Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
As long as the people of the city drive cars and burn various fuel oils, it's their fault, too.
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.
Even the POTUS doesn't believe in climate change (induced by men)
Yes, he absolutely does.
Don't make the mistake of believing anything Trump says. Like anyone else, by their actions shall you know them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We all know how the tobacco farmers were made to pay for growing their toxic product, and driven into bankruptcy,
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The problem is people buying the oil and burning it. Don't go blame the company selling it to you.
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.
Of course a city can sue an oil company for climate change. You can sue anybody for anything.
But will they succeed? Well, that's up to the courts.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Yes, a city can sue an oil company for damages because they've already done it.
Also, as soon as the PLCAA is overturned (that's the 2005 law that makes firearms manufacturers the only industry that is exempt from civil lawsuits when their products harm people), you will see an overwhelming avalanche of lawsuits that will flip the entire gun control discussion in the US. Making corporations accountable for the external costs of what they do will be the legal trend of the coming decades. They've been getting a free ride long enough.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They should sue cows. They produce more detrimental compounds on a larger scale.
... judging by the facts and stuff.
A better question is one of standing.
Product liability may or may not apply.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Seriously, I would like to see those that have had their CC's stolen to be held accountable. Once a few of these CIOs are held accountable, then businesses will change very quickly and security will matter more than saving a few dollars.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
it's about the oil companies running a decades long campaign to hide the effects of fossil fuels on the environment, often to prevent research into alternative and cleaner fuel sources.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
or don't believe in it then you won't seek alternatives. It's the age old question of "Who killed the electric car?".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
. . .which was built from steel made with Coke, a fossil fuel. And the clinker from steelmaking is an important part of many concretes.
From minerals and rocks mines and processed by fossil-fuel powered equipment.
With gas and diesel-powered construction equipment.
Materials brought to site by truck or rail, also fossil--powered.
And construction workers, who generally drive to the construction sites.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that modern industrial civilization STILL runs primarily on Fossil Fuels. .
a tesla. Charged on our 10 KW solar system.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But the cattle industry raising corn fed beef causes climate change too. Methane is 50 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Why aren't they suing corn farmers, or ranchers?
With much of the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley expected to be underwater by 2100, it's going to take a lot levees to hold back rising water levels. The city/state/federal governments WILL NOT raise taxes to pay for this. With retirees outnumbering workers in 2030, the tax base will decline for 70+ years. Politicians in good conscience can't tax retirees who benefited from BIG OIL all their life.
Re: Not sacrificing freedom for expedient change.
Would you say the same (don't sacrifice freedom to get the rapid change) if the expedient change needed was sending an expensive rocket to shift to safety a giant, life killing asteroid that was predicted, with 97% certainty, to be going to impact Earth in 9 years?
So the freedom loss, say, was a proposed extra 5% income tax to be paid by every worker for 3 years, needed to pay for the super-accelerated "Manhattan project" to design, build, launch the system to prevent the asteroid impact.
Just curious what your opinion on that would be.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
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.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You must really want to get the SLS up. Although I have to hand it you, that sort of thing just might get you enough money to get the damned thing off the pad.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Kilaeua has spewed out more junk into the atmosphere in its latest eruption that everything saved by Prius cars in a year. So sue the volcano.
Fine. I volunteer you to serve the papers.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
In the US at least, nearly anybody can sue nearly anybody over nearly anything. This doesn't, of course, mean they can win. And I expect that Chevron has a lot more lawyers with a lot more talent and experience than does Richmond, CA.
As to their grounds...sorry, I'm no lawyer. There are reasonable grounds, but whether there are reasonable legal grounds is a separate question. So is whether the reasonable grounds can be proven.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's not the point though. In this case "David" is not right and does not deserve to win. You can hardly blame the oil companies for causing climate change when it is your use of their oil products which causes the harm. The oil companies are not the ones burning all the oil and producing the CO2, we are! Nobody is forcing anyone to burn oil people choose to do so either because there is no alternative, the alternative is too expensive or because they are unwilling to reduce their standard of living. We are working on developing cheaper, more effective alternatives but that takes time.
At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. What's next? People suing fast food and candy companies claiming they are responsible for making people fat (No I'm not going to google that to check because I have a very sad feeling that it has probably already happened!).
... On synthetic rubber tires, with massive amounts of petroleum-based plastics in the vehicle, and using petroleum-based fabrics, coverings on the wire, and the enclosures for most of that power system.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Why sue one individual oil company when the disaster is caused by an industry on a global scale? Wouldn't it be more suitable to sue an organisation such as OPEC?
Why not go after the car industry as well for having actively decommissioning public transport in favour of cars in some areas?
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
What kind of a silly response is that. The question was whether you could sue, not whether you could win. The answer is obviously yes, to this example and to every single one you listed. I could sue you for the stupidity of your post.
You answered a question that wasn't asked.
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.
Even the POTUS doesn't believe in climate change (induced by men)
Yes, he absolutely does.
When you strip away the reference to the original Politico article that claimed to quote from the actual application but conveniently failed to provide a copy, the only verifiable fact in your link is that Trump wants to build walls to control erosion that's actually happening today.
If you're presenting that as evidence that he believes in climate change, what does that say about all the environmental groups that oppose the walls?
took one look at Trump and saw the greatest negotiator in history, a business genius without peer
Since they haven't seen his tax returns, which would disabuse them of those notions
And six bankrupt casinos weren't enough to disabuse them of those notions because?
And six bankrupt casinos weren't enough to disabuse them of those notions because?
Because they think he got rich doing it, and if he got rich then god must love him. If they knew he was in debt, they'd think god hated him.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And six bankrupt casinos weren't enough to disabuse them of those notions because?
Because they think he got rich doing it, and if he got rich then god must love him. If they knew he was in debt, they'd think god hated him.
By that logic, if his tax returns become public and the extent of his tax cheating is revealed, their opinion of him will only be enhanced since Republicans hate taxes to begin with..
Only one type of Libbie- angry and crying his momma Hillary lost..... mommie.
Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
Everyone is taught in high school that burning hydrocarbons produces carbon dioxide.
The oil and gas industry has never tried to imply it doesn't.
Without oil, we have no plastic. You can't make solar panels without oil either.
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Aside from that, Chevron is the company that employs most of the people in the city. They could sue Texaco or Shell over climate change and get the same points for political theater. Instead they decided to target the company that provides jobs for most of their constituents with this frivolous law suit.
Note to companies - if you choose Texas for your next expansion which hires a bunch of people, you'll find a bunch of good, hard-working employees here, from roughnecks to graduates of the best petroleum engineering program in the country, Texas A&M. You'll find reasonable costs for land, taxes, and other expenses. If you choose California, they'll target you with frivolous lawsuits as a political stunt. Your pick.
Which were both built using fossil fuels, so what is your point?
Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
Exactly. Why is everyone ignoring the analogy to cigarette manufacturers? As Oreskes and Conway documented in Merchants of Doubt, oil companies used exactly the same strategies (and same people) to cast doubt on the link between fossil fuels and climate change as cigarette companies did to cast doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer. If cigarette companies can be found liable, why not oil companies?
But can it win?
When you strip away the reference to the original Politico article that claimed to quote from the actual application but conveniently failed to provide a copy, the only verifiable fact in your link is that Trump wants to build walls to control erosion that's actually happening today.
Bullshit. Sources abound. For example, here is the original article. I suppose you think dozens or hundreds of news outlets around the world are all lying about this?
If you're presenting that as evidence that he believes in climate change, what does that say about all the environmental groups that oppose the walls?
It doesn't work that way, and you know it. I'm presenting his claim that the damage was caused by climate change as evidence that he believes in climate change. The environmental groups that oppose the walls also believe in climate change (you can ask them) but they oppose the seawalls because seawalls cause problems.
Do you have any arguments which are not logically fallacious?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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..
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The urban governments are suing because decades of mismanagement has made them bankrupt and now they want a new revenue stream.
I have no issue with using oil. In fact, we would be insane to stop using it. Think chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, etc. Oil being burned is criminal, but used for making things is absolutely useful.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
burning oil for energy is insane. Using oil to make things is like using steel or wood. It is not polluting (well, not hugely polluting) to make goods with it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Maine had no luck suing Ohio etc for burning coal and sending acid rain over on the weekends.
Rotsa ruck fools.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Americans haven't bought muscle cars since the 70s.
Burden of proof is on them. There is no scientific proof CO2 or anything to do with petroleum products have warmed the earth. There is a lot of proof that it's a natural cycle. We are in fact coming out of a mini ice age that were responsible for the Stradivarius violins in fact. "Consensus" isn't scientific. In fact it's anti-scientific. If there's science behind it, use that. There isn't so they can't.
What they should do is counter sue the city for being a nuisance. Trying a gangster style shakedown.
Bullshit.
Et tu? First, the CNBC link that you claim is "the original article" is dated a day later than the Mashable article you provided upthread. Second, the Mashable article was honest enough to appeal to the original Politico article from 2016 -- the CNBC article doesn't even pretend to cite a source.
Again, if Politico or anyone else really got their hands on a copy of the application, there would be plenty of copies out in the wild for all to howl over. Ponder for a quick moment why that isn't the case.
Glad you finally accepted 1/2 China's coal use, used to make steel is all ok now, because steel is a good.
Just a word to the wise, millenials are in their 20s and 30s and they are starting to demand action, not words.
Adapt.
Because this is just the start, and old people are old.
"Help, I can't put liquid dinosaurs in my plug-in electric car to drive to the high speed rail station that runs on renewable energy!"
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
One interesting fact, in the climate change suit, the cities estimated that they would face astronomical costs, potentially running into the tens of billions of dollars
Conversely, in their bond prospectus, they didn't mention those liabilities despite being pretty material facts that could impair their ability to repay the bonds.
So while I surely believe in climate change as a scientific fact, the projection of the cost to a city based on the best (albeit imperfect) current science ought to be the same value for both purposes. Otherwise you're lying to at least one of the two.
The Ford Mustang (2018) is at best 25MPG (2018 Ford Mustang 2.3 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (S10), Turbo, Regular Gasoline) and at worst, 16MPG (2018 Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang 5.2 L, 8 cyl, Manual 6-spd, Premium Gasoline)
You consider that fuel efficient?
Assuming you are contradicting my statement about fuel-efficient cars selling well, I was not implying they are the majority, but that are no longer niche. I see Hybrids all over the place. Yeah, they are still vastly outnumbered by SUV's, but all the data I can find shows that the trend on the hybrids is upwards...