Judge Deals Latest Blow To Big Oil in DC Climate Fraud CaseNovember 21, 2022
The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse houses the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Credit: Ken Lund, CC BY-SA 2.0
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
