Big win for common sense: New York City Loses Appeal Seeking to Hold Oil Firms Liable “Global Warming”

A big win for pro-energy groups today out of the 2nd Circuit Court

The federal appeals court rejected New York City’s effort to hold five major oil companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell) liable to help pay the costs of addressing “harm” caused by global warming. The court clearly said the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions should be addressed under federal law and international treaties, not at the state level.

Key Quotes From Second Circuit Climate Change Decision April 1, 2021


·      “First, global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. As a result, it calls for the application of federal common law, not state law. Second, the Clean Air Act grants the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Federal common law actions concerning such emissions are therefore displaced. Lastly, while the Clean Air Act has nothing to say about regulating foreign emissions, judicial caution and foreign policy concerns counsel against permitting such claims to proceed under federal common law absent congressional direction. And since no such permission exists, each of the City’s claims is barred and its complaint must be dismissed.” (Page 1.)

·      “The question before us is whether municipalities may utilize state tort law to hold multinational oil companies liable for the damages caused by global greenhouse gas emissions. Given the nature of the harm and the existence of a complex web of federal and international environmental law regulating such emissions, we hold that the answer is ‘no.”’ (Page 5.)

·      “Global warming presents a uniquely international problem of national concern. It is therefore not well-suited to the application of state law. Consistent with that fact, greenhouse gas emissions are the subject of numerous federal statutory regimes and international treaties. These laws provide interlocking frameworks for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, as well as enforcement mechanisms to ensure that those regulations are followed.” (Page 6.)

·      “The City of New York has sidestepped those procedures and instead instituted a state-law tort suit against five oil companies to recover damages caused by those companies’ admittedly legal commercial conduct in producing and selling fossil fuels around the world. In so doing, the City effectively seeks to replace these carefully crafted frameworks – which are the product of the political process – with a patchwork of claims under state nuisance law. .. [W]e cannot condone such an action.” (p. 6.)

“. . . every single person who uses gas and electricity – whether in travelling by bus, cab, Uber, or jitney, or in receiving home deliveries via FedEx, Amazon, or UPS – contributes to global warming . . .” (p. 8.)
·      “The City freely admits that it is not able to halt the Producers’ conduct under any federal statute or international agreement. Indeed, it acknowledges that the Producers’ conduct is ‘lawful . . . commercial activit[y].’” (p. 9.)

·      “To hear the City tell it, this case concerns only “the production, promotion, and sale of fossil fuels,” not the regulation of emissions. . . . In other words, we are told that this is merely a local spat about the City’s eroding shoreline, which will have 1 no appreciable effect on national energy or environmental policy. We disagree.” (pp. 19-20.)

·      “Artful pleading cannot transform the City’s complaint into anything other than a suit over global greenhouse gas emissions. It is precisely because fossil fuels 4 emit greenhouse gases – which collectively “exacerbate global warming” – that the City is seeking damages. Put differently, the City’s complaint whipsaws between disavowing any intent to address emissions and identifying such emissions as the singular source of the City’s harm. But the City cannot have it both ways.” (p. 20.)

·      “Stripped to its essence, then, the question before us is whether a nuisance suit seeking to recover damages for the harms caused by global greenhouse gas emissions may proceed under New York law. Our answer is simple: no.” (p. 20.)
·      “To state the obvious, the City does not seek to hold the Producers liable for the effects of emissions released in New York, or even in New York’s neighboring states. Instead, the City intends to hold the Producers liable, under New York law, for the effects of emissions made around the globe over the past several hundred years. In other words, the City requests damages for the cumulative impact of conduct occurring simultaneously across just about every jurisdiction on the planet.  Such a sprawling case is simply beyond the limits of state law.” (pp. 21-22.)

·      “Thus, while the City is not expressly seeking to impose a standard of care or emission restrictions on the Producers, the goal of its lawsuit is perhaps even more ambitious: to effectively impose strict liability for the damages caused by fossil fuel emissions no matter where in the world those emissions were released (or who released them). If the Producers want to avoid all liability, then their only solution would be to cease global production altogether.” (p. 24.)

·      “To permit this suit to proceed under state law would further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security, on the other.” (p. 25.)

·      “At bottom, it is enough to say that the issues raised in this dispute concerning domestic emissions are squarely addressed by the Clean Air Act. As a result, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the City’s federal common law claims concerning domestic greenhouse gas emissions are displaced by statute.” (pp. 36-37.)

·      The City “wishes to impose New York nuisance standards on emissions emanating simultaneously from all 50 states and the nations of the world.” (p. 42.)

Full document here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-warming-new-york/oil-companies-defeat-new-york-city-appeal-over-global-warming-idUSKBN2BO5O0

5 20 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
71 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 1, 2021 2:23 pm

It is a pity that ex post facto law prohibitions do not apply to civil law. As the “pollution” was legal when it occurred, and remains legal, this is also an attempt to make law, not enforce it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 1, 2021 5:40 pm

It’s merely part of the Left’s attempt to make legislation from the bench when they can’t pass restrictive “climate” legislation. It’s cheaper and less time consuming than following due process in government.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 1, 2021 9:27 pm

Politicians have a singular priority to get re-elected. That is the only real imperative they face.
But they need money to run campaigns to get re-elected.
Democrats have decided to whore themsleves to rich Green nanny libtards like Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer in exchange for that campaign cash support.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 1, 2021 10:15 pm

So true. What better Hobby horse to use than the weather? I guess it’s my age, but the 1st of those wealthy busybodies I think of is Maurice Strong, the Canadian industrialist and (P.E.Trudeau appointee) UN secretary who gave us Agenda 21 and the oil for food scandal. He wrote the book on what the next 30 years would look like.

Last edited 9 days ago by Rory Forbes
Robert Arvanitis
April 1, 2021 2:24 pm

Sadly, that this case could even be brought, is a loss for reason and accountability.
It’s not enough to “win” here.
We must stop the statists from ever grasping for the levers of power so blatantly.

michael hart
Reply to  Robert Arvanitis
April 1, 2021 3:38 pm

Agreed. The ruling refers to things being done appropriately through “the political process”, but we have seen the failings of that recently.

That being said, I like the sentence  “Artful pleading cannot transform the City’s complaint into anything other than a suit over global greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Artful pleading” is a nice use of the English language.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  michael hart
April 2, 2021 1:20 am

Artful pleading = gas baggery

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  michael hart
April 3, 2021 6:07 am

artful pleading ( US law): The filing under state law of a claim naturally arising under federal law.

Curious George
Reply to  Robert Arvanitis
April 1, 2021 4:12 pm

I assume that NYC lawyers will be paid handsomely from the COVID19 relief money.

Reply to  Curious George
April 1, 2021 7:53 pm

….and they will contribute generously to the demrat party…what a racket, eh?

High Treason
April 1, 2021 2:28 pm

They opened the door to Federal and International action. Alas, this is not really a victory. The ruling “acknowledges” a “problem.”

Editor
Reply to  High Treason
April 1, 2021 4:05 pm

High Treason ==> On the contrary, the Court simply acknowledges the real world reality of CO2 emissions, Federal law in he United States, and the place of the Federal government in interacting with other nations of the world to address common concerns.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 3, 2021 6:30 am

Kim, I think there is a bigger lesson for USA-based anti-CO2 groups and activists. The judgement clearly states the lower, minor jurisdiction can not make decisions that are properly in the purview of a superior jurisdiction. They succinctly describe the issue of emissions as global.

While the USA throws its weight, weapons and wealth around internationally it has never recognized the authority of an international court. To summon and penalize an American corporation (based on the location of its head office) and submit them to international law as upheld by the United Nations is impossible at present.

Before that could be done the International tools must first be in place. There are problems that are global in nature – war, for instance – which require coordinated global action. Many readers here express sentiment against the creation of any form of international federation, even when benefiting from living in a sub-continental federation of states like the USA, Germany or China. Could it be that the recognition of certain problems as existential requiring global solutions enforced by a global authority will result in a new entity? The USA could lead such an initiative to do it properly and prevent nefarious actors from creating a despotic alternative.

The New York Bench seems to understand the concept and describes the jurisdictional relationships accurately. We need a better UN.

Editor
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
April 3, 2021 7:28 am

Crispin ==> At he current state of human development — intellectually, morally, spiritually — I think it is impossible to have a United Nations that does what it is intended to do. When tiny tiny pseudo-nations, whose governments can be bought and sold at bargain rates, and have the same votes as world super-powers and huge huge countries representing billions of humans, it is untenable. When nations are basically voting in their own “personal” best interest and not for the good of all, it simply doesn’t work. The UN can work as a super-NGO, doing humanitarian work around the world — all good. But it can in no way act as a governing body.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 3, 2021 3:55 pm

Kip, you have pointed out why the structures of the UN cannot address the problem, but not that the solution of a global federal body is wrong.

International scale problems require international scale administration. The UN is incapable of doing it. We are not “stuck with the UN” at all.

The wisdom of the US Federal system is that it sets limits on the federal administration and grants the rest of all power to the member states. People tend to forget that “states” are countries that “federated” for mutually advantageous reasons. German did the same and so did Italy and China and India. Nothing prevents those same states from creating a larger federation addressing larger and even global issues.

In the same manner that national party structures have become more powerful than the member states, corporations can become more powerful than federations, extraordinary as that concept seems. It would seem that we cannot, as a human society, afford to tolerate either.

The “threat” to global society comes not from it creating a unifying structure to protect its interests, but from “parties” intending to capture the powers it has. The error of national constitutions has been not just permitting them but embedding them in the federal constitution itself.

Suppose three giant multi-national IT companies decided to form and fund an American political party. You think they couldn’t take over the whole of government under the present system? Why bribe politicians: own them! This possibility must be eliminated by the rules of the constituent Assembly, whether national or global Partisanship against the interests of the people is unacceptable at any level from dog catcher up.

Editor
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
April 4, 2021 8:03 am

Crispin ==> quite right — only pointing out that what we have doesn’t and hasn’t worked. I think it is a problem with human nature — “the natural man” — and unlikely to rectify itself through more thought and attention from minds that always, in the end, seek their own advantage.

Certainly, in the U.S. we are currently facing the risk of Big Tech becoming a pseudo-political super-party and taking the government by economic force.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  High Treason
April 1, 2021 6:28 pm

Agreed – I’m sick of the lip service paid to the imaginary “problem.” I’d like to see some judges with the sense to let them know their claims have ZERO merit because no evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels “drive” the climate has ever been presented. The glorified opinions of supposedly learned “scientists” are NOT “evidence” of anything.

The lawyers of every defendant in such non-“cases” should instantly and repeatedly “object” based on the supposed “facts” not being “in evidence” before the court, and keep doing it until “climate change,” in the way they mean it, can be put on trial and shown to be the absolute nonsense that it is.

mikee
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 1, 2021 6:49 pm

The energy from the sun drives the climate.

Dennis
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 1, 2021 7:48 pm

They never mention H2O in the atmosphere and impact on weather.

April 1, 2021 2:31 pm

Speaking as a retired but still licensed lawyer (among other things), this result was ALWAYS inevitable. The deluded effort at lawfare started by Naomi Oreskes at Scripps in 2011, which ultimately led to this suit and a similar one from San Fransisco (and similarly rejected) were always just Hail Mary’s from people who do not know the law, taken on by law firms who do—but bill the ever hopeful warmunists by the hour for their services. (Actually, in the SF kids case, it was at least partly contingent fee, so the SF plaintiff lawyers apparently thought they had a shot. Speaks to SF, not to general, legal acumen.)

rbabcock
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2021 3:21 pm

wait… you are a lawyer?

Reply to  rbabcock
April 1, 2021 3:37 pm

Yah. HLS 76, Mass Bar since then, admitted 11/76. Plus HBS in joint program (one year behind Mittens, who I knew well). Plus very senior corp exec, twice (BCG and Mot). Plus co or sole inventor on 13 issued US patents in four subject matter areas. Plus three ebooks. Plus two great kids and now three wonderful grandkids.
Sort of been around life’s racetrack laps a few times already.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2021 7:44 pm

Rud for president, 2024.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2021 8:08 pm

I’m not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and can barely figure out when lawsuits are still ongoing or not. But I do have a list of 20+ AGW “Exxon Knew”-style lawsuits at my blog, which includes Comer v Murphy Oil & Kivalina v Exxon that were definitely dismissed. This NY v BP lawsuit is #11 there — is this one now dismissed, or is it merely dormant in some way?

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2021 3:37 pm

Unfortunately Rud, I think the strategy is to just drain industry resources.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 1, 2021 3:42 pm

David, you might be right, but the swiftness and decisiveness with which these ‘public nuisance’ lawsuits have been rejected at court and on appeal says that effort has failed. Thank goodness.

Glenn
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2021 4:04 pm

Over a decade is swift and decisive? I’d say this is an example of judicial failing, and evidence to assume that no effort in the future will necessarily fail.
The claims were absurd from the start. A few more progressive judges in place and the sky won’t even be the limit to what damage can be done in the name of justice.

Reply to  Glenn
April 1, 2021 5:02 pm

You make a good point. But do not understand how law ‘grounds slowly but fine’. This is slow, for sure. Fine, we dunno yet.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Glenn
April 1, 2021 6:06 pm

Mann v. Steyn is a case in point at over 9 years.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 2, 2021 9:54 am

Yeah… But, it’s like “whack-a-mole”… Easily swatted down individually, there’s just a never-ending supply of moles.

AndyHce
Reply to  David Middleton
April 1, 2021 6:25 pm

And maybe, hopefully, to get paid to shut up and go to some bar to count their winnings?

Last edited 9 days ago by AndyHce
DMA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2021 3:55 pm

Rud
Is there any possibility of a class action suit against the EPA to force review of the endangerment finding or initiate a real review of the body of science that refutes it? My understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is it did not say FF emissions are an endangerment but that if the EPA determined they are it had a responsibility to control them. The knowledge and process used by the EPA to get there were not adequate for the job and politically biased.

Reply to  DMA
April 1, 2021 5:06 pm

Good question. True observations, but Almost certainly not at this point.

observa
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2021 4:48 pm

I agree Rud that a State Court would always see the danger of opening up Pandora’s Box with this but it won’t stop the vexatious political lawyering-
Chevron just got hit with an official greenwashing complaint. Here’s what that means. (msn.com)

In one sense I agree with the sentiments of challenging ‘greenwashing’ as these FF companies should eschew such woke crap and be prepared to defend their product and activities for all the benefits they bestow on consumers. Furthermore they should stand firmly for the right to actively produce and promote any perfectly legitimate product until such time as a democracy rules it’s no longer a legal product with no retrospective claims and 20/20 hindsight. Without that business solidarity and firm stance any sector or business stands to be picked off by persistent activist lawyering and class action guerrilla tactics.

Reply to  rah
April 1, 2021 3:15 pm

Rah, Sundance at CTH (Last Refuge) got this wrong two ways (why I got banned there after being his Harvard trained pro bono lawyer for almost two years. I call it the way I see it. Sundance and his moderators think he is never wrong.).
First, it is NY State, not federal DOJ, prosecutors as his post claims. Sloppy. This is an extension of state litigation in process for some time. NOT federal.

Second, the new records request is clearly state fishing, arguably unrelated to the original NYS investigation as announced around state tax avoidance on his upstate NY estate, as gleefully publicized by former lawyer Michael Cohen, who himself was a low level nuisance ‘fixer’ with no privy to high level Trump tax affairs. Cohen is bitter for having been caught out and criminally sentenced as a separateNYC taxi shield cheat having nothing to do with Trump.
Relax. This will all end OK. If the feds could not find something while Trump was president, NY state surely cannot after.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 2, 2021 8:54 am

“Relax. This will all end OK. If the feds could not find something while Trump was president, NY state surely cannot after.”

I think that is good advice.

Trump always had a little gleam in his eye when the reporters would lambast him over not making his taxes public. I felt like Trump was trolling the reporters. It was like he didn’t really fear his taxes being made public, but he had great fun telling the reporters that his lawyers wouldn’t let him do so until after his tax audit.

I would be surprised if Trump did anything illegal about his taxes. He’s rich enough that he doesn’t have to cheat on his taxes, and I personally, don’t think cheating on taxes is part of Trump’s personality.

I actually think Trump is basically an honest man. I know the Left doesn’t look at him that way. To them, he is Hitler. Not because he violently takes out his opponents like a dictator would, but because Trump reverses their Leftwing agenda. He destroys it, when he can, and it infuriates them to the point that they will do anything, legal or illegal to get him out of the picture.

But the truth is Trump has been investigated up one side and down the other and has come out the other end clean as the driven snow. His tax records are the latest desperate effort of the Left to get Trump, and as a consequence, anyone who thinks like Trump. That means a lot of people they want to rid themselves of. About 75 million people by last count.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 5, 2021 2:32 am

The one note of caution I’d point out is that the tax law is so byzantine, it’s quite possible for someone, even someone “rich enough that he doesn’t have to cheat” to have something in their tax returns that can be used against them, Particularly when you are “rich enough” since the richer you are, the more complicated your tax returns are likely to be. (when your only income is a paycheck from your job and you don’t have enough deductions to itemize, your taxes are relatively simple, when your income derives from a paycheck, dividends from stocks, capital gains from real estate sales, etc, and you itemize to take advantage of numerous deductions, your taxes get really complicated really fast. The more complicated they get, the greater the risk of running fowl of some arcane tax rule).

Last edited 6 days ago by John Endicott
4 Eyes
April 1, 2021 2:41 pm

The acknowledgement by the court that all users of fossil fuels i.e. everybody, are responsible for CO2 emissions puts a dent in future claims against oil and gas producers.

commieBob
Reply to  4 Eyes
April 1, 2021 5:51 pm

I would say the other big argument is that the benefits of fossil fuels outweigh the harms by several orders of magnitude. link

I would not trade places with the emperors, kings, and aristocrats of yore. They could not even imagine how wonderful our modern life is. If someone told them, they would think it’s a description of Heaven.

Andy Espersen
April 1, 2021 3:00 pm

It does not appear from the article who pays costs. If the city pays it’s all fine with me.

Dennis
Reply to  Andy Espersen
April 1, 2021 7:51 pm

Where does the city get money from, the taxpayers/ratepayers of course, we the people.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Dennis
April 1, 2021 11:28 pm

“You the people” deserve it – if electing idiots like that to councils or governments.

Darrin
Reply to  Andy Espersen
April 2, 2021 12:00 pm

In my case the idiots outweigh those with sense. Otherwise I don’t get the government I voted for so I have to live with the government I got. Moving states isn’t an option with elderly relatives who won’t move and I can’t leave them. All to many are in similar situations as myself.

John Endicott
Reply to  Darrin
April 5, 2021 2:45 am

As a fellow blue stater, I feel your pain. My job is here (and I’m not yet retirement age, nor do I wish to seek new employment) and most of my family is here (and they have no plans on moving). Unfortunately that means we have to suffer the consequences of our fellow citizens idiocy at the polls.

John Endicott
Reply to  Dennis
April 5, 2021 2:36 am

Indeed and “the people” of NY elected the idiots behind these lawsuits time and time again. You reap what you sow.

April 1, 2021 3:23 pm

New York City have hit back with a lawsuit against the whole human race, blaming them for death, and demanding 10^80 dollars in compensation.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 1, 2021 3:41 pm

And of course they themselves will be defendants in their own litigation.

Curious George
Reply to  Timo, not that one
April 1, 2021 4:14 pm

Why not? It is April 1st.

Bryan A
April 1, 2021 3:48 pm

All the judge really needed to state was…
Since you still make use of the products and related petrochemical byproducts, you would be found as guilty as those you seek to litigate against. So Go Sue Yourself…

Editor
April 1, 2021 4:03 pm

I am astonished at the clarity of the Courts reasoning and finding. A HUGE win.

David
April 1, 2021 4:13 pm

Thank god at least some of the stupidity has been stopped, at least temporarily.

Quilter52
April 1, 2021 4:34 pm

It seems to me there is nothing to prevent New York from preventing the sale of these products within their boundaries, if I understand US law even slightly. Consequently New York should immediately step up and ban all petroleum products. It will be interesting to see how long they stay in government Ifthey tried that one on. However if they are not prepared themselves to undertake such a course of action, then it is pleasing to see the judges are highlighting the cupidity and hypocrisy Of New York and other such Administrations.

ray g
April 1, 2021 5:34 pm

The producers of all these harmful products should be signing supply contracts with the priviso “NOT FOR SALE NYC”

Edward Katz
April 1, 2021 6:12 pm

All levels of governments plus a multitude of other organizations are looking for cash cows to prop up their operating costs, so why not target fossil fuel producers? Fortunately this decision, as well as a few earlier ones that this site mentioned earlier this year, reveals that at least some courts are willing to throw out frivolous claims.

Dennis
April 1, 2021 7:46 pm

States promoting and subsidising their push for a transition to Electric Vehicles should take into account where most electricity comes from, generated using fossil fuel and steam produced.

Most of the electricity grid baseload and peak demand is generated by power stations and most of them are fossil fuel fired, world wide.

And then let’s consider the manufacturing materials and processes to produce wind turbines, solar and battery storage. And the foundation materials.

EV is an exercise in futility, the perfect solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

saveenergy
Reply to  Dennis
April 2, 2021 1:24 am

“EV is an exercise in futility, the perfect solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

But it’s not the perfect solution as it creates more problems now & then even more in the future.

CO2isLife
April 1, 2021 8:04 pm

For CO2 to cause climate change/global warming, you have to demonstrate that CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water. It can’t, and I can prove it. I just completed a controlled experiment where I placed 2 1,000 Lumen LED Lamps 6 inches from 12 ounces of H20 contained in an IR reflecting Aluminum foil plastic container. The light is shined through a Long-Pass IR Filter. After 3 Days there was no measurable warming in the water vs the control. There was a calibration error leading to a difference between the control and the study sample. Clearly there isn’t an uptrend. When the control was flat the study was flat. Also, I really blasted the water with 2 1,000 Lumens LED lamps, far exceeding the margin backradiation from CO2 due to changing CO2 from 270 to 415 ppm. Everyone can run this experiment, and should. Any lawsuit should use this experiment to exonerate CO2.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  CO2isLife
April 2, 2021 12:20 am

Can I suggest that you make a short video of your experiment describing the apparatus and method and post it somewhere we can download it? Then we could all install it on our phones ready to show to anyone who claims that climate change is a problem.

CO2isLife
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
April 2, 2021 12:36 pm

I’m working on it. A high school student is making a YouTube Video and validating the experiment results.

Graemethecat
Reply to  CO2isLife
April 2, 2021 12:39 am

I believe the argument used by the Warmunists is that increased LWIR from CO2 causes increased water vapour, which causes the actual warming. Complete drivel, of course, but harder to refute.

CO2isLife
Reply to  Graemethecat
April 2, 2021 12:40 pm

The Oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere. The oceans are warming, they cover 70% of the earth’s surface, they are the earth’s largest heat sink. If CO2 can’t explain the warming oceans, they can’t explain warming. Anyway, the CO2 signature isn’t even measurable until you are up 3km. H2O already saturates the absorption of LWIR between 13 and 15 microns near the surface. You can’t absorb more than 100%, and existing H2O already does that. CO2 has no impact near the surface because H2O already saturates the absorption of the wavelengths absorbed by CO2. If the theory you state held water, H2O would cause a cycle of warming, more H2O, more warming. You don’t need CO2.

Joel O'Bryan
April 1, 2021 9:24 pm

This court opinion is too logical for Liberal “feelings” to understand.

Climate change is about “feelings”, a feeling of climate crisis, a feeling of climate emergency.
Climate change thus is absolute junk science. Congratulations Gavin and Mike.

Rod Evans
April 1, 2021 10:57 pm

“Go sue yourselves, you “artful pleaders”
If only the judge had uttered those words in summing up, it would have been the perfect end to the case and reputation of the ambulance chasing lawyers who brought this nonsense case, forward..

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 2, 2021 12:48 am

Looks to me like a non-case thrown out by a non-argument.

The preambule ‘global warming is a uniquely international concern’ just describes the uniquely international belief in unicorns.

Tom
April 2, 2021 5:12 am

the Clean Air Act grants the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions.”

That’s one of the scariest statements I’ve seen. The federal courts are granting authority to a group of unelected, and likely ignorant bureaucrats over congress, and even themselves? The federal courts have assumed authority over everything else. Why are they leaving this to bureaucrats?

Olen
April 2, 2021 9:10 am

Proof the state is run by nut cases hoping to deliver change beyond their power or common sense. Gratifying to find honest judges.

ScienceABC123
April 2, 2021 10:20 am

Let’s be clear here. This lawsuit was nothing more than New York City’s attempt to access a new source of funds to be misspent.

ResourceGuy
April 2, 2021 11:35 am

Can we counter sue in a class action case for the damage done to consumers by NYC?

ResourceGuy
April 2, 2021 11:45 am

Can we go ahead and cut off all fossil fuel product deliveries to NYC…….out of an abundance of caution?

Ossqss
April 2, 2021 12:36 pm

Somebody help me out here?

The data show no increase (some decrease) in extreme weather events anywhere (hurricanes, tornado etc.), with a possible exception of downpours (due to better technology IMHO), no increase in fires, floods, no increase in attributed climate deaths (down – 95%), no acceleration in SLR (which has been happening for 10’s of thousands of years), soooo where is the harm from such? Am I blind?

Is it increasing global greening by 10% and having to use more Roundup, or what?

How did they display the harm/damage in the discover phase of this whole legal circus with no evidence of an issue?

Was there even a discovery phase?

%d bloggers like this: