Posted on 06/26/2018 5:32:22 AM PDT by Freeport
A federal judge on Monday dismissed lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland alleging that five of the world's largest oil companies should pay to protect the cities' residents from the impacts of climate change.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted a motion by the companies -- BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp. -- to dismiss the suits, ruling that while global warming was a real threat, it must be fixed "by our political branches."
"The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide," he wrote. "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."
The ruling is a blow to an emerging legal campaign by cities and municipalities, who are trying to argue that oil and gas companies created a public nuisance by producing fossil fuels they knew would result in harmful emissions.
New York City and several other local governments in California, Washington and Colorado have also sued on similar grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at 4-traders.com ...
A judge could be a wiseass and issue an injunction barring any oil shipments into the state in question to avoid a conflict of interest.
>> New York City et al
The audacity.
Any city wanting to sue big oil should prove it’s merit by going 1 year fossil fuel free, citizens included. Then I think I’d be up to hearing the lawsuit. Of course there wouldn’t be much of a city left...
“...oil companies should pay to protect the cities’ residents from the impacts of climate change.”
Which residents? The homeless? The illegal aliens? The fleeing businesses? The tourists that no longer visit? The actual tax-paying citizens?
Here is the left’s conundrum:
If this were to actually go to trial, the oil companies would have a right to present evidence that AGW is a farce. It would be a lot like the Scopes trial. It may be easy to convince a lot of people in the court of public opinion that man made global warming is real, but the rules in a courtroom are much different.
And a side issue: Don’t forget, it is the people USING the legal product that are causing the “problem”. If the state thinks they are harming the planet, by all means, sue them. :)
What a silly shakedown attempt.
Thwarted!
LOLARMAOOTF
What a silly shakedown attempt.
***************
The Democrats ARE the Shakedown Party. Its one of their main tactics to get power, money and control.
Those cities were built using petroleum. Typical childish liberal: Now that we have what we want, we want no one else to have it too.
Here in Colorado, the liberal’s moved into the Evergreen foothills community, screwing it up. They then tried to create a “growth plan” to exclude everyone else.
Typical liberals.
It's just a shame that this wise jurist didn't deign to inform us exactly which of the "political branches" had juristiction over the sun.
AND.....
Trump just won on the Travel Ban in the USSC!!!!
He's saying, in essence, is it really fair for the restaurant customer to bitch and complain about the service and food they ordered and received and ate...
...while at the same time demanding more food to fill their plates?
“Trump just won on the Travel Ban in the USSC!!!!”
And forced union dues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.