Rainforests

Predictions include a 20-40% reduction in the next ten, twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years; a 40% reduction in the next few (undefined) years (which has been debunked as fraud); total loss within the next one hundred years; or little to no change and possibly rebound due to intervention efforts.

There are many predictions regarding the rainforests of the world. Any of them could result. Currently, with the level of deforestation, it is likely that if nothing changes, the rainforests of South America may disappear in the next one hundred years.

Deforestation has been reduced in South America. While some muck slingers like to blame the US for much of the loss due to logging of exotic woods, the US has had a ban on imports of exotics such as Brazilian mahogany and tropical rosewood for years. This is supported by the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. SS 3371-3378), especially the 2008 amendment that includes exotic woods the US specifically bans and those products that are banned by the nations in which they are harvested. In short, it ain't us. This isn't to imply that illegal operations don't continue, but the efforts of the US are to stop it from coming here.

Much of the cleared land in Columbia and Brazil are for those nations' own interests. Logging is minor (although devastating to the land and ecosystem) in the grander scheme, playing further back in the pack of reasons to cattle raising for beef and agriculture (which leads to clear cutting of forests) to feed the growing populations of South American countries.

The rainforests of the Amazon basin are much more resilient than many people believe. The 2007 IPCC report that predicted a 40% reduction in the near future of the Amazon forest has proven to be false, perhaps even fabricated to push other agendas.

By all means, no one should take a "wait and see" attitude. Reforestation and protection efforts are important, should continue, and should even be increased. But, this should be for the right reasons, not because of some knee-jerk reaction to doom-criers.

Homeowners Insurance and hired workers

Homeowners Insurance doe snot typically extend coverage to hired contractors or their workers. It is the Employers responsibility to provide workers compensation to cover employees work related injuries while on the job. So you would need to sue your boss, Not the customer. In Fact the homeowner could sue you and your boss if they find that your employer failed to provide required coverage for his employees or otherwise misrepresented himself.

Also bare in mind that although anybody can sue anyone in the USA for almost anything they want too, Since "Tort Reform" Should you lose your suit. You can be held liable for all costs incurred by the person you sued in fighting the case. Including Attorney fees, Court costs, Lost wages and any other conceivably legitimate expense incurred. In other words, Sue and lose, You pay everybody's legal bills

More s

How about just getting your own medical coverage? Are you covered by Worker's Compensation? Probably not. You can get medical coverage proposals if you do have Medical Coverage, have you checked to see if there's a "lien" provision. That is, if you get paid for medical bills, the Insurance Company gets reimbursed.

Was the customer negligent? How? 1- if you were working for a company at the time then you are/should be covered under Workman's comp.

2- why do YOU want to sue the customer - did he cause the problem? Was he negligent or was it you? Was it just a simple accident?

3- how long after the fact is this?

4- your claim should be with the company you work for - let them deal with any potential law suits not you

Even though you are on the job working in a customer's home, you may file a lawsuit against the homeowner if the owner's negligence caused the injury. You may also file a Workers Compensation claim against the employer. The catch is that while the potential for a larger recovery of damages is greater in the suit against the owner than against the employer, the claim against the employer is more definite. The other catch is that if you get paid Workers Comp benefits and then collect in the private lawsuit, you may have to reimburse the Workers Compensation company for the what it paid you from the money you get from the civil suit. You can't collect damages from two different sources for the same injury.

Yes, you may sue your employer even if the injury isn't serious so long as you were hurt and the working conditions were hazardous to you.

However, take note that if you availed of benefits under Worker's Compensation, you waive your right to sue your employer for the injury in exchange for such benefits. But if your injury aside from being incurred while on the job, happened due to the fault or negligence of another (such as the customer who left a hazardous condition on the premises), you may sue the 3rd party but not your employer.