Ask Slashdot: Can a City Really Sue an Oil Company For Climate Change? (wired.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The city of Richmond, California, is suing Chevron, its largest employer and its largest public-safety scourge. But while industrial accidents like refinery fires are commonplace in the low-lying industrial town, that's not what this lawsuit is about. Richmond and six other California cities are suing oil companies for contributing to the changing climate, which threatens to inundate their shorelines. "In an era of federal deregulation and rising seas, these lawsuits feel increasingly urgent," writes deputy editor Adam Rogers. "The question is whether the courts will even see them as plausible."

The lawsuits face two big legal hurdles: getting scientific proof that climate change (and specific companies causing climate change) are to blame for the cities' woes, along with overcoming oil companies' contention that cities can't sue them at all, since at the federal level, they're beholden to the Clean Air Act. But the urban plaintiffs have a plan for that. They are not asking for new regulations or bans; they're asking for reparations for a problem they say oil companies willfully hid from them. "Oil and gas, like cigarettes, are products. The companies that sell them are liable for the damages they cause," says Sharon Eubanks, an attorney at Bordas & Bordas who was lead counsel in the Justice Department's RICO case against the Philip Morris tobacco company. "They have misled the public about the product's dangers."

Comments

Only if they don't burn any themselves

[jfdavis668]

As long as the people of the city drive cars and burn various fuel oils, it's their fault, too.

Re:Only if they don't burn any themselves

[ColdWetDog]

Cancer rates may have doubled [citation needed] but life expectancies have as well. Complex problems. Make one thing better, make another worse.

That is, until you really break things.

Murphy was an optimist.

David vs. Goliah

[DaMattster]

And David doesn't win. The oil companies have revenue that is larger than the GDP of some countries. They have infinitely more legal power as well. I doubt this will go anywhere and the only folks that suffer are the tax payers of Richmond, CA. Their tax dollars are going to get wasted on a folley.

Stupid

[religionofpeas]

The problem is people buying the oil and burning it. Don't go blame the company selling it to you.

Re:Stupid

[Required Snark]

The Fossil Fuel Cartel has been attacking alternative energy solutions for decades. They are deeply involved in funding the climate change denial propaganda machine. They give vast sums of money to elected officials to buy legislation to keep their profits up no matter what the impact is on the environment.

For nearly 100 years the oil business has received tax breaks that are a de facto government subsidy.

The oil depletion allowance has been subject of interest, because of the relationship of big oil with the US government, and because one method (percentage depletion) of claiming the allowance makes it possible to write off more than the whole capital cost of the asset.

Big Oil follows the same playbook as Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and the gun lobby. Lie, fund propaganda and buy influence to avoid the real economic cost of dangerous products.

The historical pattern has been that government at the local level, which bears the brunt of the economic cost, uses the civil court system to counter failed Federal policies. This happened with Big Tobacco, and is now occurring with Big Pharma over the opioid epidemic. Now it may be the Fossil Fuel industries turn.

Your position is Libertarian bullshit. Consumers have no real choice against powerful entrenched special interests. The playing field is not level and claiming otherwise is just propaganda. Stop lying.

Supply and demand

[markdavis]

Suing a company for providing what customers want and need? It would be different if they were NOT giving what people wanted or were misleading their customers or they were directly damaging the environment or workers during/in production. Suing for climate change really makes little sense. This is a regulatory issue. It would be like suing car makers because cars create traffic jams, suing cattle ranchers because cows emit methane, suing paving companies because people are killed on roads more than when not on roads, or suing salt miners because salt is used a lot in winter climate areas and can contaminate the surrounding soil.

If you want to address climate change, then first and foremost, create innovative and competitive alternatives. Find ways to minimize the impact of existing systems. Find ways to reduce demand through efficiency. Educate people and consumers. And down the list, use sensible economic incentives to stimulate the above.

Re:Yes, and more

[reboot246]

Great, as long as we can sue city councils, state legislatures, and Congress for the damage they do. You see, government is far more dangerous to humans than any manufacturer of any product ever made. You just don't understand it.

Sometimes things change

[marcle]

Money and power don't always win in court. See Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein for example.
True, we're all complicit in climate change for using fossil fuels. But the allegation here is that Chevron actively lied and suppressed information about their product. That might be tough to defend.

Re: No

[presidenteloco]

Re: "modern industrial civilization STILL runs primarily on Fossil Fuels."

which by your "logic" means that can't change, right?
And certainly means it can't change fast enough to meaningfully impact the global warming hole we've dug for ourselves, right?

See that's where you're wrong. We CAN change, using the same smarts (both political and technological) that got us all the fossil-fuel based tech and economy, and not only that, we would be fncking stupid not to organize to change as fast as possible, knowing what we know about the problem now.

Believing only in the status quo fundamentally means lacking both motivation and imagination. Don't be one of those slackers.

They aren't suing for climate change but for lying

[LetterRip]

The argument is that the oil companies have knowingly spread false information about climate change - false information that they knew to be true based on their own internal research - resulting in delays in legislation.

So their deception and the damaging results thereof are what the companies are being sued for.

Re:Trump fags ARE kids

[Papaspud]

Only one type of Libbie- angry and crying his momma Hillary lost..... mommie.

Re: No Davis, you're a moron.

[BlueStrat]

So blaming the oil companies is missing the point from a scientific perspective.

This is not about science or logic, it's about politics, ideology, and emotion.

Re-calibrate perspectives as needed.

Strat

Get them addicted then blame them for buying

[Namarrgon]

Just like cigarettes. The customers were assured that the product had minimal downsides, so they adopted it enthusiastically, to the point where they became dependent on it. But they may well have made different choices if they'd known the full truth.

There are alternatives to fossil fuels. If the public hadn't been deliberately mislead by the industry, and if the full costs of burning fossil fuels (health as well as environmental) hadn't been systematically minimised and swept under the rug, then we could have better developed those alternatives much sooner, starting 50 years ago.

You can't claim the oil companies are blameless when they have been caught red-handed burying and buying unfavourable science, hiding the truth about their own product while spending hundreds of millions to trash the alternatives. We need lawsuits like these to establish how much of the blame falls on their shoulders. Not to mention the discovery phases should be very interesting..