California cities suing over climate change must examine the benefits fossil fuels have had on civilization, per an assignment from a federal judge.
San Francisco and Oakland have initiated a lawsuit against five major oil companies in an attempt to hold them financially responsible for climate change.
The case is being heard in the United States District Court in San Francisco. The oil companies being targeted — Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell — have urged U.S. District Judge William Alsup to dismiss the case.
Environmentalists have increasing taken to the judicial branch to wage war against energy companies, with a similar lawsuittaking place in Colorado.
On Thursday, Judge Alsup gave attorneys for Oakland, San Francisco and Chevron Corp. an interesting homework assignment: create a 10-page legal analysis on whether the benefits of years of U.S. dependence on fossil fuels were worth the climate change it caused.
“We needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present,” Judge Alsup stated. “Yes, that’s causing global warming. But against that negative, we need to weigh-in the larger benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels. It’s been a huge, huge benefit.”
Judge Alsup centered his questions on the “broader sweep of history” and the role fossil fuels played in both World Wars and the economic boom the U.S. experienced afterward. All five oil companies are seeking dismissal, but only Chevron will respond to the judge’s assignment since the other defendants are seeking dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
“You’re asking for billions of dollars for something that hasn’t happened yet,” Alsup said during a back-and-forth with Steve Berman, the plaintiff’s attorney. “We’re trying to predict how bad global warming will be in 75 years.”
Read more at Daily Caller
I just hope all the plantiffs in these stupid lawsuits are made to answer more unplesent questions that prove their only in it for the Money and Politics as w ell
How about every city filing against oil companies concerning GHG Set the example, and be required to have to go zero oil based emissions, (Remembering solar and wind still use oil in their construction. Not allowed either), for 75 years. I know what the excuse they would have to dismiss that idea… “Well, if the rest of the world didn’t have zero emissions it would not make any difference if we went to zero emissions” The reply should promptly be “Well, the rest of the world is not suing oil companies, You are.” The comments this judge made are pretty good though. A ten page analysis of the benefits of oil and fossil fuels in the modern world, as well as, ‘You’re asking billions of dollars for something that hasn’t happened yet.” That is a serious no-go at that. Without oil there would have not been a “modern world” A world more backward than ever in some ways. Cussing oil while using modern technology is like cursing a farmer with your mouth full of food you bought. All this is nonsense is a money making racket for these cities.
Frank has it right . The cities are running out of room to fleece
tax payers without diminishing returns , they refuse to reduce spending , hand out gold plated pensions , and now they want someone else to bail them out . Tax by stealth as they foolishly
hope to have oil companies in direct tax because they “knew ” something .
What a GD joke . The judge was right to ask for the benefits , which are known , vs the nonsense generated from failed climate models used by con-men to justify the biggest scam in history .
Activists and rent seekers have learned to use tax payer money to pursue their monetary goals because there is no financial risk .
These clowns are wasting tax payers money and the judge’s time .
“We needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present,” Judge Alsup stated. “Yes, that’s causing global warming. But against that negative, we need to weigh-in the larger benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels”
If the judge believes this the cities have gotten a free ride to where they are now in this law suit. They should not only have to review the past benefits of CO2 they should have to make the case for it causing harm in the future. There is no real evidence that shows it actually causes global warming.
The five oil companies should immediately stop supplying petrol and other oil products to California – an initial period of 28 days would be a good start. It would be interesting to see how long residents of San Francisco and Oakland manage to survive before economic collapse. They might then appreciate the value of fossil fuels and the limitation of renewable energy.
Cut off all shipments to the plantiffs in these idiotic lawsuits hit them where it hurts there is no law requiring the oil companies need keep them going while filing some idiotic lawsuits based up a Junk Science and a bunch of computer symulations
Asking eco -activists questions is like kryptonite to Superman .
They may need to take their blankies to court .
Groundless stupid claim .
When did pork producers know bacon clogs arteries ?
When did crispy cream know doughnuts contribute to obesity ?
When did coke know pop will destroy your teeth ?
Funny how so many of the high priests in this con-game are the biggest energy pigs and perverts .
Cutting them off would cause harm according to the left-tarded cLIEmate hypocrites. B.C.’s nine-page statement of claim alleges the intent of Alberta’s bill is to hurt to the province.
“A significant disruption in the supply of gasoline, diesel, and crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia would cause British Columbia irreparable harm,” the document asserts. “In addition to economic harm, a sudden disruption in supply could injure human health and safety in remote communities.”
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/bc-files-legal-challenge-to-alberta-law/ar-AAxEIED
There is an ongoing dispute between Alberta and British Columbia over pipelines. BC has effectively and unconstitutionally, blocked Alberta’s oil exports via a new pipeline. Alberta has threatened to cut off all pipelines coming and going to BC. BC gets most of it’s oil for gasoline from Alberta. Also most of BCs natural gas exports get to market via Alberta pipelines.
BC is making a threat to sue Alberta for effectively doing what BC is doing. The most ironic part is BCs claim that cutting them off of oil would cause irreparable harm. No mention of the irreparable harm they are causing to Alberta. All is good so long as Alberta keeps sending those welfare “transfer” cheques to the dirty hippies in BC…
One thing to keep in mind is that the cities involved in litigation are the mindless pawns of the environmental activities. The existence of this conspiracy has been acknowledged by a Texas court. The activists have gone to the cities and counseled them to file such suits. You can bet for every city that went along with the conspiracy there are many others contacted that decided not to do so. The motivation of the activists is clear. They want to shut down the fossil fuel industry by bankrupting it. Falling short of that they want to force energy prices up as the industry has to pass the cost of huge settlements on to its customers.
Just how stupid these law suits are has been covered in many places by a list emphasizes it.
The cities are suing for selling legal products. This has been done before.
They are suing for the sale of products that they themselves use.
If these products were suddenly unavailable the consequences the cities would be far greater than the damage they are claiming in the law suits. It isn’t just a matter of not watching TV. There would be no jobs as businesses would be shut down. It wouldn’t even be possible to flush a toilet without energy to run the utility pumps. These cities would quickly become ghost towns.
Even more outrageous is suing for losses that haven’t occurred. Of course, it is necessary to do so because the future losses will not happen.
Some have suggested cutting off the cities that are suing. The fossil fuel companies might open themselves up for litigation if they did so. However, there is an approach that could and should work. Add to the cost of energy sold to these cities a surcharge for the litigation expenses and the risk have having to pay large settlements. In the same manner Alberta should add a surcharge to the energy it sells to BC to cover the loss of income results from BC not letting the oil through for export.
David, you’re clear – eyed on this. However, your analysis is pearls before rabid swine.
In the words of Bruce Cockburn, “If I had a rocket launcher, ……..”