Bishop Hill Zac paying greens to sue city bigwigs
Oct 8, 2015 Climate: Parliament Greens 
A group called Client Earth is threatening to sue big UK businesses for not doing as greens tell them on the climate change front.
The Companies Act 2006 codifies directors’ duties in law for the first time. They must “promote the success of the company”, first by considering “the likely consequences of any decision in the long term”. Failing to plan for climate change is incompatible with this and other duties and leaves directors open to legal challenge.
The case for climate litigation against reckless directors grows ever stronger. Increased regulation, changing market dynamics and heightened risk to physical assets means maintaining the status quo is no longer an option for those keen to protect their finances and reputation.
We at ClientEarth are closely monitoring the activities of FTSE 250 companies. We will pursue those directors who fail to protect their investors from the challenge that climate change presents. Those intent on following a business-as-usual model, be warned: the “usual” has changed.
Even Guardian readers seem unimpressed.
So who is behind Client Earth? A list of their funders is quite interesting, including the City of London Corporation Charity and...wait for it...the personal charity of Zac and Ben Goldsmith. Yes that's right folks, the aspirant mayor of London is paying greens to sue the companies that bring the wealth to the city.
It's an interesting tactic.
Reader Comments (45)
Blue painted watermelons. Just what we needed,
Looks like a fair amount of EU funding going into this lot, by the looks of things. Nuff said!
The Goldsmiths are the most scurrilous family in modern British history. Their crimes continue.
"Lucan believed Britain had been brought to its knees by the unions and was in need of a strong leader. By the early Seventies he and his friends in the gentlemen's clubs and gambling dens of Mayfair brayed about overthrowing Harold Wilson's Labour government.
There is no suggestion Lucan was in any way anti-Semitic or supported the Final Solution. But he and his associates, who included casino owner and party host John Aspinall, and the tycoon Sir James Goldsmith, were increasingly convinced Britain had fallen victim to a socialist conspir acy. Daily Express journalist Charles Benson, one of Lucan's friends, said: 'He was very right wing and never watered it down in front of liberals. He would talk about hanging and flogging and niggers to get a reaction.'
One biographer, Patrick Marnham, said: 'Seen from the Clermont Club [Lucan's favourite gambling haunt], the country was starting to resemble the less stable years of the Weimar Republic. Sir James Goldsmith began to develop his theory of "the Communist infiltration of the Western media". Over the smoked salmon and lamb cutlets, the talk turned to the pros and cons of a British military coup.'
It may seem difficult to believe now, nearly eight years into the most secure Labour government in British history, but across the country pockets of the traditional ruling class were preparing for military action. General Sir Walter Walker, former commander of allied forces in northern Europe, formed the Concerned Citizens' Vigilante Association to stamp out Communism in Wiltshire, and Colonel David Stirling, founder of the SAS, invited volunteers to join his 'strike-breaking army' to crush the unions.
According to former MI5 officer Peter Wright, a group of his colleagues, including Margaret Thatcher's mentor Airey Neave, began discussing a political coup. According to Wright, they believed that the Labour government had been infiltrated by the KGB and should be overthrown. He also claimed they were backed by a right-wing financier. Goldsmith always denied he put the money behind the group or discussed MI5 matters with former intelligence officers.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jan/09/politics.past
Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Father of the British Green movement Founder of the Ecology Party.
"Black Shirts in Green Trousers
The far right is moving in, and greens and globalisation campaigners must do more to shut it out.
The BNP is not the only force on the far right which now describes itself as “the true green party”. Similar claims have been made by members of Le Pen’s Front National, by the Vlaams Blok in Belgium and, in Britain, by a tiny offshoot of the National Front which calls itself Third Way. This is the group which most clearly articulates the way in which the politics of the hard right are shifting.
The previous editorial team split with its founder Teddy Goldsmith after he addressed a meeting of the hard right Groupement de Recherche et d’Etudes pour la Civilisation Europeene. Goldsmith, whose politics are a curious mixture of radical and reactionary, has advocated the enforced separation of Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda and Protestants and Catholics in Ulster, on the grounds that they constitute “distinct ethnic groups” and are thus culturally incapable of co-habitation.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/30/black-shirts-in-green-trousers
Some ex-Labour, Greepeace, ClientEarth chap was on Tom Heap's latest 'Costing the earth' programme. Dreadful fellow.
Since the companies that are the top of the hit list are most likely to go bust should there ever need to be massive cuts in CO2, why would the companies give a stuff if someone is threatening to sue them? It's like the stranded assets thing - the argument is - 'you'll have to leave your assets in the ground eventually, why not give them up now?' To which the only logical asnwer is 'sod off'.
So they've realised that the carrot of outrageous subsidies for green boondoggles hasn't changed the world, and it's time for a bit more stick? Well, the greens generally do tend to favour the stick, but they're gonna need a bigger stick to change the whole world.
And when they've driven remaining industry to China, there will be fewer targets for them to beat with their big green stick.
Piss of rich boy.
So if companies or individuals have followed Green Diktats, and gone bust, lost their jobs/homes etc, who do they sue?
It would be appropriate if Zac and his backers could clarify this issue before inciting too much litigation. Obviously Zac with all his wealth, thinks he has RICO 20 immunity from the consequences of his stupidity.
Could Zac see his way to compensating those who lost out due to his father's predatory greed?
How should Green Wasters be recycled?
How completely dystopian has society become?
They can't take legal action based on actual observable risks, so they take action against them for not taking action to meet future regulation these lobby groups are demanding in response to these unobservable risks.
I can't think of a more overt abuse of the legal system and the most dubiously redraft Company law.
He's a Zac of greenshit.
Well the easiest thing for companies to do is write up their climate action plan that echoes the IPCC AR5 report in noting that there is very little obvious climate change at all in the last 100 years (none of which was in the last 18 years), never mind manmade climate change which depends solely on attribution from unverified models that have obviously been running too hot thus far. A compelling case for business as usual!
Zac and his cronies really ought to specify the proof that they are going to rely on in court, otherwise they will appear as a bunch of Big Green Blouses, self inflated with time expired hot air.
One could make a case that directors must consider likely WEATHER extremes, e.g. don't erect something that will get blown down in the first gale, but that cannot extend to unpredictable climate changes. The problem is of course that many people (including judges?) have been led to believe that every weather extreme is due to "climate change".
This may be a good business opportunity for sceptics, provision of scientific advice in legal cases against capitalists, a chance to benefit a bit from the Green Gravy Train.
golf charlie
or those now finally deceased who help murderers escape justice.Allegedly.
This is an undercover, financial blackmail operation from a guy whose family are well known for their anti democratic and unconventional politics. It's insane to treat it as if it's just another legitimate campaign tactic
It's an interesting concept 'protecting investors' since they are protected from nothing else, not even criminality.
Isn't this the little turd, who said, when asked to explain the melting ice-caps of Mars, that Mars was closer to the Sun than the Earth! Clearly his priviledged & presumably expnsive education has let him down!
If that doesn't clinch the Labour vote for London Mayor then the Labour candidate isn't trying very hard. The Conservatives will be rueing the day they let this weirdo stand.
While it's free to threaten to sue, it's another matter winning a civil case. Losing a civil prosecution case can get rather expensive.
Didn't daddy buy and fortify a slab of Mexico to ship out Zac and the brood to sit out the apocalypse?
What a shame they didn't stay down there
There's something seriously amiss with this outfit's financial report. In the latest annual review, that for 2014, their expenditure includes GBP162,989 for fundraising costs and GBP31,848 for "governance". However, they maintain three offices, London, Brussels and Warsaw and employ 69 staff and interns. It would appear that the staff and interns are working for nothing, or at best, peanut shells. I would assume that the staff and other costs are hidden in the outlay on the various "charitable activity" programmes and it's a fair bet that any charitable disbusements are on the low side - especially as in 2014 they managed to retain nearly 20% of the incoming funds.
Client Earth is being less than honest.
And would not a litigation campaign come under the heading of political activity?
tomo
Yes he did, an ecological paradise to avoid having to watch the oinks chomping the planet.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1997/05/goldsmith199705
The lawfare thing is the latest string in the bow of Greenies.They have have tried it a few times in the US and failed, but have perhaps picked a softer target this time.
I hope not.
Has anyone told Guido? He likes this sort of story!
I wrote 'undercover' because the big money (the Goldsmith family) is hiding behind a front organisation (Client Earth).
It's blackmail because as Capell wrote 'While it's free to threaten to sue, it's another matter winning a civil case.' It's the threat that matters.
Once again, Green is not Red.
Delingpole's Watermelon idea is flawed.
The problem is with the Greens. He also has a problem with the Reds.
But they aren't the same problems.
What kind of fruit is blue on the outside and green in the middle?
An aphid infested blueberry?
Sounds like the "Sue and Settle" technique has been imported from the US Environmental Protection Agency, one of Obama's extra-legislative arms of government .
"Environmental groups sue the EPA, arguing that the agency is taking too long to issue a particular regulation or that the agency isn’t meeting a specific legal requirement. The EPA can then either defend itself in court or settle with the environmentalists."
If used correctly, they will extract the financing to sue government entities from the agency itself.
https://epafacts.com/transparency-problems/collusion-with-environmental-activists/
This looks like s.172 of the 2006 Act, a notorious dog's breakfast. Only companies can sue their own directors for 'failure of duty', though with the Court's permission individual shareholders can sue individual directors in the company's name. Even if permission is granted and the case succeeds, as far as I can see the sole remedy is for the negligent director to make good any loss consequent on his failure....to the company, which keeps the money.
Any company which receives greenmail like this will, I am fairly sure, refer it to their lawyers who will send a suitably dusty reply to the 'shareholder/s' in question.
I am sure the last thing these peeps actually want, is to get into court over AGW! It all depends upon what they are claiming 7 who their "expert" witnesses are, I am sure. However, it could be an opportunity to lay the whole ghastly ediface bare, which they may not want to risk doing!
Betapug, sue and settle type actions do rely on the assumption by both sides that there is evidence, or at least sufficient doubt.
As there is no evidence of any warming for about 20 years, during which time CO2 levels have risen ......
Makes me wonder why Mann is not to keen to appear in court.
If temperatures had risen in accordance with the Hockey Stick, I would not be posting here. In fact, this site probably would not exist.
Phil D, so if a bunch of shareholders sued the company, and the company went bust, the shareholders would be left with a share of nothing.
This would seem to be a cynical attempt to cash in on gullible shareholders, persuade them to sell, so the Green capitalists, such as Zac can preserve their father's legacy. Maybe Zac is a chip off the old block, not the soviet bloc after all.
davidchappell +1
This was discussed at BH a while ago in the context of the amount government funding going their way:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/8/air-quality.html
They must "promote the success of the company", first by considering "the likely consequences of any decision in the long term".
Agreed any director that doesn't do this should be removed. But when we get to Failing to plan for climate change is incompatible with this and other duties and leaves directors open to legal challenge. One has to wonder just what the twit means by 'climate change'.
I would go as far as saying that any director that falls for the false pronouncements of the green climate change religion and pushes for their adoption is not promoting the success of the company and should also be removed no matter what the greens say and think.
Green investments keep going bust, and Green recyclers keep going up in toxic flames.
Where is the Green money sueing the Directors for defamation of all things Green? Clearly these companies were set up to take advantage of climate change hysteria, yet the taxpayer is left with the unpaid bills, having subsidised the Director's lifestyles. Green investment gurus must be greedy and incapable of giving good advice.
I recall Private eye's spats with 'Goldenballs', Zac's dad, who tried to sue them out of existence, so perhaps this will finally spur the editor out of his Green torpor...
I wonder if Zac and the rest of his family will be flying off , in their private jet, to their private Island for sunny Xmas this year , has they have on so many occasions?
And if your wondering how it is all being paid for , daddy was a first class assist stripper, people who made the worst hedge fund managers look like the worlds nicest people, happy to gut companies for anything they where worth and leave a broken shell , and workers well behind them has they moved on to their next victim .
Alan the Brit has beaten me to it:
Mikky
The courts (even now) require proof and demonstration of the effects. The judges may "believe" they know, but when the litmus test comes, you can be sure that the Greenies would lose out in spectacular fashion.
I would hope that any British court, when dealing with something like the Sierra Club (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/ted-cruz-destroys-sierra-club-presidents-global-warming-claims-senate-hearing/) would not let "the 97% of Scientists" defence stand up.
They are crumbling the AGW lot, it is slow, but I think we are actually beginning to see the end of days for the Global Warming brigade.
@ RockySpears: Oops, sorry!
Oct 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterRockySpears
Sadly that just means they move on to the Sustainability crap, ho hum.
I am sure that the chaps at ClientEarth have robust and unambiguous ways of calculating the precise impact on future returns that climate change presents. Otherwise there are in effect trying to force directors to alter strategy and invest in schemes whose benefits are highly uncertain and a long time in the future. Any responsible director would discount both for the future and for uncertainty of returns. What is more, the rational reaction over business-threatening random events in the distant future is to invest short-term, and aim to return money to the shareholders. Without this information, ClientEarth are trying to force directors to work against the interests of their business, and thus potentially in breach a number of their duties as Directors under the Companies Act. Most importantly, in the face of competing interests, the directors must make a balanced decision. In the absence of ClientEarth producing a means for calculating the precise impacts of climate change, yet causing directors to alter strategy, they should be sued by the pension funds on behalf of working people whose retirements they are jeopardizing.
Obviously if these companies employ a Director of Green, approved by clientearth, at a vastly inflated salary, they will be left alone. Climate Protection Money I think they call it. It must be working, because the climate has not changed.
James Goldsmith was the parasite that ate Britain. Adam Curtis documentary - 'The Mayfair Set'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U-sNn28dJk
This is a greenmail scheme writ large: They are going to make a cozy fortune playing their London City role into corporate boardrooms and doing a shakedown for so-called "green" causes.
Burn the heretics - 'twas ever thus.