Some quick numbers here. Let's look at a worst case scenario for cost attribution. Vermont is leading the way, claiming a recent flood was caused by evil oil companies. Every assumption can be challenged scientifically, but I'll just plow ahead.

Global CO2 emissions are indeed global. The biggest contributor is China coal, with 14.%. ExxonMobil produces products which contribute 2% of the global emissions when burned.

Recent floods in Vermont produced 420 million dollars in damage. Suppose the courts rule that global warming of a degree or two, 100% caused by anthropogenic CO2, made the floods 10% worse. They also rule that it is Exxon's fault for selling the stuff, not the fault of the end users. Exxon's share of the bill would be 2% of 10% of 420 mil or 840K. This would be challenged in the courts every step of the way. A nasty mess, profitable to lawyers and little else.

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.