the case of CTS Corp. v. Waldburger blocks a group of landowners in Asheville, North Carolina from pursuing compensation for property and health damage allegedly caused by toxic chemicals released from a former CTS electronics plant.

Indirectly, critics warn, the decision may also eliminate recourse for veterans sickened by historically contaminated water at a North Carolina Marine Corps base, and may motivate corporations to cover up current and future pollution events long enough to escape liability. The decision, critics say, will trigger profound and unjust environmental health consequences across the U.S.

"It's very devastating to me," said Dot Rice, 76, of Asheville, who lives about a thousand feet from the CTS site. "The contamination has gotten much worse. There are more people getting sick and now there can be nothing done about it."

CTS shut down its Asheville plant and sold the property in 1987. Despite evidence of continuing chemical exposures in the community's air and water, a North Carolina statute cuts off a company's liability 10 years after its last contaminating act. In other words, according to the law's language, the deadline for filing claims came and went in 1997 -- years before Asheville residents were informed of the contamination, and well before many got sick. (The residents' illnesses can't be definitively linked to contamination from the plant.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/supreme-court-cts-contamination_n_5476938.html?ir=Green&utm_campaign=061014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=Title

I hate the U.S. Supreme so much. 
Photo

Post has shared content
Please, anyone in the area if you can help....or please keep passing the word. 
Please Help Us. TO BE DESTROYED FRIDAY JUNE 6.2014
#animallovers   #dogs   #urgentpart2  
TO ADOPT AN  ANIMAL THROUGH THE PUBLIC ADOPTION SITE, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK AND SCROLL DOWN TO BOTTOM TO LOG IN AND RESERVE THE ANIMAL. THERE WILL BE A $50 DEPOSIT REQUIRED.http://www.nycacc.org/PublicAtRisk.htm
For more information on adopting from the NYC AC&C, or to find a rescue to assist, please read the following: http://urgentpetsondeathrow.org/must-read
#animallovers   #dogs   #urgentpart2  
Show less
Animated Photo

Post has shared content
I guess not!!!























Big Carbon's Big Liability

A new and potentially potent weapon is being unleashed in the climate wars. Yesterday, three major international environmental organizations warned the corporate executives of some of the largest fossil fuel companies that they could be personally liable for damages for funding climate change denialists and working against efforts to slow climate change.

The notice came in the form of a letter, signed by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the Center for International Environmental Law, that was sent to the directors and officers of thirty-two of the “carbon majors”—the ninety companies that a recent groundbreaking study (see “Paying the Price,” The Nation, May 12, 2014) demonstrated may be responsible for some two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Forty-four of the insurance companies that underwrite the carbon majors also received letters.

Those receiving letters include petroleum giants ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, plus most of the world’s largest coal companies, including Peabody Energy, Murray Energy and Arch Coal—all investor-owned firms. Insurers included American International Group, Berkshire Hathaway, Prudential Financial and The Hartford.

The letters ask whether Big Carbon’s corporate officers are covered in the event they are found to have misled regulators or the public about the inherent climate risks of their fossil fuel products— liabilities some experts think could amount to many billions of dollars that have gone unmentioned in the energy industry’s annual reports, SEC statements and other filings.

The three NGOs warn that “dissemination of false, misleading or intentionally incomplete information about the climate risks associated with fossil fuel products and services to regulators, shareholders and insurers could pose a risk to directors and officers personally.”

Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, said the letter campaign is intended both to elicit information and to “start a conversation about climate inside the companies, and with the public and investors.”

That conversation is already well underway in the insurance industry and among the law firms specializing in coverage issues.

“Corporations and their management and directors are facing more risks in connection with climate change-related financial disclosures and the potential for shareholder and derivative suits based on alleged climate change-related financial nondisclosures,” wrote two lawyers with Anderson Kill & Olick, an American law firm specializing in insurance issues, in a 2011 article.

So-called directors and officers’ insurance, or D&O policies, which are designed to insulate high-level executives from liability for corporate wrongdoing, usually include exceptions both for misconduct and for pollution, Muffett noted. And many insurers are acutely aware Big Carbon may be courting disaster by denying or minimizing climate risks.

Some eight years ago, Christopher Walker, who headed the greenhouse gas risk solutions unit at Swiss Re, a “reinsurer” that, in essence, insures insurance companies, envisioned a scenario where Swiss Re would tell ExxonMobil that “since you don’t think climate change is a problem, and you’re betting your stockholders’ assets on that, we’re sure you won’t mind if we exclude climate-related lawsuits from your D&O insurance.”

A key element in the liability picture is the fact that 80 percent of the fuel reserves held by Big Carbon can’t be burned without pushing global temperatures well beyond the tipping point for climate catastrophe— yet stock markets use those reserves in valuing energy companies. But if legal action—or the threat of it—suddenly makes clear that hidden costs negate much or all of the value of these energy assets, then capital—especially pension funds and other institutional investors—may migrate to greener pastures.

All of which could be a big part of the answer to the question, raised by Chris Hayes in The Nation in “The New Abolitionism,” as to how Big Carbon might give up its trillions in fuel reserves.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180051/big-carbons-big-liability#
Photo
Wait while more posts are being loaded