A federal judge put the last nail in the coffin of San Francisco’s and Oakland’s climate change lawsuits on July 27, 2018, when he dismissed the cases on grounds of personal jurisdiction, ruling the California cities failed to prove that their alleged injuries would not have occurred if it were not for the energy companies’ California-based operations.
The decision followed a June 25 ruling in which the judge dismissed the cases on separate grounds, observing that the regulation of greenhouse gases is a matter for Congress or the executive branch, not the courts, to decide.
In his latest ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote that in order for San Francisco and Oakland to hold the energy companies accountable, “[their] claim must be one which ‘arises out of or relates to’ the defendants’ forum-related activities,” or their business operations exclusively conducted in California.
It was up to the cities to meet this burden of proof – and they failed:
“It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.” (emphasis added)
Judge Alsup, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, also noted that even if none of the defendants operated in California, the effects of climate change felt throughout the state (as alleged by the plaintiffs) would be no different:
“The gravamen of the amended complaints is that defendants – all alleged to be multinational oil and gas companies – have contributed to global warming through the worldwide production and sale of fossil fuels. From all that appears in the amended complaints, however, this worldwide chain of events does not depend on a particular defendant’s contacts with California. Rather, whatever sales or events occurred in California were causally insignificant in the context of the worldwide conduct leading to the international problem of global warming.” (emphasis added)
Judge Alsup’s ruling is particularly timely, considering the companies his decision in these cases freed from liability also filed motions to dismiss in a virtually identical case in King County, Washington, back in May.
Similarly, none of the defendants who moved for the case to be dismissed in King County have significant operations in the area.
Exxon Mobil, a defendant in both the California and Washington cases, emphasized how King County’s argument for personal jurisdiction fails not only to attribute carbon emissions to the company itself but also fails to trace any impact of climate change back to the county or even the state:
“…the Complaint fails to relate any particular climate-related injury – whether a storm surge or generalized sea level rise – to any particular carbon emissions in the State of Washington or elsewhere. Nor does the Complaint plead any link between such emissions and any particular emitter or, as necessary for Plaintiff’s claims, to any conduct of the defendant fossil fuel producers or marketers.”
Judge Alsup’s latest ruling is another devastating blow to Matt Pawa and his fellow attorneys at Hagens Berman, one of the two law firms representing municipalities in several climate change lawsuits being filed across the country. The King County case, however, is Hagens Berman’s only remaining active case.
After what just happened in California, however, Mr. Pawa and Hagens Berman may be shopping for new clients sooner rather than later.
Read more at EID Climate
There is a perfect parallel to the above with the use of the word Global. It rests within the ineptly named Carbon Taxes. A local geographical CO2 abatement effecting a hypothetical 1ppm for example, will produce a statistically insigniicant effect on the global total. San Fransisco and Oakland et al in reality should be bringing suit against the ENTIRE WORLD. Even better, vector the suit towards the I.P.C.C. with their total failure(s) of the Paris Accord and all other attempts to reduce CO2 emissions.
TIME to dismiss all lawsuits based upon this global warming/climate change hoax that includes the kids idiotic lawsuit based upon the lies in some junk sciece kids magazine and the stupid lawsuits filed by the NRDC and EDF
Much as I agree with this judge’s decision I am disappointed that he did not reject the lawsuit based on a total lack of proof that “a problem” exists. I guess throwing out the lawsuit for a reason of no standing precludes any need for them to have to delve into the sciencelessness of it all.
As long as there is “free ” money from taxpayers the frivolous lawsuits will persist . Society is drifting away from personal accountability leading to a major deck clearing .
Canada has blown over $2 billion on a government payroll system that doesn’t work properly . The committee struck to investigate comes out and confirms it’s F’d ,will take 5 years to fix , and oh yeah no one at IBM or the Federal government is held responsible ? A $2 billion heist and the elected official committee wants to be only
“forward ” looking !
After fleecing tax payers for $trillions the global warming con job will just drift off
because the aligned interests of climate conmen, lying scientists and governments all got a piece of the action . Taxpayers get to pick up the cheque and the earths temperature will be exactly what mother nature wants it to be .
Unlimitled credit has wiped out accountability , tough choices and balance .
When it changes it will make Trump Derangement Syndrome look quaint .
Who want to bother listening to Al Gore and his mindless idiotic poem anyone who thinks Gores Poem is a classic bit of poetry is a Stark Raving Idiot