A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that local governments in California can sue oil companies in state courts for allegedly causing climate change and hiding it from the public.
The suit, which dates back to 2017, is seeking damages for more than 30 companies, which the anti-oil San Francisco Chronicle said fossil fuels producers “profit from products contributing to rises in temperatures and sea levels.” [bold, links added]
And that means climate change is forcing cities and counties in the state to spend more money on infrastructure, including sea walls.
The plaintiffs in the case are San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz Counties and the cities of Richmond, Santa Cruz, and Imperial Beach in San Diego County.
The Chronicle reported:
The local governments sued in state court under California’s law allowing damages for a “public nuisance,” private actions that harm the public health.
The companies want the case to be heard in federal court, where judges can consider state laws but are generally less receptive to those laws than state courts, and are more likely to dismiss such suits.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled initially that the suits raised no issues of federal law and belonged in state court.
The Supreme Court told the appeals court last year to reconsider its ruling after ordering another court to review possible federal issues in a similar suit by the city of Baltimore. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit panel said it had considered all applicable federal laws and reached the same conclusion.
The suits contend the oil companies’ “wrongful conduct in producing, selling, marketing fossil fuels contributes to global warming and sea-level rise, which led to property damage and other injuries” to the cities and counties, Judge Sandra Ikuta said in the 3-0 ruling.
While the companies produced some of the oil as federal government contractors or on federal land, Ikuta said, they did not carry out government orders or policies, and none of their actions implicated federal laws.
“It is time to go to trial to hold these defendants accountable for deceiving consumers about the damages associated with the use of their products, and to protect our taxpayers from having to bear the enormous costs resulting from that deception,” a statement issued by Marin and Santa Cruz counties and the cities of Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach, said.
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, called it “a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products’ role in fueling the climate crisis.”
Chevron, the lead defendant in the case, condemned the decision.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are based on allegations about worldwide carbon emissions and address global climate change — national and international issues that can be governed only by federal, not state, law,” Braden Reddall, spokesperson for Chevron, said. “Although the court has decided that plaintiffs’ claims for now can proceed past this preliminary stage, Chevron looks forward to additional challenges that should put an early end to this meritless lawsuit.”
The oil companies noted some of the drilling being demonized takes place on the Outer Continental Shelf, which are waters regulated by the federal government.
But the court said local governments are not claiming harm to the land but that there is harm caused by the products that are made from fossil fuels.
The case is County of San Mateo v. Chevron, No. 18-15499 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Read more at Breitbart
I’m asking the leaders of the major oil companies to get rid of the recent woke nonsense that’s infiltrated your organisation and get into this fight and defend your company. This is your opportunity to do as David Lewis (above) says:
“use the litigation to put climate change on trial. Once proving harmful anthropological climate change isn’t happening, the suits would be dismissed on that basis. Such proof is easy. The climate models are over stating warming when compared to real world data”.
I would add to this – there is sufficient scientific evidence that all the claims being made that the world will go “poof” in 12 years because of CO2 emissions is completely false. It is a lie and any duly qualified professional supporting this claim and receiving government grands, should be disqualified from working in their scientific profession for the remainder of their lives.
This is an opportunity to bring to an end once and for all the greatest lie of all time – that human activity will destroy the planet Earth.
The Vultures and Sharks heading for California they smell Blood and their circling the Golden State
It seems to me that Chevron-et-al should demand proof that burning fossil fuels causes global warming, hence climate change.
The oil companies are missing a great opportunity here. They should use the litigation to put climate change on trial. Once proving harmful anthropological climate change isn’t happening, the suits would be dismissed on that basis. Such proof is easy. The climate models are over stating warming when compared to real world data. The suit are all most certainly based on the worst case RCP 8.5 model which is really far off when compared to real data. Extreme weather events are not increasing and deaths from such events are on the decline. Sea level has been rising since the end of the mini ice age but that has not increased and has actually decreased after 1950. Publicity from such a trial will be a big blow to the climate change movement. However, the members of the boards of the oil companies are so stupid that they have bought into the climate fraud so are not going to pursue this effective defense.
I will again point out that the true liability for the use a legal product lies with the end user. Drunk driving causes a great deal of mayhem. It is the people who drink and drive who are rightfully held accountable. Suing oil companies for theoretical damage make no more sense than suing breweries over the impact of drunk driving. If the cities really believe they are suffering the impact of using fossil fuels, they should sue themselves and their citizens for using them.
If the state of California considers oil companies to be nuisances perhaps they should all leave the state and let it figure out how to survive. One would hope the local population would finally rise up and kick these people out of office although I highly doubt it.
If memory serves me correctly, I believe a number of these issues have already been litigated. Judge Allsup of the 9th Circuit (circa 2018) ruled that the matter of climate change was a GLOBAL issue & outside the purview of State law and was best suited for the LEGISLATURE, not the courts. I’d think that precedent, which appears to be a sound decision, would work in the defendants favor (Chevron, et al). Further, a fraud case brought by the NY Attorney general (circa 2018) fell flat & was dismissed by a NY State superior court. Turned out, “Exxon Knew” only so much. So, I think these nuisance actions (ultimately) will miss the mark, as well. Face it. Just another example of activist attorney’s looking for a PAY DAY at the expense of those “Big Oil” villain’s