By Spencer Walrath
Today a U.S. District Judge threw out New York City’s lawsuit against five major energy companies alleging damages relating to climate change.
Judge John Keenan wrote in his opinion that, “Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government,” not the judiciary, according to Bloomberg.
This major blow marks the third climate case to be thrown out—litigation in San Francisco and Oakland was dismissed by a federal judge last month on similar grounds. Both of these cases were dismissed by U.S. District Court judges after the suits were ordered to be heard in federal court rather than state court, where they were initially filed.
Given these recent developments, it’s safe to say that the nationwide climate litigation campaign is not going exactly as planned. But while this isn’t the outcome activists are seeking, it’s possible that it’s still the outcome they expected.
Remember, the campaign itself can be traced back to a 2012 meeting among climate activists and lawyers in La Jolla, Calif., where a plan to stigmatize energy companies was devised. During the meeting, participants discussed ways to replicate the broad-based litigation brought against tobacco companies in the 1990s and apply it to fossil fuel companies. But during the meeting, Dan Yankelovich, co-founder of Public Agenda and expert in public opinion research, expressed reservations about depending on a legal strategy to change climate change policy:
“I am concerned about so much emphasis on legal strategies. The point of departure is a confused, conflicted, inattentive public. Are legal strategies the most effective strategies? I believe they are important after the public agrees how to feel about an issue. Then you can sew it up legally. Legal strategies themselves are a double-edged sword. The more adversarial the discourse, the more minds are going to be closed.”
The recent case dismissals call into question the future of the other pending lawsuits. As Amy Harder of Axios recently pointed out, three additional pending lawsuits, filed in Washington State, Colorado and Rhode Island, have recently been punted from state to federal court—following the same track as the New York City and San Francisco and Oakland cases.
Full story at Energy In Depth
Here’s the ruling: (h/t to WUWT reader Bob)
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cv-00182-JFK City of New York v. BP P.L.C. et al OPINION & ORDER re: 102
MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by ConocoPhillips, 99
MOTION to Dismiss / NOTICE OF CHEVRON CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Chevron Corporation, 95 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. For the reasons stated above, the U.S.-based Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the City’s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions docketed at ECF Nos. 95, 99, and 102 and to close this case.
SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 7/19/2018) (anc) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
Sounds like an ultimate trip to the Supreme Court. The Left ain’t going to turn this loose anytime soon. They will keep venue shopping until the find one that takes it.
Anne Ominous (see post way above)
“It has been decided WITH PREJUDICE. That means they CAN’T bring it up again.”
“Their reasons were judged invalid, and they can’t use the same excuses again. Period.”
“Dismissal With Prejudice
Dismissal With Prejudice
When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds. See also: dismiss, dismissal without prejudice”
Okay, now go after the nonprofit orgs and foundations that were behind this scheme.
Across the pond, the UK High Court has shown wisdom and restraint in refusing to set national carbon targets. Much to the chagrin and carping by the usual suspects.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/07/20/uk-high-court-refuses-to-set-carbon-targets/
I don’t count this as a win, because the oil companies are not on our side.
Firstly, they are just as happy refining alcohol and vegetable oil as they are mineral oil, they are also happy to use their networks of filling stations to charge electric cars.
Secondly, a key part of the allegations against them was that they tied to conceal the effects of CO2. Hence the oil companies took the position that they are not experts on climate and are not challenging even the most ridiculous claims of the alarmists.
I can understand them doing this and, as someone interested injustice, am happy that the courts have recognised that the case was completely without merit. But this had done nothing to advance the argument against the alarmists.
I think that the case against the Federal Government is also without merit, for different reasons; however, considering the past bizarre interpretations of the constitution by the Supreme Court I fear that it may suceed.
“Winning” is NOT when a judge writes this in his opinion. “Climate science clearly demonstrates that the burning of
fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.” http://eidclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NYC-Climate-Lawsuit-Dismissal-July-19-2018.pdf Winning is when judges generally recognize what a pure crock of shit that statement is.
That statement may have been the purpose of the frivolous lawsuit to begin with. Like that judge is the authority on the subject to make that statement. At least we will have a long record of this to point back to when natural cyclical cooling becomes obvious.
It also makes me wonder what other examples of court opinion is this consistently wrong on science to be held up and examined when the time comes. Do we have to go back to days of slavery and creationism to find comparable court track records.
This is not a finding of fact. This is the City’s allegation. The judge is saying that even IF everything the City says is true, there still is no case.
“Are legal strategies the most effective strategies? I believe they are important after the public agrees how to feel about an issue. Then you can sew it up legally.” Translation: “If we can get the public on board we can toss the rule of law and go with torchlight mobs and a kangaroo court.”
Now it’s Baltimore’s turn…..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-baltimore-climatechange-lawsuit/baltimore-lawsuit-blames-oil-and-gas-companies-for-climate-change-idUSKBN1KA2M6?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29
The problem with all these suits is not simply that the wrong organ of government is being requested to act. That is why they are not even coming to trial of course. But were they to come to trial, they would find themselves stuck with an unwinnable case on the merits of their argument.
To win, they would first have to show that damages rather than injunction to cease conduct are an appropriate remedy for the forecast future effects of a common law nuisance. If you look at the Exxon pleadings there are quite some supposed examples of this cited in the plaintiffs filing, but I didn’t find any of them persuasive in their bearing on the case.
If you put this in simple language, the argument is that its OK for Exxon etc to do things which will destroy civilization on earth and wrecking the climate, and to continue to commit a common law nuisance with these future damages clearly visible, as long as they pay some money to the particular cities and states that have brought the suit.
I cannot see this is legally arguable under the common law of nuisance. But even if you can get past this one, there is the question of causation.
Compensation generally requires the damage to have been caused by the defendant. The awards, where there are several defendants or parties who have caused the damage is divided among the defendants in proportion to their causal role. So if a river has been polluted by discharges of 3 parties, and they have done 50%. 30% and 20% respectively, that is the proportion of the damages that each would have allocated.
In the present case, the plaintiffs are going to have to show that the defendants caused the actual harm they are seeking compensation for, which is going to be really tough. But lets put that on one side and assume they can get compensation for the future harms they claim are going to happen. Now the problem is, what proportion of that harm are they causing?
Its impossible, is it not? The further out we go with the forecasts, the smaller the proportion of total emissions due to the defendants. Chinese coal is far and away the largest emissions factor globally, and under the argument, its global emissions that are damaging the plaintiffs, not local or national ones. As the century moves on and the damages happen, the relative role of Exxon et al declines into insignificance.
Put it another simpler way. Suppose the plaintiffs were to deal with this by injunction, and actually get one, and the defendants were then to cease all activities of supplying the fuel which leads to the emissions. How effective a remedy could that possibly be to limit or prevent the shoreline erosion etc that the plaintiffs are concerned about?
Not at all, because Exxon et al are a so small a percentage of the future emissions that will supposedly do the damage that eliminating them would have almost no effect on the emissions total.
And that is even assuming you can show to the satisfaction of the court that there is a causal relation between the alleged local damage and the emissions total, and that you can show that this is down to Exxon’s conduct in selling the stuff rather than the users’ conduct in using it…
Hopeless. Well, that’s my take on it anyway. I expect all of them to be thrown out even if any of them finally gets to trial. Which is looking increasingly unlikely.
Regrettably…….IT ONLY TAKES ONE IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN JUDGE
TO SET A PRECEDENT and then all hell breaks loose !
“WE” should not get complacent !
“WE” should be OUT-THERE telling the PUBLIC that these
DAMNED ANTI-HUMANISTS are trying to DESTROY THE HUMAN CIVILISATION
and THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE “so they can return the precious planet to it’s
pristine , idealistic , utopian existence BEFORE MAN Fouled IT ALL UP” !
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That is why “WE” should no longer allow them to call themselves “greens”
and “ecologists” and “animal rightists ” and so on…………………………………..
“WE” MUST LABEL THEM AS ” ANTI-HUMANISTS ” and make sure THAT TITLE STICKS !!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AFTER ALL ….it is in ALL OUR INTERESTS to maintain the fantastic life-style
that our ANCESTORS worked at so hard and created for us to enjoy !
FOSSIL FUEL USE is what has ENABLED ALL THIS WONDERFUL BENEFIT !
“WE” MUST protect and promote the use and the right to use this ENERGY SOURCE !
CAGW is a lie ! BUT it is still being taught in our schools as a scientific fact !
It MUST be shown up as a lie and these ANTI-HUMANISTS exposed as nothing
more than “eco-nuts” and of lacking ALL credibility !
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THAT should NOT be a difficult STORY to sell…………
ESPECIALLY around ELECTION TIME !!!
There is just SO MUCH TO LOSE if “WE” don’t get that message across.