By Steven Grattan with AP
Published on
The US Supreme Court has decided, for the first time, to hear from oil and gas companies trying to block a climate accountability lawsuit. It could impact a recent surge in cases seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in damage linked to climate change.
The conservative-majority court agreed to take up a case from Boulder, Colorado – one of multiple lawsuits alleging the companies deceived the public about how fossil fuels contribute to climate change.
Governments around the country have sought damages totalling billions of dollars, arguing it’s necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms worsened by climate change. The lawsuits come amid a wave of legal actions in California, Hawaii and New Jersey and worldwide seeking to leverage action through the courts.
The case out of Boulder County will likely have implications for other lawsuits, some of which have been dismissed while others work their way through state courts.
‘A serious threat to one of our Nation’s most critical sectors’
Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil appealed to the Supreme Court after Colorado’s highest court let the Boulder case proceed. The companies argue emissions are a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out.
“The use of state law to address global climate change represents a serious threat to one of our Nation’s most critical sectors,” attorneys wrote. ExxonMobil said on Monday that “climate policy shouldn’t be set through fragmented state‑court actions.”
President Donald Trump’s administration weighed in to support the companies and urge the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court decision, saying it would mean “every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.”
Trump, a Republican, criticised the lawsuits in an executive order, and the Justice Department has sought to head some off in court.
‘The financial burden should not fall solely on local taxpayers’
Attorneys for Boulder had agued that the litigation is still in early stages and should stay in state court. “There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” they wrote.
City officials said the case was about dealing with problems people are facing in Colorado. “Our case is, fundamentally, about fairness. Boulder is already experiencing the effects of a rapidly warming climate, and the financial burden of adaptation should not fall solely on local taxpayers,” said Jonathan Koehn, its climate initiatives director.
The Supreme Court also asked the two sides to present arguments on whether the case is truly ready to be heard by the justices. Arguments are expected in the autumn.