The Latest On The “Stupidest Litigation” In The Country


Francis Menton

Perhaps you are amazed at the millions of people who have bought into the idea that the gradually increasing level of a trace atmospheric gas (CO2, currently about 0.04% of the atmosphere) is going to bring about world climate doom a hundred or so years from now.  You may be even more amazed at the similarly large numbers of people who seem to think that the salvation from this doom is to be found in bringing lawsuits against various companies that produce fossil fuels and getting some court somewhere to order that the companies do . . .  what exactly?  And that is going to avert the climate doom . . . how exactly?  

I can’t answer those questions.  But the posing of the questions has led me, as a service to readers, to try to follow some of these ridiculous lawsuits, which I have dubbed the “stupidest litigations” in the country.  So far there have been three nominations for the “stupidest litigation” award:

  • The first nomination, made in December 2017, went to the litigation titled Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana v. United States. In that case, a group of adolescents in the Pacific Northwest sought an injunction to require the federal government to decree an end to all use of fossil fuels, in order to “save the planet.”
  • A second nomination, in October 2019, went to the suit brought by New York’s Attorney General against Exxon, claiming that Exxon defrauded its own investors by downplaying the risks of climate change to its business. The remedy sought was damages in the range of a billion or so dollars.
  • And there was a third nomination, which went to the various lawsuits brought by cities, counties and states around the country against certain major oil companies (not just Exxon), seeking to hold those companies liable for monetary damages said to be associated with prospective physical damage from things like sea level rise, alleged to result from fossil fuel emissions.

If you have been following this blog, you already know what happened to the litigations that received the first and second nominations.  The Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana case died in January 2020, when a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the Oregon District Court and held the matter non-justiciable.  The New York AG’s case against Exxon died in December 2019 when a judge of the New York State Supreme Court (trial-level court) ruled on the merits after trial that Exxon had not defrauded its shareholders; the AG did not appeal the decision.

But how about nominee number three?  This story is much more complicated.  It’s not just one case, but many. These cases allege common law “nuisance” claims, said to arise under the state law of whatever state the particular plaintiff county or city (or state itself) finds itself in.  Almost all of these cases have been brought in state courts.  For several years these cases have seemed to be on a roll, avoiding dismissals and getting sent for trial in the various state courts where, as we all know, anything could happen.  However, on Thursday (April 1), the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that only applies directly to one case, but for reasons I will describe has potentially dealt a serious blow to all of the cases.  The story will likely take years to play out.  But you will enjoy this if you are a fan of litigation back-and-forth.

First, note that these city/county/state cases against the major oil companies are all part of a nationwide campaign orchestrated by a small group of environmental activist lawyers, the lead of them being a guy named Matthew Pawa, who practices in the Boston area in Massachusetts.  The Second Circuit decision contains a list of various cases in the group, which is not comprehensive, but includes among listed plaintiff jurisdictions the Cities of Oakland and San Francisco and County of San Mateo, California; the State of Massachusetts; the State of Rhode Island; the County of Boulder, Colorado; and the City of Baltimore, Maryland.

For all the cases in that list, the litigation trajectory has been basically the same.  The plaintiff city, county or state brought the case in state court.  The defendant oil companies then sought to “remove” the case to federal court.  The ground for removal has been that, even though the complaints say that they are based on state law of “nuisance,” in fact the claims are governed by federal law, either federal common law and/or the Clean Air Act, and therefore the cases should properly be heard in federal court.  Most of the federal District Courts to which the cases have been removed, and all of the federal Courts of Appeal to which appeals have been taken, have so far held the cases non-removable, and sent them back to the state courts.  That is not the end of the matter, because the oil companies have sought to have the Supreme Court review the question of “removability.”  The Second Circuit opinion notes that in four of the cases, petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court have been filed, and in one of those (the Baltimore case) the petition has been granted.

The “removability” question is one that would usually be of interest only to specialists in federal court procedures; but here it could have big consequences.  Generally, the federal statute allows a case brought in state court to be removed if the federal courts would “have original jurisdiction.” The most common example of that is that the complaint asserts a federal claim.  Here, nothing on the face of the city, county or state complaints states a federal claim or otherwise indicates any basis for federal court jurisdiction; instead, the complaints allege only state law “nuisance” claims.  But the defendants assert that they have a defense that the state laws of “nuisance” are inapplicable, and are pre-empted by either federal common law and/or the federal Clean Air Act and associated EPA regulations.  So the question is, can a case be removed to federal court not on the basis of anything in the plaintiff’s complaint, but rather on the basis of a defense that the defendant says it is going to assert, but has not actually yet asserted at the time of the removal?  I guess we will hear from the Supreme Court on that one a year or so from now.

But meanwhile, the case that went to the Second Circuit was brought by the City of New York, and it was brought in a federal court, the Southern District of New York.  Like the other cases in the group, the New York City case asserts claims under the state law of “nuisance.”  Why did they bring the case in federal court, when everybody else brought their case in state court?  I don’t know.  As with all the other cases, the name of Mr. Pawa appears as one of the counsel on New York City’s complaint.  But for some reason he did not follow his usual playbook here.  Based on the Second Circuit decision, bringing this one case in federal court may turn out to have been a big mistake.

Because the New York City case was brought in federal court, the issue of “removability” does not arise.  Therefore, the Second Circuit goes straight to the more important issue, which is, does the New York State law of “nuisance” apply in the face of the comprehensive federal regime for regulating air quality under the Clean Air Act and any associated federal common law?  The Second Circuit finds that New York State “nuisance” law is pre-empted by the federal scheme, and therefore there is no state cause of action.  The court affirms the dismissal of the lawsuit by the District Court.  Key quote:

Such a sprawling case is simply beyond the limits of state law.  To start, a substantial damages award like the one requested by the City would effectively regulate the Producers’ behavior far beyond New York’s borders.  Since “[g]reenhouse gases once emitted ‘become well mixed in the atmosphere,’” . . . “emissions in [New York or] New Jersey may contribute no more to flooding in New York than emissions in China,” . . .   Any actions the Producers take to mitigate their liability, then, must undoubtedly take effect across every state (and country).  And all without asking what the laws of those other states (or countries) require.  Because it therefore “implicat[es] the conflicting rights of [s]tates [and] our relations with foreign nations,” this case poses the quintessential example of when federal common law is most needed. . . .  

What has thus occurred is that the Second Circuit has laid down a marker that every state court that gets one of these cases will now need to deal with.  The First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have all found the state “nuisance” claims non-removable; and the Supreme Court may agree.  But even though the cases may go to trial in state court, that does not mean that state rather than federal law should be applied.  The various state courts that get these cases will now need to deal with the Second Circuit’s decision in some way, either following it, or trying to come up with some reason why it is wrong.  And if the state courts apply the federal law as set forth by the Second Circuit, they will have to dismiss the cases.  If some state court decides to apply its own “nuisance” law in the face of the Second Circuit’s ruling, that decision will very likely then find its way back to the Supreme Court.

This is far from over.  Undoubtedly, the next step will be that New York City will file its own certiorari petition to the Supreme Court.  However, stepping back a little, does anybody really think that assessing a few billions or tens of billions of dollars of damages against a handful of the big oil companies is going to “save the planet”?

Read the full article here.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 4, 2021 6:05 pm

When someone offers you some fossil fuels, or medicines, or plastics, or food fertilized, harvested and brought to market with fossil fuels, just say no.

Reply to  Scissor
April 4, 2021 6:39 pm

Including electricity from grids using fossil fuel fired power stations to generate electricity, on average globally most of the electricity supplies.

Do not recharge an EV from the fossil fuelled grid.

Reply to  Dennis
April 4, 2021 7:59 pm

Including hydrocarbon-fueled power stations and hydrocarbon-backed intermittent/renewable energy converters.

Reply to  Dennis
April 4, 2021 10:37 pm

Don’t buy an EV made with fossil fuel power, wired with plastic coated wire, faux-leathered with pleather, instrumented with plastic screens and buttons, etc, you get the idea. Applies to wind turbines, solar panels and battery backup too.

Reply to  Scissor
April 4, 2021 7:56 pm

They target hydrocarbons, but that is just a way station to a carbon-free economy. Plan (pun intended) accordingly. Purchase carbon credits to indulge you carbon-based habits.

Reply to  n.n
April 5, 2021 11:06 pm

They target hydrocarbons,” The only problem with that is we are all made of hydrocarbons. Somehow why do feel our education system has failed to point out that fact? Did you ever wonder why some student need to be there to run the AV equipment, that would kinda tell the education system if full of below average IQ people!

Reply to  MAL
April 8, 2021 4:32 pm

“Organic chemicals” is more technically correct and more useful. It includes all hydrocarbons since “organic” is a term of chemistry.

Rich Lambert
Reply to  Scissor
April 5, 2021 4:48 am

Also the courts and lawyers should quit printing legal documents using carbon black based toner and ink made from natural gas.

Reply to  Rich Lambert
April 5, 2021 11:19 pm

Add in iron particles from blast furnaces!

John Galt III
April 4, 2021 6:53 pm

“… going to bring about world climate doom a hundred or so years from now.”

Not according to America’s Fascist Party and the Prince of dunces.

“2019: ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ Ocasio-Cortez says.”

Then again…

“2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013”
“2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet.”
“2009: UK prime minister says 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’”
“2014: French Foreign Minister – Only 500 days to save the planet”


BS Geography/Climatology – University of Wisconsin
Masters Degree – Harvard

So, for 50 years I have heard the same crap. 1971 was the year I took my first climatology course and there have been charlatans and quacks going back decades. I’m 74 now and it just neve ends, does it?

Reply to  John Galt III
April 4, 2021 7:13 pm

This 73 year old agrees. The charlatans and quacks have only gotten louder and more unhinged…If that’s even possible. Oh, but wait until tomorrow and you will see that it can get worse.

Ian Johnson
Reply to  John Galt III
April 5, 2021 2:34 am
Reply to  Ian Johnson
April 5, 2021 4:48 am

I’ve read where some holy tract discussing the return of the Jews to Palestine was misspelled, missing on letter, worth 6 gematria points. That six, as you well know, turned into Sixmillions(TM).
Now, seeing as the sun is supposed to blow up in just three billion years, the three billion became 50/10/100 days/months/years….how?
Maybe we should all start spiking flogiston, so we can think at the level of these inspired geniuses?

Russ Wood
Reply to  paranoid goy
April 5, 2021 9:25 am

As an ex engineer, dealing with aircraft mass properties, I could have REALLY used some phlogiston back in the day!

Reply to  John Galt III
April 5, 2021 1:45 pm

I don’t care about the environmental BS anymore as I already starved to death because the world population was too large to feed itself. This was back in the 1980’s just after we ran out of oil.

Beta Blocker
April 4, 2021 6:55 pm

I’ve made the point for several years now that the Executive Branch of the US Government has all the legal authority it needs to quickly and unilaterally reduce America’s GHG emissions by combining elements of the Clean Air Act with already enacted elements of national security legislation in order to create a very comprehensive and effective anti-carbon GHG regulation scheme.

Such a scheme to use the Clean Air Act and national security law to integrate carbon emission regulation with a nationally-mandated carbon fuels rationing program could in theory reduce America’s GHG emissions 50% by 2030 over a 2005 baseline — the target that many environmental activists are now pushing.

This kind of highly aggressive GHG reduction program would have the effect of nullifying all anti-carbon lawsuits as being moot. The federal government would be taking full responsibility for achieving the emission reduction goals the climate activist litigants are claiming is necessary. Lots of lawyers who profit from these kinds of anti-carbon lawsuits would be up a creek, at least as far as climate litigation goes.

Or would they actually be up a creek? A scheme which integrates carbon emission regulation with a nationally mandated carbon fuels rationing program will generate many, many lawsuits from the affected stakeholders, climate activists and corporate lawyers alike.

If such a scheme were to be adopted, it’s possible that climate activist lawyers could make as much money, or even more money, from becoming paid legal consultants to these many lawsuits than they now can make supporting the city and state anti-carbon lawsuits.

Last edited 1 year ago by Beta Blocker
Ed Hanley
Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 4, 2021 8:15 pm

In other words, go along to get along, yield to the insanity, do what they say, and they’ll leave you alone. While civilization dies on the vine. Yeah, sounds legit…

Reply to  Ed Hanley
April 4, 2021 8:45 pm

The lifestyle and freedoms we enjoy today were built on the backs of, the bodies of, and the blood of better men than ourselves. It was not a fight they asked for. It was not a fight they enjoyed or relished. Wars bring untold misery and suffering in its execution and immediate aftermath.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Ed Hanley
April 5, 2021 6:25 am

A highly aggressive GHG reduction scheme such as the one I’ve described above would leave the production of fossil fuels in private hands but would engage the states and the private fossil fuel corporations as the government’s agents of control in managing the emission reductions.

Fossil fuel producers would systematically reduce their output of carbon fuels in return for a guaranteed schedule of profits on the fuels they actually do produce — profits which are the same or larger than the ones they had been making before the scheme was implemented.

The states would be given the great bulk of the revenues produced by the EPA’s system of carbon pollution fines. It is conceivable that the revenue streams produced from these ‘fines’ — the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon — would eventually constitute the largest single source of income for every state government which chooses to participate.

The bottom line here is that the only possible means for achieving a 50% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2030 is through enforced energy conservation measures combined with a steep increase in the price of energy. Not just fossil fuel energy, but all sources of energy.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 5, 2021 1:37 pm

CO2 is NOT a GHG! The earth, and it’s inhabitants could not long survive without it! Maybe that’s the ultimate plan? If so, why not shoot for an oxygen reduction plan? THAT would be a lot quicker!

Reply to  IAMPCBOB
April 6, 2021 7:43 pm

Reducing CO2 *is* an oxygen reduction plan. It’s a twofer shooting both feet with one bullet. People who can not pass a basic science exam should not be driving science.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 5, 2021 5:36 pm

I put your, “ achieving a 50% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2030”…”through enforced energy conservation measures combined with a steep increase in the price of energy. Not just fossil fuel energy, but all sources of energy,” into my computer model, and it showed 50 million Americans would die from energy poverty and the resulting higher prices for necessities like food.

Do you find that an acceptable price to pay?

Reply to  jtom
April 5, 2021 11:23 pm

The left does after all in a world of about 3 billion people the murdered 200,000,000 do you think they have change? 50,000,000 to them at this point and time is pocket change.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 8, 2021 4:45 pm

The Federal Government, if your ideas passed would never return to the oil companies/producers/supply chain. The amount of money would be too large for any of the Washington swamp dwellers to pass up.
If the Dims did manage to pass it, which is possible, it would be contested for years and never touch a non-existant gas.

George Tetley
Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 5, 2021 2:19 am

And what you say is TRUST POLITICS?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  George Tetley
April 5, 2021 6:39 am

George, what I’m saying here is that the Biden administration has all the legal authority it needs to go just as far and as fast as climate activists want us to go in reducing America’s carbon emissions.

Moreover, the 2020 election cycle has demonstrated that those politicians who are now advocating these steep reductions have nothing to fear from the political backlash which would result from quickly turning America into an energy poor nation relative to the energy cornucopia we enjoy today.

If you are an advocate of the free enterprise system, you ignore this situation at your own peril.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 5, 2021 7:29 am

…..”George, what I’m saying here is that the Biden administration has all the legal authority it needs to go just as far and as fast as climate activists want us to go in reducing America’s carbon emissions. ” …
Not . Even . Close . to LEGAL authority .
You have talked to AOC ? And you know how far and fast SHE wants to go ???

Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 5, 2021 11:25 pm

Yep when you manufacture 20,000,000 vote and are not called on it you don’t sweat the next election.

April 4, 2021 6:58 pm

… does anybody really think that assessing a few billions or tens of billions of dollars of damages against a handful of the big oil companies is going to “save the planet”?

No. In a sense, the court system is like a lottery. You buy a ticket and you have a chance of winning. link The fact that these lawsuits survive more than a millisecond is evidence of how corrupt the American legal system has become.

Reply to  commieBob
April 4, 2021 8:47 pm

In the US, every party that seeks courts to bring this kind of Lawfare does “court” forum shopping. They look for and then file in districts and court regions where the odds of finding judges with a favorable ideology are more likely than not.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 5, 2021 3:38 am

Best in CA and MA.

April 4, 2021 7:27 pm

These extensive legal cases are going to rise to the level of a significant emissions issue from their own expanding cloud of decadent political manipulation. How many vacation homes, SUVs, and private jets of the law firms will it generate?

April 4, 2021 7:59 pm

If I were running one of the companies being sued, I would be tempted to announce that I will no longer supply anyone who is suing me. I wonder how long New York could survive if the Oil companies refused to deliver supplies. It may be worth taking a short financial hit to show how stupid these people are.

Reply to  johnd2008
April 4, 2021 11:46 pm

That’s what I thought, but the companies being sued only produce the oil, not the end products.

Better would be for the companies, Exxon for example, being sued to announce they would not sell Exxon oil to any company selling products in NY using Exxon oil.

That would really hit them hard in the fiscals.

Steve Z
Reply to  johnd2008
April 5, 2021 8:38 am

New York State already has experience with this. Before he got into the business of killing old people in nursing homes by infecting them with COVID, Governor Cuomo had banned the building of new natural gas pipelines in his state, even though there was plenty of natural gas available from fracking in neighboring Pennsylvania.

Then there was a group of people that wanted to convert their home heating furnaces from oil to natural gas (which would reduce CO2 emissions, by the way), but the utility companies told them they couldn’t deliver the extra gas without the pipelines.

Would that be enough to cause Governor Cuomo to allow a new pipeline to be built? Probably not–those people that want natural gas will have to move to Pennsylvania…

Russ Wood
Reply to  Steve Z
April 5, 2021 9:26 am

And, I believe, a lot of them have moved! To Pa, Tx, Fl…..

Charles Fairbairn
Reply to  johnd2008
April 5, 2021 10:40 am

Yes. The same applies to the car industry. Only supply EVs to public sector activity. Governments should be required to adhere to their policies; but I’m not sure how an EV fire engine would cope in a blackout.

Reply to  johnd2008
April 5, 2021 5:59 pm

Few people appreciate the second half of the argument often made by those who favor suing the oil company, to wit: since oil companies have made billions selling their ‘dirty’ fuels, they must be held responsible for developing a clean, replacement energy source. So, if they continue selling dirty products, they should be sued. If they stop selling their existing products without offering an equivalent clean product, they should be sued.

You cannot rationalize irrational acts. You cannot reason with unreasonable people.

April 4, 2021 8:01 pm

Some billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos (and the late Paul Allen) spend their monies to build space ships in a private ego race to achieve orbital bragging rights and to maybe Moon or Mars one day.

Some billioniares like Bill Gates, the Koch brothers, and Ken Langone spend their billions on philatrophiues that actually helped advance medical knowledge and bring clinical care to 3rd World poor.

Other bilionaires like Tom Steyer, Mike Bloomberg, the Rockefeller trust, and George Soros spend their monies on the Trojan Horse that is climate change in order to destroy Western middle class affluence of affordable energy. They buy politicians and their campaigns via PACs to put favored Congress critters, Attorney Generals and District Attorneys into elected positions do their bidding… just like some kind of Flying Monkey slaves as portrayed in the Wizard of Oz. Theirs is a power play to turn the democratic Western nations into a socialist feudal society while they get richer for their descendants.

Thus some billionaires are pure evil with their money.

Last edited 1 year ago by joelobryan
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 4, 2021 8:47 pm

Don’t overlook Zuck from list #3.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 4, 2021 8:53 pm

Zuck just spends his monies on hoards of Ho’s and new penthouses in places like like NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo and so on. Yes he knows his entire FB company is filled with SJWs, so to stay in the moeny, he needs them to stay focused on not on him and so he plays to them.
Zuck doesn’t have any principles other than what advances his own hedonism.

Vincent Causey
April 5, 2021 12:24 am

The states should be suing their own citizens for buying the products.

Climate believer
April 5, 2021 1:05 am

“However, stepping back a little, does anybody really think that assessing a few billions or tens of billions of dollars of damages against a handful of the big oil companies is going to “save the planet”?”

It’s not about saving the planet, it’s all about destruction.

You may want to educate yourself about “critical theory”, or societal cancer as I call it.

Imagine our society as some ghastly Hieronymus Bosch painting as a reference for what they have in store for us.
It needs to be fought tooth and nail wherever it is found, if not the west is finished.

George Tetley
Reply to  Climate believer
April 5, 2021 2:29 am

Without money and no access to money a year in central Africa would “maybe” change those who lived the experience.

April 5, 2021 1:18 am

Free advice to Exxon et al:
When somebody sues you alleging that your product is causing them harm, stop supplying them with your product.

How long would New York function if all the oil companies stopped supplying oil?

April 5, 2021 2:10 am

“..gradually increasing level of a trace atmospheric gas (CO2, currently about 0.04% of the atmosphere) is going to bring about world climate doom a hundred or so years”

Unfortunately, many lunatic Leftists (like AOC) are saying the earth will be uninhabitable in just 9 years due to CAGW…

You can’t fix stupid— It’s stupidity alllll the way down…

The upside to all this absurd Leftist fanaticism is that once CAGW becomes an untenable hypothesis, many woke Leftists will realize their government gods are astoundingly stupid, dishonest and fallible, and will begin to question other aspects of idiotic Leftist dogma they’ve been indoctrinated into believing..

Gregory Woods
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 5, 2021 4:34 am

No, they will just find another ’cause’…

George Daddis
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 5, 2021 8:20 am

To be fair (and it is difficult in her case) I believe AOC had a misfire betwix brain and mouth and intended to repeat the mantra current at the time that we only had 10 (or 12) years to make changes to avoid disaster.

But of course that is equally preposterous.

George Tetley
April 5, 2021 2:12 am

To fix the” problem” oil Co just refuse to operate in said zones then private groups start litigation against the idiots for hundreds of billions of $ it would see an administrative change that is long overdue

Joseph Zorzin
April 5, 2021 3:34 am

“First, note that these city/county/state cases against the major oil companies are all part of a nationwide campaign orchestrated by a small group of environmental activist lawyers, the lead of them being a guy named Matthew Pawa, who practices in the Boston area in Massachusetts.”

Massachusetts? Figures. When I debate climate alarmists here in MA I now refer to the state as “the Caliphate of the Climate Emergency Religion”. Given the fact that the state sued the EPA in ’07 in the Supreme Court to force it to “find” that CO2 is an air pollutant. And it just passed its net zero Jihad by 2050. Forests are being leveled in every town to install solar “farms”. Hundreds of thousands of acres will be so converted in this tiny state to arrive at net free nirvana. But of course no such solar “farms” will be built on ultra wealthy Martha’s Vineyard and no out at sea wind turbines will be visible to the Kennedys or Obamas and others of the island’s upper class.

Boff Doff
April 5, 2021 4:16 am

How can a State, which authorises, regulates and taxes the distribution and sale of fossil fuels, claim damages arising from the distribution and sale of fossil fuels if it has not already banned such activity?

The US and A is a strange place, where climate activists can vote but donkey cannot!

Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 4:59 am

Hey, I’ve got it – let’s sue farmers next. Clearly the production of food has caused great environmental harm, and threatens the planet.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.

George Daddis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 8:26 am

No. Close but no cigar.

Sue CocaCola for the undeniable connection of sugar filled soft drinks with the documented deaths from type II diabetes, especially impacting PoC!!

(You probably could use the LNT principle to expand your claim without having to show the bodies.)

Reply to  George Daddis
April 5, 2021 11:31 pm

Sugared Coke damn near killed me, diet Coke did the same(different reason), should I sue Coke-cola for that are is it my own damn fault. As a conservative I go for the latter if I were a leftist I would be suing.

Last edited 1 year ago by MAL
Barnes Moore
April 5, 2021 5:35 am

It would be great if somehow, all the fossil fuel companies were able to simply stop providing their products – and their product’s derivatives – to the cities/states that claim harm. Let’s see what the social cost of that would be.

April 5, 2021 5:36 am

It’s not about “saving the planet.” It’s about graft: in how many of these cases are private law firms associated who will garner a huge amount of any settlement, money that will be kicked back to Democrat politicians, Democrat campaign contributions, and left-wing activists?

Kevin A
April 5, 2021 6:25 am

The oil companies need to pick a state and stop supplying product, 10 days later after the politicians are tar and feathered the other states might get the message.

Richard Page
April 5, 2021 6:49 am

It’s not about ‘saving the planet’ – it never was about that. It’s all about milking the cash cow – every idiot seems to think they can screw a bit more money out of someone else if they try hard or often enough.

Dan M
April 5, 2021 7:34 am

It’s just despicable “lawfare” waged by progressives and abetted by the trial lawyer industry.

Ralph Compton
April 5, 2021 8:33 am

the entire bunch are bat shit crazy

April 5, 2021 9:36 am

The cultural marxists infiltrated the US legal system (all the way to the Supreme Court), and the resulting degradation of the system is astonishing.

Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 10:20 am

Yep, follow the money.

Sam L.
April 5, 2021 10:29 am

Perhaps the numerous gas stations in a state were boycotted by the gasoline companies… Hmmmmmmmmm. How long would it be before the populace surrounded the state capitol??? Starting with those gas stations in the capitol city…

April 5, 2021 11:30 am

Per the third nomination … lawsuits brought by various Cities….

I will throw the first $100 into a fund to pay someone bring suit against one, or more, of those Cities by using their own language or logic in the suit.

Sue New York for the potential harm they cause by literally permitting & profiting (tax revenue) from what they describe as a threat to their citizens; but New York City wouldn’t care how much money they spend in the suit….

Sue a smallish City that has jumped on this bandwagon of ignorance and greed.

Reply to  DonM
April 5, 2021 11:34 pm

How about suing them for not shutting down the subway during a pandemic, even worse keep the crowding up bu reducing trains due to less ridership!

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  DonM
April 6, 2021 12:58 pm

Everything about these arsehats makes steam come out my ears, i simply cannot believe how stupid people can be.
Here in canada, in locations that live off tourists like Victoria and Whistler BC, Banff, etc, all have passed climate emergency resolutions, and also at least flirted with the idea of lawsuits against oil companies for “climate damage”, and yet all of these jurisdictions brag about how many million tourists visited the previous year, and the amount of money they spend each year to attract even more tourists, every one of which arrives by boat, plane or car powered by hydrocarbons.
I see none of them offering to shut down their tourist industries.
Anyone using this sort of language should be removed from the public discourse, from the internet, from adults talking.

April 5, 2021 1:39 pm

The correct term for those governmental nuisance suits against oil companies is “Shakedown operation”. Each and everyone of the governmental lawyers arguing the cases drive to the court house. If they walked or took a bus, they might arrive late and would lose by default.

April 7, 2021 5:24 pm

Maybe it is time for the companies named in these actions to remove their products from the state bringing the action and see what happens next.

%d bloggers like this: