Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The fact a similar climate lawsuit in California was tossed out doesn’t seem to matter to Colorado public officials intent on wasting taxpayer’s money.
Why Colorado thinks it has a chance to make oil companies pay for climate change
The most important climate change fights right now are in state courtrooms.
By Umair Irfan Updated Jul 5, 2018, 2:35pm EDTNine cities and counties in Colorado, California, Washington, and New York, as well as the state of Rhode Island, have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, with oil giants Exxon and BP among the defendants. The goal is to make the oil majors liable for the greenhouse gases produced from their products and the local damages of climate change: rising average temperatures, melting snowpack, extreme weather like rainstorms and drought, and higher seas.
…
In an era with a Congress weak on climate policy and an executive branch hostile to even acknowledging climate change, courts remain some of the few avenues left to hold industry accountable for greenhouse gas emissions.
…
But last week, a federal judge dismissed lawsuits filed by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against the five largest investor-owned oil companies in the world. While that was a federal court case and the Colorado suits are in state court, it shows that some judges aren’t convinced and a tough legal fight lies ahead.
…
Like the lawsuits filed in California and Rhode Island, the cases in Colorado invoke public nuisance law. The idea is that greenhouse gas emissions and all their consequences interfere with how the general public can use their homes, their farmland, and their recreation areas. The producers of this pollution are therefore liable for damages and losses.
…
The Colorado suits also invoke the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, since the plaintiffs claim Exxon and Suncor deployed deceptive trade practices. A key question, however, is the scope of such a claim. Here, the courts are divided. In California, one judge ruled that climate lawsuits should be heard in federal court. Another California judge kept lawsuits filed by cities in state court.
…
Read more: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17519236/colorado-climate-change-lawsuit-exxon-suncor
I don’t understand why Colorado officials don’t insist oil companies immediately stop supplying their nuisance product to the citizens of Colorado.
Imagine for a moment that the fight was over say a food additive which was discovered to be harmful to human health. Wouldn’t the first step be an injunction to stop the use of that food additive, pending outcome of the court case?
Why don’t greens insist on an immediate injunction against use of nuisance petroleum products they claim were sold due to misleading advertising, in cities and counties which are suing the oil companies?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If oil company products are so lethal, why do these authorities continue to allow their use. If the consequences are as they say, are they not liable themselves?
Especially since they get tax revenue from fossil fuels, they are complicit.
Looking for rational, consistent, ethical behavior in the climate extremist world is fruitless.
Isn’t it time the oil companies started to argue the science? Get some Nobel prizewinners into court? Walkover
That may be rather difficult, since I understood that the Defendants in the Californian action conceded that climate change is real, manmade and causing sea level rise.
If they made that concession, it will be very difficult for them to backtrack on that unless there is some fundamental new discovery.
Conceding some effect is not conceding dangerous effect. No one would deny that
fossil fuel use has had NO effect on lobal temperatures. And the use of those fossil fuels was demanded by our govt and all govts. They would probably have sued the oil companies if they did not supply.
Of course if there’s a spelling error, that will prove that the science is bad.
These vultures and scallywags have no shame. Their actions are driven purely by greed, under the guise of helping “save the planet”, at the expense of taxpayers, and ultimately everyone, if successful, since it would force oil prices up. Also, there would be a bandwagon effect, with essentially everyone trying to get in on the sc@m. Disgusting.
“The idea is that greenhouse gas emissions and all their consequences interfere with how the general public can use their homes, their farmland, and their recreation areas. The producers of this pollution are therefore liable for damages and losses.”
Note: ‘the idea is that….’ Not ‘the FACT is that’, but the ‘idea is that’.
This is a scam being sent through the courts and nothing else. It should be thrown out immediately at the preliminary hearing, based on the CA suit which was dismissed. This one should be dismissed with prejudice as a nuisance, or even as frivolous litigation. “with prejudice” means can’t bring it again, can’t appeal it.
It is a scam to get money out of Big Oil and nothing else. And none of the money will benefit anyone except the attorneys involved, so their clients should pay all expenses when they lose — ALL expenses, including the targets of the lawsuit.
DENVER (AP) — (Near Future) — Today 37 oil companies and gasoline distributors made this joint announcement at a press conference:
“In view of the State of Colorado’s lawsuit against us claiming our product is a serious public nuisance, today we have decided, on the advice of our legal council, that we should cease all sales of gasoline in the state of Colorado until such time as the court has determined whether or not this product is indeed a destructive public problem. We do this for the safety of all Coloradans!”
A spokesman for the group added, “They claim gasoline is both “melting the snowpack” and “causing more extreme weather like blizzards, rainstorms, and droughts. Since their claims are contradictory, we are not sure how to defend ourselves against these false charges. So our legal team advised us to shut down sales here until the issue is resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience that might occur. Please direct all complaints to the District Attorney’s office.”
In reply, a spokesman for the law firm in charge of the lawsuit, Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, said, “We will file for an injunction on the oil companies against this action immediately, on the grounds our lawyers will not be able to travel to court every day from their homes in the distant suburbs.”
Colorado is a beautiful place rapidly evolving into Stupidsville. What the politicians want is new sources of revenue, because they have just about exhausted the capacity of their own residents and visitors to pay more. Shareholders of international companies are a convenient target. Voters in Colorado are much younger than the national average, and thus in the thrall of various cults impervious to facts, or to reason that involves examining consequences of policies that sound good on first reading. The confluence of interests of these two groups presents a challenge to rationality.
When they replaced the sawmill on South College with a ToysRUs is about when Colorado ceased to be a desirable place to live. It has grown exponentially worse since. I’m retiring in Utah, hopefully soon.
It’s about time a clever writer penned an essay along the lines of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” regarding cessation of fossil fuel use.
One could include all sorts of means for doing without, such as hand pumps and out-houses. Of course heating will become an issue as everyone fires up their wood burning stoves and temperature inversions hold the smog close.
Who will the lawyers sue then? The guy who let trees grow on his lot?
Society wouldn’t make it until hand pumps and outhouses, society would collapse like a black hole on itself about two days after the absolute last delivery truck stopped at the grocery store.
If society survived, everyday would be a “Little House on the Prairie” episode, without the joy and happiness though.
Agreed. Give the Lawfare-eco frauds what they want … cease all sales of the evil, offending. product. Respect Gaia … keep all oil in the ground. All of it. Voluntarily, and on “Big Oil’s” own terms.
And then … just watch the lawsuits FORCING all those “nasty” Oil companies to start producing again. I predict, it would take less than one week without oil before the American people would want the eco-frauds publicly hanged.
More than likely they would be clamoring (and rioting) for the government to take over “Big Oil” in order to get the fuel flowing again. And then they would demand that the oil execs be hung, because that’s who the media would blame.
Paul: And fuel would become at least ten times more expensive.
“The fact a similar climate lawsuit in California was tossed out doesn’t seem to matter to Colorado public officials intent on wasting taxpayer’s money.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if what we have seen so far is just the tip of the ice berg.
We all know judges set energy policy, just as judge munez in Cali sets federal immigration law. Lawfare.
IMO THE most stellar thing Scott Pruitt did was put an end to EPA sanctioned sue and settle. I’m starting a go fund me site for a statue of Scott’s majestic presence (the inscription will be: Best – EPA – Administrator – evah!) to be placed on the 16th St. mall outside of the Region 8 EPA office. It’ll be big enough to provide some nice shelter for the homeless stoned vagrants infesting the area. A win win!
In Denver? Good luck
The government entities bringing the legal actions have made no effort to make the use of fossil fuels and or goods and services that make use of fossil fuels, illegal in their jurisdictions. The snow plow in the photo is being powered with fossil fuels. The manufacture and delivery of that snow plow involved the use of fossil fuels.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
I would think the defense should ask the plaintiffs (the cities and counties in Colorado, California, Washington, and New York, as well as the state of Rhode Island) to reveal how much of that destructive product they use, and then request a dismissal based on the fact that they are complicit.
In actual legal fact, there is no chance of any of these lawsuits remaining in any State Court, no matter what some lower level Judge may rule. (he will be overturned on appeal) There is a legal concept known as Diversity Jurisdiction which guarantees that suits of this kind can be removed to a Federal Court, if the defendant asks for such a move.
So these cases will all be adjudicated in Federal Court, and all rulings (if not originally, then definitely upon appeal) will follow the legal reasoning laid out in Alsup’s decision.
This whole thing reminds me of when somebody sits down at a restaurant, eats the food, pays for the food, and then, a day later, calls the restaurant to complain about how bad the food was. Could you not taste it THEN ? Why did you torture yourself and pay for torturing yourself and fail to say anything WHILE YOU WERE USING what you are now complaining about ?
Except in this case, the people complaining are STILL using what they are complaining about WHILE they continue to complain about it. They keep on paying to buy the benefits that the substances they complain about are providing.
I hate writing this sentence. I hate typing words. I loathe myself for placing my fingers on a keyboard. I won’t stop, but I think I will sue manufacturers of keyboards for the continued production of these products that cause me to hate myself.
“I don’t understand why Colorado officials don’t insist oil companies immediately stop supplying their nuisance product to the citizens of Colorado.”
And why do peoble continue to use these harmfull products, when they know the damage they make?
Sue the farmers because you got fat.
What proof of alleged damage do they have to base their suits on? It is a beautiful, hot, cloudless day here today. If this is due to climate change, I will go idle my Silverado for a while, much too soon I will be back at -40 and snow.
Governments continue to sue, because it is NOT the politicians money to lose, it is the taxpayers. If the politicians actually had some skin in the game, they would be a bit more reluctant to pursue this. Things are different when you have a blank cheque to use and it’s not even your name on it.
The first questions that the defendants should put to the plaintiffs are (1) do you use oil products in your official activities; (2) if so why, given the potential damage you are baseing your suit on; and (3) do you derive any tax revenues from the sale of oil products? Should the answer to (1) or (3) be “yes” then file for immediate dismissal of the case on the basis of the clean hands doctrine.
The suit is political. It won’t fly, but the mere existence of it is a message which is the purpose.
Why don’t greens insist.
Because greens can’t believe they exist.
These states should be required to ban all fossil fuels in their state for a year before they can file for imaginary damages.
The Californication of Colorado is complete. I mourn the loss of the state I grew up in.