Hoboken Lodges First State-Level Racketeering Charge in Big Oil Climate LawsuitMay 25, 2023
The city of Hoboken, New Jersey is suing oil and gas companies and the American Petroleum Institute and is accusing them of conspiring to defraud the public. Credit: Ken Lund (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Story originally published in DeSmog
In a first at the state level, the City of Hoboken, New Jersey recently added racketeering charges to its climate lawsuit against major petroleum producers and their national trade group the American Petroleum Institute (API). Hoboken is making this claim against fossil fuel companies under the state-level equivalent of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal law used successfully to prosecute organized crime groups such as the Mafia starting in the 1970s and later the tobacco industry. Puerto Rico lodged federal racketeering charges against the industry in a class action climate case last November. “These racketeering cases should be viewed as a new legal front against the oil and gas industry,” Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which advocates for climate accountability from polluters, said by email. Including a racketeering charge in these lawsuits helps “tell a more robust and full story of what was really happening,” said Delta Merner, a scientist working on climate litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There really were coordinated efforts to systematically question and cast doubt on the science around climate change.” Hoboken’s case, initially filed in September 2020, contends that defendants ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and their lobby group API deliberately misled the public in order to stave off climate action and protect profits. The lawsuit already included claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. By adding a racketeering claim, the city is alleging that the defendants not only engaged in deceptive acts, but did so in a planned and coordinated way. “Defendants have conspired to deceive the world for decades,” the amended complaint states in its opening line. “I think that the addition of a RICO claim helps demonstrate the gravity of the alleged conduct,” Karen Sokol, law professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, told DeSmog by email. “It was not simply a matter of each named defendant’s deception, but rather their collective planning and implementation of multi-pronged strategies to deceive. That sort of conspiratorial conduct has the potential to be particularly harmful, a recognition reflected in RICO laws.” Read more Montana is Paying a Climate Denier to Give Expert Testimony in Upcoming TrialMay 15, 2023
Judith Curry testified during a Senate Budget Committee hearing on March 22, 2023.
Story originally published in DeSmog
Montana has hired a climate scientist turned climate contrarian to be an expert witness in an upcoming trial challenging the state’s promotion of fossil fuels. Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court. Julia Olson, the lawyer who took Curry’s deposition, has described her as “the number one climate skeptic scientist that the Republicans go to for testimony in Congress, that the fossil fuel industry goes to.” Olson is the executive director of the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which has spearheaded youth climate change lawsuits across the United States. At a March 2023 hearing of the Senate Budget Committee, Curry testified that calling climate change a crisis was “at odds with professional judgments of climate risk.” Formerly a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Curry now runs a private weather forecasting company called Climate Forecast Applications Network. The company’s clients include electric utilities, energy traders in natural gas, and two petroleum companies, according to her deposition. Montana may end up leaning heavily on Curry’s anticipated testimony, as she will be one of just a few expert witnesses defending the state at next month’s trial. Neuropsychologist Dr. Debra Sheppard and economist Terry Anderson, who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a free-market think tank, are also scheduled to appear for the state. The lawyers for the Montana youth, who first filed their complaint in 2020, intend to bring a dozen expert witnesses to the stand. This case is set to become a landmark for U.S. climate litigation. It will be the first youth climate lawsuit against a government to go to trial, and the first trial in a case challenging fossil fuel friendly policies on constitutional grounds. The trial is scheduled to begin on June 12 at the First District Judicial Court in Helena, Montana. Read more Supreme Court Rejects Big Oil's Bid to Derail Climate Liability LawsuitsApril 24, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court. Credit: David (CC BY 2.0)
Story originally published in DeSmog
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied requests from major oil companies to intervene in climate liability lawsuits aimed at holding fossil fuel producers accountable for climate damages and alleged disinformation campaigns. The court’s denial of the industry’s petitions means that the lawsuits can advance in state courts, where companies like ExxonMobil and Shell could be forced to face trial. “Big Oil companies have been desperate to avoid trials in state courts, where they will be forced to defend their climate lies in front of juries, and today the Supreme Court declined to bail them out,” Richard Wiles, president of the advocacy organization Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement. More than two dozen communities across the United States have filed climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over the past six years. Until now, the litigation has been tied up in procedural wrangling over which courts — federal or state — should handle the cases. Lawyers for the fossil fuel industry have tried to force the cases into federal courts, where they see an easier path to getting the lawsuits thrown out. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Clean Air Act displaces climate-related cases arising under federal common law, and a climate lawsuit filed in federal court by New York City in 2018 was tossed given that precedent. But federal courts that have considered the jurisdiction issue, including six different appeals courts, have unanimously decided that the cases should proceed in state courts. The industry had tried to overturn those decisions by taking the cases to the Supreme Court — but the highest federal court has now effectively shut the door by refusing to review the cases at this stage. “This is excellent news for the plaintiffs in these climate cases,” Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard University, told DeSmog. “There was a significant risk that the Court might grant review,” he said, adding that future Supreme Court petitions in other climate liability cases “are very unlikely to be granted in light of this ruling, which was in the face of a full court press from industry.” Read more Kids' Climate Case Advances in HawaiiApril 10, 2023
Evening traffic heading towards Waikiki in Honolulu, Hawaii. Credit: Simon_sees (CC BY 2.0)
Story originally published in DeSmog
A judge in Hawaii has cleared the way for a youth climate case challenging the state’s fossil fuel-dependent transportation system to proceed to trial. The case, which invokes the Hawaiian constitution’s environmental guarantees, will be the second climate trial based on constitutional claims in U.S. history, and the second one this year, when it goes to trial in September. Judge Jeffrey Crabtree of Hawaii’s First Circuit Court denied the state’s bid to dismiss the youth-led case. In a ruling issued on April 6, he noted that the youth plaintiffs “allege nothing less than that they stand to inherit a world with severe climate change and the resulting damage to our natural resources.” The ruling comes after a January 26 hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss in which more than 100 supporters of the youth plaintiffs packed the courtroom and an overflow room. “It is reassuring to have a court acknowledge our right to hold the Transportation Department accountable for their contribution to the climate crisis,” said 19 year-old plaintiff Kalālapa Winter, whose case is represented by nonprofit law firms Our Children’s Trust and Earthjustice. “I am excited to finally get to the substance of our claims.” Read more Biden Administration Deals a Legal Blow to Big OilApril 10, 2023
Credit: Scott, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Story originally published in SIERRA
The Biden administration failed a major climate test last month when it granted approval of the controversial Willow project in Alaska—and in the process shattered the president’s promise to end new oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Although it received far less attention, the administration in March passed another major climate test and fulfilled one of President Biden’s other climate-related campaign pledges: a promise to “strategically support” climate litigation against carbon polluters. Since 2017, nearly two dozen cities, counties, and states have filed lawsuits against oil and gas companies in an effort to recover the costs of adapting to climate change damages. None of the cases have yet gone to trial, as the oil giants have waged a procedural campaign to move the cases from state courts to federal courts—which they view as being more sympathetic to their case. Last year, ExxonMobil and oil refining company Suncor asked the US Supreme Court to intervene in the case brought against them by the city and county of Boulder and the county of San Miguel, Colorado. The justices then asked the Department of Justice to provide its opinion on the question of venue before making a ruling. In a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on March 16, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the court to reject the ExxonMobil and Suncor petition. The Biden administration backed the Colorado communities’ position that the case arises solely under state law and belongs in state rather than federal court. “After the change in Administration … the United States has reexamined its position and has concluded that state-law claims like those pleaded here should not be recharacterized as claims arising under federal common law,” the Department of Justice argued. Environmental advocates praised the move, which they said is an important step toward holding carbon polluters legally accountable for the damages caused by climate change. “By finally ending its Trump-era support for Big Oil, the Justice Department has added its voice to a series of unanimous court rulings that support communities in their efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate lies,” Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement. Read more International Courts Take on Climate with Historic Hearings and ResolutionApril 5, 2023
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, recently held its first-ever hearings on climate. Credit: Cédric Hüsler, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Story originally published in DeSmog
Two historic developments last week are putting the climate crisis squarely on the docket of some of the world’s highest courts. On March 29, an international human rights court in Europe held a pair of hearings addressing government responsibility on climate change for the first time. That same day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice to weigh in on nations’ legal obligations to ensure protection of the climate system. The outcomes of the proceedings, experts say, could significantly advance climate justice and accountability as well as clarify the requirements under international law for governments to curb climate breakdown. The two cases argued before the European Court of Human Rights on March 29 accuse the governments of Switzerland and France of failing to take sufficient measures to fight climate change and protect citizens from worsening climate impacts, such as extreme heat and flooding. The alleged failings contribute to mounting risks to human life and health in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the cases claim. In the first climate case ever to be heard by the European court, located in Strasbourg, France, lawyers representing more than 2,000 elderly Swiss women highlighted the urgency and immense peril the climate crisis presents, and argued that Switzerland is not doing its “fair share” to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. “There is no time left. Dangerous climate change is with us all,” Marc Willers, a lawyer with the UK-based firm Garden Court Chambers, said during the hearing. He explained what would constitute Switzerland’s allowable level of emissions, as calculated by independent scientific experts, under the world’s remaining carbon budget — the amount of carbon dioxide that can still be emitted for temperature rise to stay below a given threshold, such as 1.5°C. Under current policies, Switzerland is expected to use up its share of this global budget by 2034 and then will be taking away from other countries’ shares. “This is carbon theft,” Willers said. Read more EuroPean Court of Human Rights Holds its First Hearings on ClimateApril 4, 2023
Screen shot from the video recording of the ECHR hearings on March 29, 2023.
For the first time, an international human rights court in Europe held a pair of hearings on cases seeking to hold governments accountable for their role in contributing to the climate crisis and allegedly failing to protect citizens from worsening climate impacts such as extreme heat and flooding. The two climate cases argued before the European Court of Human Rights on March 29 could set a precedent in establishing states’ obligations to take more ambitious climate action in order to safeguard human rights under European law.
The European Court of Human Rights, located in Strasbourg, France, currently has a handful of climate lawsuits pending before it that challenge government policy or conduct in the context of the climate emergency. Two of those cases came before the court’s Grand Chamber panel of 17 judges last week and a third case is set to be heard by the same panel later this year. These leading cases will render judgements in which the court will grapple with the impacts of climate change on human rights and determine whether breaches of rights have occurred stemming from European states’ alleged failure to effectively mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In the first cases to come before the court on March 29, the climate ambitions and actions of the governments of Switzerland and France are at issue, charged by the plaintiffs (or applicants in this context) to be woefully inadequate. Both cases claim that this inadequate climate action amounts to violations of the rights to life and to family and private life under Articles 2 and 8, respectively, of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, heard first by the Grand Chamber panel, contends that Switzerland’s failure to do its “fair share” to reduce emissions in line with limiting temperature rise to no more than 1.5°C threatens the lives and health of elderly women who are more vulnerable to extreme heat spells. An association of Swiss senior women with over 2,000 members, along four individual elderly women, are the applicants behind this case. In the second lawsuit heard by the court, Carême v. France, the applicant is an individual claiming to be personally affected by the level of climate mitigation undertaken by the French government, as the coastal community that he calls home is at risk of severe flooding and inundation from rising seas. In both cases the applicants argue the state should be doing more to slash emissions and mitigate dangerous warming. The respondent governments defended their climate policy during the hearings, insisting that their climate commitments are sufficient to be protective of citizens’ rights. Read more Montana Repeals State Energy Policy as Climate Trial NearsApril 3, 2023
The CHS oil refinery in Laurel, Montana. Credit: James St. John, CC BY 2.0
Story originally published in DeSmog
Montana has repealed its 30-year-old energy policy – including a 2011 amendment that prioritized fossil-fuel development. The move comes as a June trial date approaches for a youth-led climate lawsuit against the state. In the lawsuit, Held v. State of Montana, sixteen Montana children and teenagers say that by actively promoting a fossil-fuel based energy system that is dangerous to the climate, state officials are violating the “right to a clean and healthful environment” for present and future generations under the state Constitution. It is the first constitutional climate case to go to trial in the United States. Montana first enacted a state energy policy in 1993. Since then, it has periodically revised and updated the statute. In 2011 the state legislature amended the policy to add provisions calling for increased fossil fuel development, along with references to developing other energy resources and technologies like wind, green hydrogen, and batteries. Additionally, the 2011 legislature added a provision to the Montana Environmental Policy Act that prohibited environmental reviews of state-sponsored projects, including energy development, from considering impacts beyond state borders. The youth-led lawsuit against the state challenges both provisions, claiming they explicitly promote fossil fuels while restricting the state from considering how coal, oil, or gas development contribute to the global climate crisis. Read more Climate Cases Set for Historic Hearings This Week at European Court of Human RightsMarch 27, 2023
Courtroom at the European Court of Human Rights. Credit: Adrian Grycuk, CC BY-SA 3.0.
Climate change is on the docket this week at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The European court will hold its first ever public hearings on climate in two high-profile cases that could have far reaching consequences in terms of clarifying states’ legal obligations on climate action under human rights law.
The court’s Grand Chamber is scheduled to hear two climate cases on Wednesday, March 29. The first case, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland, features a group of elderly Swiss women taking on the Swiss government for allegedly failing to take sufficient measures to limit dangerous warming, thereby exposing older women to adverse health impacts from rapidly intensifying extreme heat events. The hearing in this case is slated to start at 9:15am CET, and will be the first climate case ever to come before the Grand Chamber’s panel of 17 judges. The Chamber will hear a second climate case that same day, scheduled for 2:15pm CET. This case, Carême v. France, involves an individual – a former mayor of a coastal French village – suing the French state alleging inadequate climate action and claiming he is personally affected by the government’s response to climate change. The hearings themselves are historic because it marks the first time the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) will be grappling with climate change, which human rights experts have warned threatens human rights on a massive scale. Read more US Justice Department Tells Supreme Court to Reject Big Oil Petition in Colorado Climate LawsuitMarch 16, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court building at night. Credit: renaschild/iStock
Story originally published in DeSmog
Communities in the United States suing major fossil fuel producers over climate-related harms got a boost in court on Thursday. At the request of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Department of Justice weighed in on a key procedural question that has been ensnaring the progress of many climate accountability lawsuits — the question of where the lawsuits should be heard. In 2018, the city and county of Boulder and the county of San Miguel in Colorado filed suit in state court against ExxonMobil and Suncor, arguing the oil companies’ disinformation about their products hurt Coloradans. But the oil companies pushed for the case to be tried in federal, not state, court – a seemingly minor distinction that could have major consequences. Last October, the Supreme Court called on the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief “expressing the views of the United States” regarding this jurisdictional dispute that has tied up the Colorado and other climate liability lawsuits and delayed them from getting to trial. The fossil fuel defendants have been fighting relentlessly to force the cases into federal court, where they see an easier path to dismissal, while the communities suing companies like ExxonMobil want the litigation to proceed in state court where it originated. In its brief filed Thursday, the Solicitor General backed the Colorado communities’ stance that their legal claims arise solely under state law and therefore belong in state court — a reversal from the Justice Department’s position under the Trump administration supporting the fossil fuel industry’s arguments. Read more French NGOs Sue BNP Paribas, Europe's Largest Financier of Fossil Fuel ExpansionFebruary 28, 2023
BNP Paribas is a French bank headquartered in Paris. Credit: Reinhardhauke (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Story originally published in DeSmog
French environmental organizations Notre Affaire à Tous, Friends of the Earth France, and Oxfam France last week filed what they say is the world’s first climate lawsuit against a commercial bank, suing BNP Paribas over its continued funding of fossil fuels. The lawsuit is part of a burgeoning movement to pressure financial institutions to end their funding of the fossil fuel sector due to the climate emergency. And if these funders refuse to stop their polluting investments, the movement aims to hold them accountable through strategies such as direct action and litigation. The new lawsuit against BNP Paribas, filed February 23 in the Paris Judicial Court, claims that the French bank is in breach of France’s “duty of vigilance” law. That groundbreaking 2017 law requires large companies to assess risks and impacts of their business activities on human rights and the environment and develop plans to identify and mitigate those risks. The law has been invoked in other lawsuits against corporate polluters including French oil major TotalEnergies and most recently against French food company Danone over its contribution to plastic waste. BNP Paribas, according to the organizations bringing the lawsuit, is “France’s most polluting bank” and Europe’s largest funder of fossil fuel expansion. While the bank recently pledged to reduce its outstanding financing for oil and gas extraction by 2030, the French nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) say this commitment falls short of immediately halting funding for new fossil fuel projects and lacks any firm exit plan from the oil and gas sector. Read more Austrian Youth Take Their Government to Court Over 'Ineffective' Climate PolicyFebruary 22, 2023
Some of the youth plaintiffs in the Austrian case, with their lawyer Michaela Krömer (front). Credit: Fridays for Future Austria
Story originally published in DeSmog
Austria is the latest country to be facing a lawsuit brought by some of its youngest citizens who say their government is failing to protect them from the worsening climate crisis. Backed by the Austrian chapter of the youth climate strike organization Fridays for Future, a group of 12 children and adolescents launched a landmark constitutional climate case against the Austrian government on Tuesday. The case specifically challenges a 2011 climate protection law, claiming it is ineffective and outdated, and therefore infringes upon children’s constitutional rights. “For years, Fridays for Future has been demanding the revision of the Climate Protection Law in order to (finally) establish compliance with the Paris Agreement. However, since the Climate Protection Law remains ineffective to this day, twelve children are now going to court and Fridays for Future is supporting them,” Michael Spiekermann, an activist with Fridays for Future Austria, said in a statement. Read more Court Hears Appeal in Canadian Youth Climate CaseFebruary 16, 2023
Albert Lalonde speaks alongside the other youth plaintiffs at the launch of their climate case against the Canadian government in 2019. Credit: David Suzuki Foundation
Story originally published in DeSmog
Young Canadians suing the federal government over its role in worsening the climate crisis are hoping that an appeals court will give them a chance to be heard at trial, after a judge dismissed their case over two years ago. The case was back in court this week as lawyers for the youths argued that the Federal Court of Appeal should overturn that judge’s ruling and permit the case to move towards trial. “This case is ripe for trial because we are in a climate emergency,” Chris Tollefson, one of the attorneys representing the 15 youth plaintiffs in La Rose v. His Majesty the King, said during the two-day hearing on February 14 and 15, held virtually over Zoom. A three-judge panel from the appeals court in Ottawa presided over the hearing, and will determine the fate of the case at this stage. Read more Lawsuit Targets Shell's Board of Directors Over Energy Transition PlansFebruary 9, 2023
Photo credit: Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0
Story originally published in DeSmog
Shell’s board of directors officially has been served with a world-first lawsuit aiming to hold its corporate directors personally liable for alleged mismanagement of climate risk. The lawsuit, filed Thursday by UK-based environmental law organization ClientEarth, contends that Shell’s strategy to address climate change and manage the energy transition fails to align with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and leaves the company in a vulnerable position as society shifts away from fossil fuels. ClientEarth alleges that inadequate climate strategy by Shell and improper management by the board amounts to violations under the UK Companies Act. ClientEarth, itself a token shareholder in Shell, filed its case in the High Court of England and Wales in London and is suing the company’s 11 directors. Institutional investors with collective holdings of over 12 million shares in Shell are supporting the legal action, which comes on the heels of Shell reporting a record $40 billion in profits in 2022. “Shell may be making record profits now due to the turmoil of the global energy market, but the writing is on the wall for fossil fuels long term,” ClientEarth senior lawyer Paul Benson said. “The shift to a low-carbon economy is not just inevitable, it’s already happening. Yet the Board is persisting with a transition strategy that is fundamentally flawed, leaving the company seriously exposed to the risks that climate change poses to Shell’s future success — despite the Board’s legal duty to manage those risks.” Read more 2022 Was a Big Year for Climate Action in the CourtsDecember 29, 2022
The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear petitions brought by fossil fuel defendants in a handful of climate liability lawsuits. Credit: David (CC BY 2.0)
Piece originally published in DeSmog
It was another busy year in the courts for climate-related cases. From challenges to fossil fuel and petrochemical expansion to climate lawsuits against Big Oil and national governments, there were notable victories for climate action and accountability in 2022. There were also some setbacks, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court’s limitation of the U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Here are some of the highlights. U.S. Climate Liability Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Companies Make Key Advances More than 20 U.S. cities, counties, and states have filed lawsuits against major fossil fuel producers aiming to hold them liable for the mounting costs of climate impacts and for allegedly engaging in deceptive campaigns to deny the risks of their products and promote misleading greenwashing advertising. The litigation has been tied up in procedural battles and no case has yet made it to trial. But several cases are nearing that stage, with breakthrough decisions this year setting them firmly on the path to trial. Climate liability lawsuits filed by Honolulu and Massachusetts are entering the discovery phase A pair of climate cases from opposite sides of the country appear to be the closest yet to holding fossil fuel companies accountable in court. Lawsuits filed by Honolulu, Hawaii, and by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have both overcome initial procedural hurdles and are advancing in state courts, despite dogged attempts by lawyers for the fossil fuel firms to punt the cases into federal courts where they hoped to find an easier path to dismissal. And the two cases have each taken a big leap forward in state courts with judges denying fossil fuel defendants’ requests to dismiss the litigation. Earlier this year, a Hawaii state court judge issued several rulings denying oil companies’ motions to dismiss Honolulu’s case, originally filed in March 2020. In a press release, the Honolulu City Council explained, “with these favorable rulings [Honolulu’s] case is now set to become the first in the country to move into a trial phase and begin the all-important process of discovery, where the oil companies must begin opening up files to show what they knew.” Read more Courts Will Hear Groundbreaking Climate Cases in 2023December 20, 2022
Credit: Adrian Grycuk, CC BY-SA 3.0
Piece originally published in Common Dreams
From Australia to the EU to the U.S., governments will be on trial as courts focus on climate. Courts are becoming a critically important arena for addressing issues of justice and accountability pertaining to the climate emergency. Increasingly citizens and communities are turning to the courts in efforts to hold governments and corporations accountable for their roles in the escalating planetary crisis. This trend is so significant that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even referenced it several times in its latest report on climate mitigation published last spring. Read more Congressional Probe of Big oil's Climate Disinformation Could Boost Climate Accountability Litigation Already UnderwayDecember 18, 2022
Democrats on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform have wrapped up a historic investigation into Big Oil’s obstruction and obfuscation of climate and the clean energy transition and are handing the torch off for others to continue to the probe and to press for accountability. The investigation has uncovered extensive industry records such as internal emails that are likely to be highly relevant to the batch of climate lawsuits currently pending against major oil and gas companies such as Shell, Chevron, BP, and ExxonMobil.
Read more Swedish Youth Lodge Class-Action, Rights-Based Climate Lawsuit Against Their National GovernmentDecember 10, 2022
Swedish youth climate activist Greta Thunberg is among 600+ young people suing Sweden over insufficient climate policies. Credit: Bruce Detorres, Public Domain
The latest youth climate lawsuit challenging the government’s response to the climate crisis has been filed in Sweden. On Friday, November 25 an association called Aurora announced the lawsuit against the Swedish state. The youth-led association, representing over 600 young people born between 1996 and 2015, filed its case as a class-action on behalf of all Swedish youth. Prominent Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is among the plaintiffs.
“Today on Black Friday is the perfect day to sue the state over its insufficient climate policies. So that’s what we did. See you in court!” Thunberg wrote on Twitter. Read more First Climate Lawsuit in Finland Challenges Government's Climate Law ComplianceDecember 8, 2022
Intensive logging has decimated forests across Finland, eroding the nation's 'carbon sinks.' Credit: Tero Laasko, CC BY 2.0
Finland is facing a legal challenge from environmental groups alleging the government is in breach of its obligations under a new climate law. According to Greenpeace, it is the first climate litigation to arise in the Nordic country.
Greenpeace Norden and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation filed an administrative appeal in late November arguing that the state had failed to take or consider additional measures to ensure it would meet its emissions reduction targets, which would be necessary given the collapse of Finland’s carbon sinks. Heavy logging and lack of forest protections has turned the land sector from a carbon sink or absorber of CO2 to a source of carbon emissions, threatening the government’s ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035. Read more Puerto Rican Cities Sue Fossil Fuel Companies in Major Class-Action, Climate Fraud CaseDecember 4, 2022
Credit: U.S. Department of Defense Current Photos (Public Domain)
Story originally published in DeSmog
Nearly 25 years ago, oil major Shell predicted in an internal 1998 report that a class-action lawsuit would be brought against fossil fuel companies following “a series of violent storms.” That prediction is finally coming true: A group of Puerto Rican communities, which were ravaged by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, are suing Shell and other fossil fuel producers in a first-of-its-kind, class action climate liability lawsuit. The groundbreaking case — filed November 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico — is the first climate-related class action lawsuit in the United States filed against the fossil fuel industry to target the industry with federal charges of racketeering. It alleges that the fossil fuel defendants engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to promote climate denial and defraud consumers by concealing the climate consequences of fossil fuel products in order to inflate profits. Sixteen Puerto Rican municipalities are suing as a class or representatives on behalf of the more than 60 municipalities on the island that all experienced devastating losses from the 2017 hurricanes. The case demands that fossil fuel companies pay for damages associated with catastrophic storms, beginning with the 2017 hurricanes, and their lingering impacts, arguing that these disasters are worsened by climate change. Read more Climate Scientists and Experts Take Legal Action Against EPA To Compel Climate Action Under CHemical StatuteDecember 3, 2022
Screen shot of the EPA's webpage on the Toxic Substances Control Act
A group of scientific, medical and policy experts – including renowned climate scientist Dr. James Hansen – is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to compel the agency to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under a federal statute designed to control hazardous chemical substances.
The climate experts filed their lawsuit on November 12, 2022 in federal court in Eugene, Oregon. The case follows the EPA’s rejection of a petition submitted by the experts explaining the grounds for initiating a rulemaking under the Toxic Substances Control Act to phase out anthropogenic GHGs that are driving the rapidly escalating climate crisis. Plaintiffs demand that EPA use its authority under the TSCA to develop regulations to limit and eventually eliminate planet-warming emissions, the majority of which stem from producing and consuming fossil fuels. According to the complaint: “Without regulation under TSCA, the U.S. Government will not eliminate the unreasonable risk to health and the environment posed by greenhouse gas emissions.” Read more Judge Deals Latest Blow To Big Oil in DC Climate Fraud CaseNovember 21, 2022
In recent years, communities across the United States increasingly have turned to the courts to hold oil and gas companies accountable for alleged fraud — which has worsened the climate crisis — and now those lawsuits are inching towards trial. Despite dogged attempts from industry lawyers to force the litigation into federal courts, where they see an easier path to dismissal, they continue to strike out as judges from California to Connecticut rule that state courts are the appropriate venues for these climate accountability lawsuits.
The latest addition to the fossil fuel industry’s long procedural losing streak came on November 12 when a federal district judge decided that the District of Columbia’s climate liability lawsuit belongs in the local court, where it was originally filed in June 2020. As with other climate liability lawsuits, lawyers for the oil and gas companies in the District of Columbia case devised a multitude of arguments claiming that only federal courts have the jurisdiction or authority to handle such lawsuits. But federal courts have not been buying these legal theories. “Defendants raise seven theories for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Each, they say, is an independent ground for removal. None is,” Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in his recent opinion. He joins twelve other federal district judges and five appeals courts in dismissing all of the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for federal jurisdiction. Several of the appeals courts have even ruled twice to affirm that state courts are the right venue for these cases. Read more lawyers for Young people suing Utah over fossil fuel energy policy urge court to greenlight case for trialNovember 4, 2022
Dallin R., a youth plaintiff in the constitutional climate case Natalie v. State of Utah, speaks during a solidarity rally following a hearing on the state's motion to dismiss.
UPDATE: On November 9, 2022 Judge Faust issued a decision in favor of the state to dismiss the case. According to Our Children's Trust, he cited issues such as redressability (the ability for the dispute to be adequately remedied), the political question doctrine, and substantive due process as grounds for dismissal. Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs say they will appeal the ruling.
A youth-led lawsuit alleging the State of Utah is affirmatively harming its young citizens and shortening their lifespans through energy policy favoring fossil fuels came before a state judge Friday in a hearing that will determine whether the case will proceed towards trial. The Honorable Robert Faust heard oral arguments in Natalie R. v. State of Utah, a constitutional climate lawsuit brought by seven youth plaintiffs against their state government, and indicated he would rule on the procedural matter within days. The hearing on November 4 at the Third District Courthouse in Salt Lake City focused on the state’s motion to dismiss the case. Natalie R. v. State of Utah is one of a handful of currently pending climate cases in which young people are suing their state governments for promoting and permitting fossil fuels and thereby contributing to climate harms, which disproportionately burden youths and future generations. The cases claim states are violating their constitutions and seek declaratory relief – a court order stating that the challenged government conduct is unconstitutional. Besides Utah, such cases are currently active in Montana, Hawaii, and Virginia. The Utah case was filed on March 15, 2022 against the state over its systemic energy policy promoting fossil fuels despite being well aware of the climate dangers of continued use of coal, oil, and gas. According to the complaint, Utah is prioritizing fossil fuel development through official state policy (statutory law), which directly adds more greenhouse gas pollution and fouls the air with other pollutants. “Because of the development and combustion of fossil fuels, Utah has the worst average air quality of any state in the nation and is already experiencing profoundly dangerous climate changes,” the complaint states. Read more New Jersey is latest state to take big oil to court over climate crisisnovember 2, 2022
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (center) announced on Oct. 18, 2022 that the state is taking legal action against major oil and gas companies to hold them accountable for climate damages to the state. Also pictured: Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Shawn LaTourette (left) and Acting Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs Cari Fais (right).
ExxonMobil and several other major oil companies facing a barrage of climate liability lawsuits from U.S. cities, counties and states were served with yet another legal complaint this week, from the state where Exxon originated and remains incorporated.
On Tuesday New Jersey became the seventh state thus far to bring a lawsuit against Big Oil for allegedly misleading the public on climate change, disseminating disinformation for decades that effectively staved off policy responses and aggravated the costly impacts of the climate crisis currently unfolding. The case was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Mercer County, a state court, and names ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, and the trade association American Petroleum Institute (API) as defendants. “Based on their own research, these companies understood decades ago that their products were causing climate change and would have devastating environmental impacts down the road,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin. “They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey, and the world. In short, these companies put their profits ahead of our safety.” Read more The rise in forward-Looking Corporate Climate cases: From Shell to SantosJanuary 7, 2022 |
Article originally published by Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
Climate litigation has taken on even greater importance after the failure of COP26 to deliver the action and resources required to accelerate the energy transition and remedy mounting climate harms. As progress in international negotiating rooms stalls, litigation in national and regional courtrooms plays an ever more critical role in efforts to compel urgently needed climate action. Those cases focus on holding governments and, increasingly, corporations accountable for their climate inaction and ongoing contributions to global warming, which gravely threaten human rights.
Companies in high-emitting sectors are facing mounting public scrutiny and potential legal liability over the incompatibility of their operations with a safe climate future. From expanding oil and gas production to greenwashing carbon-intensive products, the conduct of the fossil fuel industry and other polluting sectors is subject to a rising number of legal challenges. More and more, the focus of those challenges is shifting from companies’ historical contribution to climate change and past misrepresentations of climate science to their current role in prolonging the fossil fuel era and their present claims about the climate impacts of their products.
Using Courts to Compel Corporate Climate Action
Lawsuits have already begun to hold corporations accountable for failing to rapidly bring their emissions in line with a 1.5°C pathway. The most prominent recent example is the groundbreaking ruling in the Netherlands, Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell. The Hague District Court’s May 2021 decision marked the first time a company has been held legally accountable for its contribution to climate change. The court ordered Shell to reduce its emissions out of a duty to respect human rights and conform to the temperature goals set in the Paris Agreement. The ruling also set a precedent in holding Shell responsible for emissions across its supply chain, including those from its own operations and emissions from the use of its products (often referred to as Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions), the latter of which constitute the lion’s share of its carbon footprint. Shell must reduce its overall global emissions 45% below 2019 levels by 2030. That near-term target reflects the outsized importance of reductions achieved this decade compared to those promised by mid-century to avoid climate catastrophe. Practically speaking, the 2030 deadline also means that Shell cannot rely on engineered carbon dioxide removal techniques or purported negative emissions technologies that are not currently — and may never be — viable or safe at scale.
A similar lawsuit is currently pending in France against the oil major Total (now renamed TotalEnergies). Environmental NGOs and local municipalities are seeking to hold the French fossil fuel giant accountable for failing to adequately report climate risks from its business operations and products and align its activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
New corporate climate accountability litigation has also arisen in Germany. Following Milieudefensie v. Shell and a successful constitutional climate case against the German government, environmental groups in Germany have commenced legal proceedings against German automakers (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen) for failing to align their business operations with the Paris climate goals and uphold the rights of future generations. Through their parallel lawsuits, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and Greenpeace Germany aim to compel the automakers to end the sale of fossil fuel-powered cars by 2030. Additionally, Greenpeace is demanding that Volkswagen reduce its emissions by 65% by 2030. These cases signal that the growing trend toward challenging corporate climate impacts extends beyond the fossil fuel industry.
Read more
Climate litigation has taken on even greater importance after the failure of COP26 to deliver the action and resources required to accelerate the energy transition and remedy mounting climate harms. As progress in international negotiating rooms stalls, litigation in national and regional courtrooms plays an ever more critical role in efforts to compel urgently needed climate action. Those cases focus on holding governments and, increasingly, corporations accountable for their climate inaction and ongoing contributions to global warming, which gravely threaten human rights.
Companies in high-emitting sectors are facing mounting public scrutiny and potential legal liability over the incompatibility of their operations with a safe climate future. From expanding oil and gas production to greenwashing carbon-intensive products, the conduct of the fossil fuel industry and other polluting sectors is subject to a rising number of legal challenges. More and more, the focus of those challenges is shifting from companies’ historical contribution to climate change and past misrepresentations of climate science to their current role in prolonging the fossil fuel era and their present claims about the climate impacts of their products.
Using Courts to Compel Corporate Climate Action
Lawsuits have already begun to hold corporations accountable for failing to rapidly bring their emissions in line with a 1.5°C pathway. The most prominent recent example is the groundbreaking ruling in the Netherlands, Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell. The Hague District Court’s May 2021 decision marked the first time a company has been held legally accountable for its contribution to climate change. The court ordered Shell to reduce its emissions out of a duty to respect human rights and conform to the temperature goals set in the Paris Agreement. The ruling also set a precedent in holding Shell responsible for emissions across its supply chain, including those from its own operations and emissions from the use of its products (often referred to as Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions), the latter of which constitute the lion’s share of its carbon footprint. Shell must reduce its overall global emissions 45% below 2019 levels by 2030. That near-term target reflects the outsized importance of reductions achieved this decade compared to those promised by mid-century to avoid climate catastrophe. Practically speaking, the 2030 deadline also means that Shell cannot rely on engineered carbon dioxide removal techniques or purported negative emissions technologies that are not currently — and may never be — viable or safe at scale.
A similar lawsuit is currently pending in France against the oil major Total (now renamed TotalEnergies). Environmental NGOs and local municipalities are seeking to hold the French fossil fuel giant accountable for failing to adequately report climate risks from its business operations and products and align its activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
New corporate climate accountability litigation has also arisen in Germany. Following Milieudefensie v. Shell and a successful constitutional climate case against the German government, environmental groups in Germany have commenced legal proceedings against German automakers (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen) for failing to align their business operations with the Paris climate goals and uphold the rights of future generations. Through their parallel lawsuits, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and Greenpeace Germany aim to compel the automakers to end the sale of fossil fuel-powered cars by 2030. Additionally, Greenpeace is demanding that Volkswagen reduce its emissions by 65% by 2030. These cases signal that the growing trend toward challenging corporate climate impacts extends beyond the fossil fuel industry.
Read more
Disclaimer: This site is informational and does not constitute legal advice.
© 2022
