Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Colorado local governments are worried that global warming might melt their ski season.
Latest legal fight accusing oil companies of climate change launched in Colorado
Sebastien Malo
APRIL 18, 2018 / 9:00 AM
NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Three Colorado communities filed a lawsuit against oil companies on Tuesday, launching the latest legal battle seeking damages for what they claim are the costs of adapting to climate change.
The lawsuit, filed in Colorado by the city of Boulder and the counties of San Miguel and Boulder, accuses Suncor and Exxon Mobil Corp of creating a public nuisance by producing and selling fossil fuels that cause climate change.
…
Suncor and Exxon “sold and promoted fossil fuels knowing that climate impacts were substantially certain to occur if unchecked fossil fuel use continued,” the communities said in the complaint.
…
Their region of Colorado is vulnerable to a wide range of climate threats, from droughts that imperil farming to warm winters that harm the ski industry, they said.
“Climate change is not just about sea level rise. It affects all of us in the middle of the country as well,” said Elise Jones, a Boulder County commissioner, in a statement.
…
My thought – why should fossil fuel companies continue to sell their products in places where those products are no longer welcome?
Fossil fuel companies should respect the will of the people, by negotiating an orderly withdrawal of their services from counties and states which no longer want their evil dispatchable energy. Colorado counties opposed to fossil fuels could use this negotiated period of orderly withdrawal as an opportunity to restructure their winter economy around solar energy and wind power.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Boulder is hoping for an activist judge who will not throw their lawsuit out. Perhaps a countersuit by the oil companies would be in order.
You can read the entire complaint here: http://www.coloradodaily.com/latest-stories/ci_31810658/boulder-sues-exxon-suncor-climate-change
Never read anything so stupid!
For a start, the blame on CO2 usage simply falls on the shoulders of the end user.
All those people who drive motor vehicles, trucks and farm machinery that produce food for us and industry that produces things we need like houses, roads and aeroplanes – just about anything we use actually.
These are the evil people who demanded energy from Exxon, poor Exxon and other industries similar are just doing what the public demands.
And then there are the ski field operators. How about they use windmills and solar power to run their lifts, clear snow off the roads, groom the snow and keep skiers warm in the apre ski hidout (AKA bars and restaurants) and encourage customers to use carbon fuel to get to the ski field etc.
Maybe skiers should start making their skis out of wooden planks again. Those composite skis must use a lot of nasty CO2 emmissions to manufacture!
Eric is right! If I was Exxon, in response to their complaints, I would say “sorry” and cut their electricity supplier’s fuel oil and their diesel and petrol etc.
In fact its difficult to understand why such presumably sensible and responsible people are acting as if they are totally insane!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
“Stupid” does not begin to capture the shortcomings of this supposedly mature, intelligent, adult complaint [excuse me while I take a moment to scream laugh hysterically].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, … got it back together now.
From the complaint:
How many more times does this false assumption have to be shown totally at odds with real-world data (i.e., wrong, wrong, wrong) before ignorant government officials can start acting like intelleigent adults?!
What difference does it make what the Governor and General Assembly think?
Robert, you start from the premise that there is any set of circumstances in which “ignorant government officials can start acting like intelligent adults”. I challenge that premise. If they could act like adults, the vast majority of them wouldn’t be in government.
It only takes one. It’s what they do. At least they can’t sue and settle anymore to fund this tripe, via EPA collusion that is.
Are there any judges in Boulder who aren’t activists?
If I ran Exxon those judges would be walking to work in future.
Unfortunately all of the gas station owners are independently owned but contracted with their respective namesake suppliers to resell their product.
Though it would be nice if the station owners could show solidarity and refuse to sell gas for a couple of weeks (AKA months)…keep it in the ground (station storage tanks). It would cost the producer far less to pay the station owners not to open for a little while than to settle (or lose) these types of suits.
They should require the judge to testify himself that he doesn’t use fossil fuel, or else, give a mistrial. Because no judge that doesn’t use fossil fuels would be found, anywhere, ever, this is would an endless stream of mistrials.
You mean of course, leftist activists?
I’m ashamed to be from here. What a loony bin, on many levels. 208 sq mi surrounded by reality.
You should flee to San Francisco. Or Portland. Or Seattle …
You’ll be safe there.
I lived in Centennial for a couple of years. Beautiful country, nutty politics.
You know it’s not just happening in Boulder and Berkeley. In Miami, a bunch of young children are suing Rick Scott, Florida’s Republican governor (who’s term limited, out of office next January, now running for the Florida Senate seat) for not adequately protecting them from climate change. One of the kids on NPR said something like, you don’t want to step outside your front door and be standing in the ocean. Jesus Aitch….
Miami Herald (hard leftist slant) coverage: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article208967284.html
I hope some judge slaps down these nuisance lawsuits and demands the legal fees and court administration fees from the filers.
i suggest you start organising a change at the ballot box. the people running the show in colorado are obviously not fit for purpose.
the sooner the people running the oil companies take their heads out of their asses and start cutting supplies to these places the better.
Yes, a countersuit because the cities continued to sell the products, maintain pipelines, etc AFTER the CITY KNEW how evil the oil was. It’s the city’s fault as much as Exxon’s.
Quoting article commentary:
It doesn’t surprise me any given the fact that, …. To wit:
6 of the 9 Members of the Boulder City Council, Boulder, CO, or a 2/3rds majority, are females. https://bouldercolorado.gov/city-council
The 3 Members of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County CO, or a 100% majority, are females. https://www.bouldercounty.org/government/elected-officials/commissioners/
The 3 Members of the Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County CO, or a 100% majority, are females. https://www.sanmiguelcountyco.gov/279/BOCCCommissioners
Many women who are on these various types of Boards are eco-nuts.
Why negotiate an orderly withdrawal just stop selling oil there? It won’t long until before they are sued to be forced to sell oil.
Tom
Or just ban all incoming visitors travelling by fossil fuelled powered transport.
Indeed. No negotiation, simply and immediately cease selling fossil fuels there while there is pending ongoing litigation. Their tune will quickly change.
rogerthesurf may be on the right track. If Exxon might move to include every purchaser/user of hydrocarbon fuels in Colorado as co-defendants since the end user is the real “culprit”. And do it individually. This would mean the plaintiff would have to serve each and every car owner, rider – in fact – every citizen of the state which works out to be about 4 million and maybe the non-citizens as well. Supposing it cost around $40 to serve each defendant, that means the plaintiffs would have to fork over $160 million to serve all parties. And that’s just for starters. Continued legal filings, etc., would be on the order of $1 to $4 million for each and every step along the way.
If the court rules bringing in each citizen is too cumbersome (or other reason), then move to bring in the State of Colorado as the legal representative of the citizens as co-defendant. If the court rules against it, Exxon should appeal the ruling as interlocutory order that is prejudice to Exxon. Then go all the way to SCOTUS. Again, the defendant will have to pay.
Either bring in the real “criminals” (the uses of hydrocarbons that fuel the plaintiffs case (pun)) and/or make it so expensive that all the Green money on Earth can’t litigate it.
Not every person in the state but every person in the WORLD.
And take away their cheesey-poofs.
The good news though is that while the loon population may be threatened in the Northeast US it is thriving in Boulder.
ROFLMAO! Exactly. Pull out from California too!
Um…so if the climate does change naturally, or land use affects the amount of snowfall, how exactly does this help anything? How about investing in snow makers for ski-slopes. They don’t depend on made-up science. And work on the NATURALLY OCCURRING years when snow fall is light.
Most the tall mountains will continue to get snow just fine thank you. I was up on one a few years ago in August and got snowed on (and hailed on, and rained on… depending on the altitude).
Because liberal cities need more money to burn and raising taxes isn’t popular. So, sue the closest rich firm and get money that way. No science, just plain old-fashioned robbery at court gunpoint.
Also know as lawfare.
The NDP government in British Columbia (BC, Canada) is a minority and depends on the Green party to keep it in power. It is therefore trying every trick in the book to block expansion of a pipeline that would get Alberta oil to tidewater.
In response the government of Alberta is working on a bill that would cut off a large portion of BC’s gasoline. link Naturally, BC is threatening legal action to force Alberta to keep gasoline flowing in BC’s direction.
Hypocrisy writ large …
Maybe B.C. residents would prefer buying their petro and diesel fuel outside of B.C.?
They can fuel-up elsewhere and fill-up additional gas cans outside of the province.
Most BC residents are actually FOR the pipeline expansion, not against it.
I am in BC. You’re right, the majority are for the pipeline as am I. Most indigenous groups are for the pipeline. I think John Horgan is sucking up to the green party just to stay in power. He knows he will be defeated on this issue, maybe he just wants to show the green party he is faithful to them. In the meantime, the cost of fuel is shooting up (now equiv. to $5.30/gallon where I live, and $5.90/gallon in Vancouver)
Just who, do you reckon, is the category of oil products consumers who are the largest users of the products as well as electricity from all sources and thus are the largest producers of CO2? Do you reckon that as an categorical aggregated bunch, our overly large, overly costly, overly numerous governments, local, state and federal may be the category who win the prize for profligacy? I reckon they just may be the winners of the prizes for waste of all kinds.
Not surprising, considering the many “climate change” activities that have taken place in Colorado.
Let me guess, was Colorado an early-adopter of pot legalisation?
There’s the source of the unmitigated stupid.
Quick duck duck go later … btw, I honestly didn’t know this, just a wild guess.
“Marijuana Laws in Colorado – Colorado Pot Guide
Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational purposes in 2012.”
Do these rocket surgeons our schools of government churn out know what powers that ski industry they’re worried about?
Obviously not.
Good point. I swear that during a snow storm, there are more snow plows running I-80 (Reno to Sacramento) and 395 (near Mammoth Ski Resort) than there are cars. Especially if you count all the cop cars (SUVs) that are running ahead of groups of drivers to keep them driving less than the posted 30 mph during snow storms. Additional independent swarms of plows at the local airports to ensure skiers who fly in are not inconvenienced.
So, what powers the lifts, keeps the lodges warm, and the lights on at night? Solar? Wind? Could be – if located far from the harsh weather the resorts see at times during the winter. After all, there are diesel generator backups everywhere. Have been since the ski resorts opened. Even high power lines and transformers are unreliable regardless of how their energy is derived. But stop the flow of diesel, or dictate that only BEVs and PHEVs can access those areas, and the resorts are dead.
In March, my wife and I were laughing at how many plows were cruising the 395 near Inyokern. The 395 runs beside the Sierras. No snow was even seen on the mountains. Bright, sunny skies, temps in the 60’s. Must have had a budget to protect.
There is some common sense in Boulder. Is that not where you usually find Tony Heller.
Shouldn’t these folks wait until they’ve had a few consecutive snowless winters to take legal action? This looks like litigation laughter for Judge Judy to me.
Oh! Slap me! I forgot this is whole thing is based on prophesy, not reality.
It’s based on robbing industries using the court as the weapon.
Well it is Colorado so at least we know what they’re smoking.
Caniborado…
maybe Canirado works better?
I prefer Coloradope 🙂
Oops, Canarodo and Canaborado were the correct spellings in my failed humor. Beer was a factor.
Spot on, Voltron!
@ur momisugly Pop ..would that be Canibeer?
Or how about “Colah-doh-poh”? Spelled Colodopo
Well if Exxon can control when and how much snow we will have, what the heck are they doing messing around with that dirty petroleum stuff? They can make lot’s more money controlling the climate to order.
The idea that an oil company is responsible for the weather in Colorado beggars belief from any rational human.
Being a hardcore Liberal is a flight from rationality in itself.
So, who is the delusional soul who thinks these tweeps are rational humans? It could only be one of the tweeps.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, Congress needs to enact a shield law to stop these nuisance lawsuits. They will just clog up the courts with cases that are unwinnable, but the lawyers hoping on a big payday jackpot settlement.
They are solely fueled by the tort bar looking for big settlements. Just like they had to do for the firearms/ gun manufacturers as the ambulance chasers were running low on ambulances in the mid-2000’s from ADA-scams and the tobacco settlements running dry. They gotta pay for all those BMWs and vacation homes someway.
Every town and every ski resort would also have to sue itself for using fossil fuels to operate. But along comes some shyster lawyers promising them no liability and no cost to sue on their behalf for “climate change” damages. The ski resorts, being Liberal bastions of pot smoking 60-70’s hippees, are all too willing to go all in for the scam to stick it to Big Oil with the hopes of payday for lottery themselves.
I thought the US had laws that enabled the judiciary to throw out “vexatious and frivolous” actions? And you are right – the litigants should be suing themselves because it is thy who produced the CO2 and released it.
Yes, but it depends on a fair-minded judge to recognize it as such. Too many fellow traveler lefties in the courts to count on everyone of these “vexatious and frivolous” suits being tossed in the trash where they belong.
Or have the loser pay court costs, and all lawyer fees from both sides.
Let the court win. Then raise fuel prices (Special Sur-Charge) in the area to cover the court award. Factor in that some residents will refuel out of the area. The more observant residents will understand that after Government takes their cut, they just had a massive tax hike with no net benefits.
But I think observant residents of Colorado are few and far between.
Oh, come on, you guys! It’s a scam and you know it. Frivolous litigation, nothing else, and the litigants are hoping to take it to the USSC so that they can make a lot of noise and be on TV, and get money, too. Always follow the money. I’m sure they’re hoping that Exxon will cut a check to shut them up.
If only Exxon would cut something, and NOT a check. I’d love to see Colorado run on solar and wind.
It is my understanding that the sale and use of fossil fuel in the state of Colorado is legal. If local and state governments feel that the burning of fossil fuels is bad them they should act and make it illegal to possess, sell, or use fossil fuels in their jurisdiction. The should make it illegal to make use of any goods and or services that involve or have involved the use of fossil fuels. But the local and state governments have failed to do this so they are the ones at fault along with anyone who has been involved with the use of fossil fuels. They should shut down all ski resorts that make use of fossil fuels and close down all roads leading to ski resorts to any vehicles that make use of fossil fuels.
But the reality is that, according to the paleoclimate record and the work done with with models, the climate change we have been experiencing has been caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So their perceived climate problems and not really the fault of the oil companies and the users of their products but rather the fault lies with Mother Nature. Mother Nature is really the responsibility party that they should be suing. Lots of luck on collecting on a judgement against Mother Nature.
If it were not for fossil fuels, the ski resorts would not be in business in the first place. .
Good analysis.
the government is complicit because.. taxes.
C0nsp|r@©Y !!
/sarc needed?
Don’t forget about the Airliners that fly the Jet-Set skiers into Colorado, they have a big carbon footprint as well.
That is right. It is the ski resorts that are responsible for people making use of more fossil fuels then they otherwise would have used. The Ski resorts should sue them selves. Ski resorts should not be allowed to operate ski lifts because of all the energy they waste. Cross country skiing is the only form of skiing that should be allowed.
willhaus—Agreed. Only cross-country skiing. If the climate is truly in trouble, Colorado should have no problem instituting this policy.
Downhill should still be allowed but skiers should be required to walk uphill first. No chairlifts. Human powered tow ropes are OK though
I’d love to see someone try to drive an electric vehicle up those mountains in a snow storm.
Between the drain on the battery from the heater and the drop in battery performance from the cold. Few if any would make it all the up to the resorts.
Those range calculations don’t include climbing 5000 feet.
mark W – try googling EV Pikes Peak
1) How do cars that have been souped up for a road rally compare to consumer cars.
2) They run the rally during snow storms???? Didn’t know that.
Well said, Will.
Why don’t these officials lead by example? Couldn’t they simply stop using their personal vehicles and government vehicles? No paving, just dirt roads, since asphalt requires petroleum? Not use powered construction equipment, such pavers, jack hammers, road graders, street sweepers, equipment to break up clogs in sewer lines, snowplows? Shouldn’t they show personal leadership in what they believe?
I think it would be wonderful if this stupidity turned skiers to more ideologically friendly ski venues. It also would be great if the oil industry stopped selling their products there. I would be happy to contribute to a fund that compensated business whose oil and gas product sales were negatively impacted. I doubt that such an embargo would last very long, and the jerks who are engaged in this stupidity would be sent packing pronto.
Screw the orderly withdrawal of fossil fuel services. Cut them off today! Disconnect them from the fossil fueled grid. Hook ’em up with all that wind power in their counties. Oh, that’s right. Exclusive places like Boulder put the windmills down on the flats where they don’t have to see the blight. Let ’em live off their solar farms. Cut them off today; not tomorrow, today. Cut them off now! They can live on what’s in their in-ground tanks. No fossil fuel for you!
Let their constituents get their politicos and law goons to follow the People, not the squeaky wheels.
Or raise the local cost of the wholesale product substantially and let it be known it’s to cover the costs of litigation and potential penalties.
Shut the fuel off to these thieves.
My Chinese mates love this stuff.
Nothing better for them to watch the West slowly consume itself while they pick up the manufacturing and productivity the West is destroying.
http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/about-us/
So funny!
The PRC has its own tyranny. We may have pervasive moon-battery, but PRC has pervasive graft and corruption. Over here, few people who oppose the Party Line get thrown in jail. In PRC, few people who oppose the Party Line avoid unpleasant interaction with the Party, or at least avoid getting a low “social credit score”.
My daughter is married to a man who immigrated to the US from PRC. One of their acquaintances back in the PRC has been banned from travel on trains or airlines because he ran afoul of the Party.
Climate Change is just a Weapon of Mass Distraction.
If I were an oil company (and I am not), I wouldn’t bother with a negotiated withdrawal time, I would just announce it and do it. If they wanted the company back at any time, they can pay for the privilege—and pay and pay and pay …
We all know that Exxon put a gun to the heads of everybody in Boulder and made them use petroleum products.
This suit won’t make it to the Boulder city limit. Contrary to warmist dogma nothing is happening with “climate change” outside normal weather variation.
Have no sympathy for the Oils.
They have nothing but contempt for sceptics.
I hope SEPP utterly reject any approach from Exxon or Chevron for help to dig themselves out of the pernicious hole they’ve dug since embracing the CO2 fraud.
In fact I believe WUWT should have a fundraising page for donations to any plaintiff suing Exxon or Chevron. Their shareholders deserve everything that’s coming to them and more!
By the way if Exxon or Chevron etc. stop selling in any market there’d be a replacement supplier quick smart.
However, the replacement would now be the target of the lawsuit. I double any company would want to head into that buzzsaw.
The last 40 years have featured the best weather/climate and CO2 levels for most life on this planet in the last 1,000 years.
The beneficial warming of 1 Deg. C has not been as great for the ski industry thought. That business would do best if we had another Little Ice Age.
How about if we just went back to the average global temperature and CO2 level of the atmosphere before humans began burning fossil fuels?
World food production(crop yields) would plunge by over 25%, causing widespread food shortages…….likely resulting in a billion people starving to death within several years, along with the price of crops/food soaring to triple the current price.
However, skiing conditions in Colorado would improve.
Maybe next in line to file a lawsuit against oil companies should be lumber companies in tornado alley.
Warming the coldest places(highest latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere) the most has decreased the meridional temperature gradient. This is the main reason that violent tornadoes have been at historic lows over the last 2 decades. With less violent tornadoes to destroy houses/buildings, lumber companies have lost business.
After them, Funeral Homes should file a lawsuit because of lost business. Less fatalities from violent tornadoes and also cold kills 20 times more people than heat and the warmer temperatures have resulted in less deaths from cold and hurt the funeral business.
Farmers, who are reaping the benefits from massive, free atmospheric fertilizer which is greatly contributing towards the record crop yields, are getting less money for their abundant crops. There has been a glut in world cereal supplies and other crops This has suppressed prices…… not in spite of climate change but because of it. They should sue. Also because they need more storage for their huge crops now compared to previously.
Other obvious businesses that should file a lawsuit are those that sell things like snow blowers, snowmobiles, snow shovels, sleds, Winter clothes. Those that sell heaters and related equipment. Chemicals to treat snow/ice on roads.
The ironic thing about it, is that the optimal temperature for businesses/people who benefit from cold and snow is NOT the optimal temperature(or CO2 level) for 99.9% of life on the planet.
The average global temperature and CO2 level in the atmosphere right now is not the optimal level either for most of life…………but we have been going in the right direction.