Posted on 01/13/2025 12:14:13 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a major setback to the oil industry on Monday, refusing to block lawsuits from California and other blue states that seek billions of dollars in damages for the impact of climate change.
Without a comment or dissent, the justices turned down closely watched appeals from Sunoco, Shell and other energy producers.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he took no part in the decision, presumably because he owns stock in companies affected by the dispute.
In Sunoco vs. Honolulu, the energy producers urged the justices to intervene in these state cases and rule that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a matter for federal law, not one suited to state-by-state claims.
The decision means about two dozen states and municipalities may move forward to prove their claims that the major oil producers knew of the potential damage of burning fossil fuels but chose to conceal it. Two years ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against five of the largest oil and gas companies — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP — and the American Petroleum Institute for what they described as a “decades-long campaign of deception” that created climate-related harms in California.
“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us — covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” Newsom said in announcing the suit.
California’s suit followed the pattern set by about two dozen similar claims from the cities of Baltimore, New York and San Francisco, and states led by Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
These suits argue that the oil producers used deceptive marketing to hide the danger of...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Having a SCOTUS make decisions like these worries me with regards to how the leftists, with the courts’ help, will stifle Trump for as long as they can, at least until 2026 when they will take back the House and the Senate.
Considering our entire economy is based on oil, this will end well. /s
A Subprime Court....
The end of "fossil" fuels is the end of food.
We are going to be using oil for centuries. We have to stop these lawsuits. It is like NY and DC declaring war on Trump.
The Supremacist Court sucks. Really sucks.
B'rer Rabbit laughs all the way to the bank.
Exxon/Mobil aspires to operate the largest lithium extraction operation in North America.
Don’t care much about this.
You can sue these companies into bankruptcy and it won’t change the absolute requirement for oil. Oil workers may find rifles held to their heads to do their work and make oil flow regardless of profit.
But yes, this would end. The people with the rifles would disappear.
When that oil field is empty. They would move on to one that is full.
Point being — it’s air. You HAVE to have it. If something like numbers on a screen about money prevent you from having it, you will just change the numbers by keypress, or trigger pull.
But, but, but what about earthquakes? Isn’t there some company we can sue? /s
Maybe some Trump-led federal agency can institute a lawfare fee levied against offending states and municipalities and lawfirms. $100M per case per day, say.
Great... we already have the excuse for the next round of forest fire disasters... “We can’t put out the fires because the fire truck batteries are dead.”
This is infuriating and utterly insane...”the major oil producers knew of the potential damage of burning fossil fuels but chose to conceal it.”
WHAT “potential damage”? What models were used? Were the enormous KNOWN and QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS of burning fossil fuels counted against the “potential” damage?
Of course the oil companies studied this and of course they concluded that there MIGHT be some damage. What company does NOT weigh all business risks?
There are many models showing there is NO damage to the earth by burning fossil fuels. Did the fossil fuel company reports also show that there is PROBABLY going to be NO DAMAGE from burning their fuels?
yep! and continue the March to communism. remember what Comrade Lenin said...”The goal of socialism IS Communism”! don’t forget it.
Consistent with this, the SC should require the consolidation of all of these claims into one case before one federal court since it clearly involves a federal issue, e.g. interstate commerce. No courts pay any attention to this rule whatsoever, yet it is the first rule.
In Sunoco vs. Honolulu, the energy producers urged the justices to intervene in these state cases and rule that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a matter for federal law, not one suited to state-by-state claims.
Lets hear the facts in the case with an honest jury, the issue is climate change.
there are other court cases proving it wrong.
BUT YOUR POINT IS VERY VALID.
We are so screwed.
We're all gonna die!!!!
This was NOT a decision on whether those state lawsuits are valid. It was a decision on whether these cases should leapfrog the entire process of trial and appeals and go directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court almost never does that for rather obvious reasons.
Doesn't matter what the demand is if there is no supply.
You don't just stick a straw into the ground and extract oil.
And you don't just stick a rifle in a petroleum engineer's face and demand oil. There is an entire supply chain of personnel, supplies and equipment required to build, maintain and operate oil wells.
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.