ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

THE TOXIC MOLD LEGAL LANDSCAPE

     I am a columnist for the Warner Center News (Woodland Hills, California); my column is entitled "Legal News You Can Use". Here is my recent column on toxic mold, which summarizes the present state of the toxic mold legal landscape:

What is “toxic” mold?

     Mold is a naturally-occurring fungus which serves the necessary function of digesting dead wood, leaves and other bio-refuse.  In your house or business, however, you of course don’t want that function occurring on yourwood.

     In addition to feeding on things like wood, mold needs water to survive. That’s why wet or damp environments inside your home or business are natural places for mold to form.

     “Toxic” mold is so called because certain types of the fungus produce chemicals knows as mycotoxins.  These toxins are thought by some to produce acute reactions in susceptible people, ranging, among other things, from allergies, rashes, headaches and fatigue to dizziness and inability to concentrate.  However, regarding such reactions, it is generally agreed that when a person is removed from the source of the problem (the mold), the problem goes away.

     The real controversy is whether toxic mold can produce “chronic” reactions-that is, reactions that don’t go away even when the person is removed from the mold exposure.  Plaintiffs’ lawyers and their experts contend that toxic mold can cause asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and even cancer, among many other terrible things.

What does science say about “toxic” mold exposure?

     There is significant doubt, however, regarding whether these chronic conditions are in fact mold-driven.  For example, the Centers for Disease Control states on its website that, with the possible exception of asthma, a cause-and-effect relationship between mold exposure and chronic illness has yet to be proven. Moreover, neither the federal nor State government has issued any “Permissible Exposure Limits” regarding toxic mold.  In 2001, California enacted the Toxic Mold Protection Act, which required that a study be done to see if such limits could be formulated. Four years later, however, the study group reported that there simply was insufficient scientific consensus to come up with exposure limits.

How have the Courts treated toxic-mold claimants?

     Nonetheless, this doubt has not stopped Plaintffs’ lawyers, in some cases successfully, from trying to convince Courts and juries that their clients’ medical problems are linked to their mold exposure. There may be as many as 10,000 toxic-mold cases now pending nationwide in the Courts; the results have ranged all the way from a $32 million verdict in Texas to defense rulings in New York and other States.

     If there is any unifying theme in the cases, it is that juries seem to be sympathetic to claimants where the injury appears severe and the defendant landlord, contractor, etcetera either acted indifferently to the claimant’s pleas and/or performed remedial work in a negligent fashion.  With the science so much in doubt, juries may be making up for such doubt by penalizing the defendant who does not show proper cocnern. Therefore, if you’re on the receiving end of a mold claim, responding quickly, decisively and with concern may go a long way to limit your liability in any subsequent litigation.

LIVE EARTH HYPOCRISY

...even as an estimated 2 billion people watched its concerts across seven continents organisers were again forced to defend charges of hypocrisy. The latest attacks came after US television network Fox revealed Live Earth's London headline act, pop star Madonna, had invested in some of America's most polluting companies. Fox reported Madonna's charitable Ray of Light Foundation has $US4.2 million ($A4.9 million) invested in heavily polluting companies such as aluminium company Alcoa and the Ford Motor Company.

***

"The artists formerly known as huge carbon footprints," sniffed a headline in London's The Guardian by columnist Marina Hyde, pointing out the contradiction in having pop stars, such as the Police's Sting, who has advertised luxury Jaguar sports cars, exhorting people to save energy.

The Age (Australia), July 8, 2007.

100,000 trees needed to offset carbon footprint of Live Earth

John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, said Saturday that Live Earth will produce about 74,500 tons of the gas.

"We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic."

     The Washington Post, July 8, 2007.

     OK.  Who is going to plant those trees-- the performers and former Veep Al Gore, who have just created the problem, or the rest of us pedestrians?

PROPOSING A CARBON TAX-AND HOPING PROPOSAL FAILS

     In a rare admission by a Congressman that there is no free lunch, we have this report today from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 6 — A powerful House Democrat said on Friday that he planned to propose a steep new “carbon tax” that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal, in a move that could shake up the political debate on global warming.

The proposal came from Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it runs directly counter to the view of most Democrats that any tax on energy would be a politically disastrous approach to slowing global warming.

But Mr. Dingell, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on C-Span, suggested that his goal was to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. His message appeared to be that Democratic leaders were setting unrealistic legislative goals.

***

     Full article at link above.

"The crowd is mad"

     It's Live Earth weekend, for which the entertainers involved (and former Veep Al Gore) will travel multiple times the circumferance of the Earth to get to their venues in an attempt to convince the rest of us we travel too much. Yet one more academic (see "Global Warming" Posts under "Categories", right-hand side of this page) speaks out--going farther than challenging this global warming frenzy as hypocrisy and stating it is madness.  From ABC Western Queensland:    

An Australian academic has spoken out against the popular view that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. He believes that global warming and climate change are caused by cycles in the sun's electro-magnetic radiation. He says scientists are taking a narrow view and politicians are making policy with the wrong information.

Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO is a former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University. He told Tom Harwood, ABC Western Queensland's Morning Program producer that the world has been warming naturally due to increased magnetic radiation from the sun.

***

The professor is adamant that the concept of carbon trading is absolute madness. "What terrifies me is the way the state governments in Australia with their emissions trading they are contemplating using the superannuation funds to invest in carbon trading - they're going to lose their money!"

He says governments are getting tied-up with carbon trading for commercial and political reasons - not scientific reasons.

***

He said a lot of the business of carbon trading and global warming is just a popular delusion. He refers to a book written by Mackay in the 1840s called "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds". "We've got it now... he could se[e] it 150 years ago - the crowd is mad!"

TWO NEW STORIES ON THE CHINESE PEOPLE'S PARADISE

     According a Yahoo! News report published July 3, 90 percent of China's groundwater and 70 percent of its waterways are polluted.

     And, according to a blog called China Daily, "River is polluted by chemical fertilizer,pesticide,herbicides,chemical synthetic detergent(washing powders),industry waste water,human excrement and urine,garbage.waste water excrement and urine flow directly into river without any sanitation practices.the most river in china is unsuitable for drinking.many china people is harmed by drinking water in polluted river."

     Sobering.

'Scepticism' over climate claims

     The BBC News reports today:

'Scepticism' over climate claims

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

     Full article at link above.