San Francisco’s climate lawsuit against Chevron hit a major snag after the oil company leveled a series of potentially fatal blows to activists accusing it of contributing to global warming.
Chevron claims the plaintiffs who burn fossil fuels during their everyday lives are the culprits responsible for ratcheting up emission levels. San Francisco is among a handful of California cities suing the oil company for supposedly contributing to climate change.
“It is undisputed that Defendants did not control the fossil fuels at the time they allegedly created the nuisance — i.e., when they were combusted—and thus cannot be held liable,” Chevron said in a March 23 memo asking the court to dismiss the city’s lawsuit. The highly publicized climate tutorial quizzing Chevron and the other litigants about the science behind global warming overshadowed the memo.
“Plaintiffs’ claims depend on an attenuated causal chain including billions of intervening third parties — i.e., fossil fuel users like Plaintiffs themselves,” the company’s memo noted before adding that the government had ostensibly given Chevron a license to produce oil and natural gas.
“[N]umerous federal statutes authorize, encourage, and sometimes even require the production of fossil fuels. California law also authorizes and encourages Defendants’ conduct,” Chevron stated. The litigation has hit several speed bumps since it was first filed in March – one legal analyst claimed San Francisco officials have acted inconsistently on the issue of climate change.
Because these San Francisco politicians made dire climate change predictions during litigation against energy companies but not in bond offerings, they know they’re burned, New York University law professor Richard Epstein said in Feb. 21 interview with Legal Newsline
“My guess is they know they’re going to lose those lawsuits,” Epstein, who also directs NYU’s Classical Liberal Institute, told Legal Newsline. “I certainly believe they will.” If San Francisco and Oakland decide to not back out of the lawsuits and instead move forward, he added, “the cross-examination is going to be brutal.”
His pessimism was based on reports showing the cities’ inconsistent positions on climate change. San Francisco’s lawsuit suggested the city faces “imminent risk of catastrophic storm surge flooding” — yet a 2017 general-obligation bond offering claimed officials are “unable to predict whether sea-level or rise or other impacts of climate change… will occur.”
Attorneys representing the cities stand to earn a huge payday if their litigation is successful. Class action firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is handling lawsuits for San Francisco, Oakland and New York City, on a contingency fee basis. Cities pay law firms no upfront cost in exchange for a percentage of any winnings or settlement.
Hagens Berman stands to earn millions, possibly billions, of dollars in contingency fees depending on the total winnings, should San Francisco, Oakland or New York City win their global warming suits against oil companies. All told, these three cities are asking oil companies to hand over many billions of dollars.
But things could get dicey for California if the lawsuits miss their mark. Nearly 40 percent of the state’s crude oil is produced inside the Golden State — a reality that could slam officials if Exxon, Chevron and others being sued decide to pull out of California. The oil industry also contributes $66 billion of gross income for 2.7 percent of the state’s gross domestic product.
Read more at Daily Caller
San Francisco is just looking to make a quick buck or two through frivolous lawsuits just like the ones filed by the NRDC,Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and lawsuits against the gun makers greedy city officials wanting to line their pockets with some ill gotten cash
There is a fundamental difference between the climate change law suits and those against the gun manufactures. The climate change law suits are after quick and easy money. The goal of the suits against the gun manufactures was to bankrupt the industry and shut down gun manufacturing. Though different in that way, they both use the same flawed logic. This is to blame the manufacture for the impact of a legally sold product. (Or in the case of climate change a fake impact.) This same concept fully applied would mean suing the Beer manufactures for the impact of drunk driving.
This is consistent with socialism that seeks to minimize both the freedom and responsibility of the individual.
California liberals are very brave when they can use taxpayer money to go on absurd fishing expeditions . The “who knew ” question is more appropriately directed at the political scum bags that are bankrupting California . There motive is clear .
They have taken tax payers to the cleaners for decades and now
see a cliff directly ahead . Time to get a new sugar daddy .
Well more appropriately a means to collect an indirect tax to further fleece consumers .
If they were serious about their earth has a fever scam they would have banned fossil fuel use . No end user no fossil fuel production . Going back to burning whale oil and cow dung isn’t so squeaky clean is it and tell those big tech company energy hogs they will just have to survive on intermittent wind power might be a tough sell .
Quit wasting the Courts time and tax payers limited resources .
San Francisco and LA’s new building code is tents .
I think they’re using the wrong argument. Whenever someone files a suit like this they should all be arguing that the EPA never proved atmospheric CO2 was harmful to humans. The EPA said it caused global warming and therefore was harmful to humans. But the EPA was never commissioned to control the climate, nor was it commissioned to find if CO2 was harmful to the climate. In any case, the EPA’s finding was rubbish and that’s why they should be arguing something else – including that 3% annual emissions do not control anything. The tail does not wag the dog. Climate controls us – not the other way ’round.
I have been long frustrated in that those victimized by the climate change movement have failed to take very obvious actions in their defense. It is heart warming to see that they have started after reading this article
One good thing not mentioned in this article is the energy companies have started counter suing the lawyers. This converts a “nothing to lose” scenario to one of high risk to the lawyers. I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure that with contingency law suits the cities can be counter sued as well.
The energy companies need to take this a step further. When a law suit totally without merit delays a project, such as a pipe line, they should sue whatever organization filed the suit and the lawyers for the loss of income caused by the delay. Such settlements could be huge and quickly bankrupt these deep pocket environmental organizations.
When one of my older brothers worked for Raytheon in Mt View CA the Greenpeace wackos were always bumming around for money so they could probibly keep their ships fueled with Fossil Fuel here in Scott Valley in Siskiyou County we dont care much of these enviromentalists especialy those tree sitters/tree huggers we have been Salvage Logging after some bad fires over the last few years including Last Year Julia(Butterfly)Hill would,nt find many followers here