The Supreme Court allowed the city of Baltimore to proceed with its climate change lawsuit against two dozen fossil fuel companies Tuesday after the corporate defendants asked the justices to put the dispute on hold.
The oil and natural gas companies — among them BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — are fighting to move Baltimore’s lawsuit out of a Maryland state court into a federal court.
They wanted the justices to stop state court proceedings while they fight to remove the dispute to a federal forum.
“It is difficult to imagine claims that more clearly implicate substantial questions of federal law and require uniform disposition than the claims at issue here, which seek to transform the nation’s energy, environmental, national security, and foreign policies by punishing energy companies for lawfully supplying necessary oil and gas resources,” the corporations told the high court in legal filings.
“Respondent wants a Maryland state court to declare applicants’ historical energy production and promotional activities across the United States and abroad to be a public nuisance, thereby regulating interstate and international energy production in the name of global warming,” the application adds.
The lawsuit alleges that the fossil fuel companies have engaged in a “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal the harm of greenhouse gas emissions that attend the use of their products.
The plaintiffs claim the energy industry has been investigating atmospheric carbon accumulation since at least 1958 and has long been aware of its environmental consequences.
“The fossil fuel industry was at the forefront of carbon dioxide research for much of the latter half of the 20th century,” the lawsuit reads. “They developed cutting edge and innovate technology and worked with many of the field’s top researchers to produce exceptionally sophisticated studies and models.”
“Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, defendants failed to act as they reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid those dire adverse impacts,” it adds.
The city is seeking a financial award for harm to city resources and punitive damages to deter the defendants from future wrongdoing.
After Baltimore lawyers filed their complaint in state court, the corporate defendants tried to move the case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander rejected that request.
The companies are now fighting that decision in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has yet to produce a decision.
The defendants went to the Supreme Court because state proceedings are slated to continue while the 4th Circuit considers their bid to move the dispute into the federal system.
Those state proceedings will cause the defendants “to waste substantial time and resources on state court proceedings that will be rendered pointless” if the case ultimately winds up in federal court, the corporations said.
The city countered that lost resources do not meet the high bar for “irreparable harm” required to stop the Maryland proceedings.
The court did not disclose a vote count or reasons for rejecting the request.
The case is No. 19A368 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
Read more at Daily Caller
Some liberal Eco-Freaks need to have a bicycle wrapped around their necks
The oil companies should support Baltimore’s efforts regarding pollution and simply stop providing petroleum products within city limits. EASY. After a year, Baltimore could then do a study to see the effects. If there is a reduction in pollution, the oil companies could then simply cease providing fuels and natural gas to the city.
In Canada, Lisa Helps, the gay Mayor of Victoria, BC, is pushing to shut down gas and diesel use and force residents to quickly “go green”. Jason Kenney, the Premier of Alberta where BC gets it’s fuel, has offered to help Victoria go green by simply shutting down the flow of oil to BC. No further comments from Helps.
The Vultures are circling over Chevron,Exxon/Mobil,Royal Dutch, Shell this lawsuit is stupid and wrong and needs to be tossed out pernimatly
The eco anarchist lawyers go city shopping trying to pick up cities that are near bankrupt . Hey screwed up city let us do a contingency claim , hope for a sue settle just to have us go away and we will spill you some cash .
The city says well as long as it’s on your dime sue away .
How many of these stupid claims have to be turned down before
a judge just says enough . Fossil fuels are legal and they have been the single largest reason living standards are the highest in history . Who knew ?
The question that is worth suing over is when did politicians know they were
promoting and enabling the biggest fraud in history . Scientists have advised the UN IPCC and categorically stated their is “no climate emergency ” .
The UN does not dispute that fact despite their roll in enabling a fraud . The UN should be sued for their roll in advancing a $trillion dollar fraud . They
openly stated their motive before it started . The destruction of capitalism
and funding globalization . Maurice Strong UN and others needed a cause and they chose to hype global warming . The UN IPCC was created , doing none of their own research , but cherry picking bought and paid for stories to create
a front for the scam . They increasingly hyped it to create fear and justification
for government tax policies , a cash cow for rent seekers and a forum for one world government ambitions .
The cost … tens of thousands of fuel poverty deaths every year and $ trillions in
wasted ,mis – allocated spending (debt ) .
The UN started this and knew it was a fraud from day one .
This might actually be a good thing, because the city of Baltimore, in order to win its case would have to to cite at least one study using empirical science (observation of the environment) demonstrating that carbon dioxide caused the increase in temperature. Meteologist Piers Corbyn (WeatherAction.com) issued a challenge to scientists to cite one such study, and no one has done this.
They’d also have to prove that the temperature has indeed risen. Tony Heller (RealClimateScience.com) has graphs showing that NASA and NOAA changed past temperature records, cooling them, to make it appear that temperatures have risen more than they have.
We need just one study that proves, historically, global temperature rise precedes the increase in carbon dioxide ppm.
The alarmists’ point-of-no-return mantra is based on the same idea, so it’s not a stretch.
Batimore is shooting itself in the foot just to fatten their wallets over this whole Global Warming/Climate Change scam
Quote: [from the article above} “The lawsuit alleges that the fossil fuel companies have engaged in a “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal the harm of greenhouse gas emissions that attend the use of their products.”
How can the the plaintiffs claim “harm” when GHG emissions are not harmful?
Throw the case out…………..
More CO2 means plants are growing faster, so they have to cut grass more often and the utility companies have to clear trees from power lines more frequently.
The oil companies should pay for this damage!
What if all energies companies would completely shut down their business in Baltimore? Let these morons in Baltimore live in a “carbon-free” city they are dreaming of. You do hate fossil fuel so much? Fine, we not going to sell you any.
Close all gas stations, stop pumping the gas. Everything would collapse within 48 hours.
The court of fools this ruling is irrespnsible and idiotic as bad as the Dread Scott ruling its green light to stupidity
Completely absurd. First, as the 9th Federal District (Allsup) ruled in the City of Oakland suit last year, the GLOBAL challenge presented by climate change is outside the scope of a public nuisance claim. The judge (rightly) observed that fossil fuels have provided ENORMOUS benefits to modern civilization and the “end users” have a role, not just the energy providers. Further, as this is a global issue, the 9th District (also) observed that addressing policy matters are better suited for the executive & legislative branches, not the judiciary. Ultimately, I have a feeling that the eastern courts will reach the same conclusions. The continued vilification of energy PROVIDERS is not in our national best interest or part of any COHERENT discussion of energy policy, period…