Skip to content

U.S. Judge Throws Out Climate Change Lawsuits Against Big Oil

June 26, 2018

By Paul Homewood


WOT?? Common sense two days in a row?

From GWPF:


ScreenHunter_2578 Jun. 26 09.57

Noting that the world has also benefited significantly from oil and other fossil fuel, Judge William Alsup said questions about how to balance the “worldwide positives of the energy” against its role in global warming “demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate.”

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” he said.

Alsup’s ruling came in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and neighboring Oakland that accused Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell of long knowing that fossil fuels posed serious risks to the environment, but still promoting them as environmentally responsible.

The lawsuits said the companies created a public nuisance and should pay for sea walls and other infrastructure to protect against the effects of climate change — construction that could cost billions of dollars.

The Oakland city attorney’s offices did not immediately have comment. John Cote, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney’s office, said the office was reviewing the ruling and would decide its next steps “shortly,” but the lawsuit had “forced a public court proceeding on climate science.”

“We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute,” he said.

New York City, several California counties and at least one other California city filed similar suits.

The companies said federal law controlled fossil fuel production, and Congress encouraged oil and gas development. The harm the cities claimed was “speculative” and part of a complex chain of events that included billions of oil and gas users and “environmental phenomena occurring worldwide over many decades,” they said in court documents.

National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons applauded the ruling in a statement. “From the moment these baseless lawsuits were filed, we have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,” said Timmons.

  1. June 26, 2018 9:14 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism.

  2. Gerry, England permalink
    June 26, 2018 10:25 am

    And they expected an easy ride.

  3. dave permalink
    June 26, 2018 10:29 am

    Basically, the Judge means :

    “Gentlemen! This is above my paygrade – and yours!”

  4. June 26, 2018 10:33 am

    It’s a pity that the judge does not understand science.

    • diogenese2 permalink
      June 26, 2018 11:30 am

      It is not necessary for the judge to understand science . This was part of his judgement in ruling that the issue of global warming was beyond the remit of the legal system. It is necessary for the judge to understand LAW. The case was brought under the Law of Public Nusiance. Since the “science of climate change” was not disputed by either party, the court rightly disregarded that issue. The ruling was that, on the issue of Public Nusiance, there was no case to answer and the plaintiffs case was spurious.

  5. June 26, 2018 12:00 pm

    California is desperate for money and this was a ploy to milk the energy companies. Rather than be responsible, these governments become parasites on anyone handy.

    The liberals have turned a once beautiful state into a dump. So they look for pockets to pick and the judge said “nuts.”

  6. Colin Brooks permalink
    June 26, 2018 12:15 pm

    Can we borrow their judges? They might not be scientific but they are logical and sensible.

  7. June 26, 2018 12:25 pm

    “benefited” ? ah strange US spelling

    (benefitted is the preferred form in British English.)

  8. June 26, 2018 1:03 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: