Note that this isn't the big multi-state case, but a case brought by the city of Baltimore.
This hearing was not on the merits. The upcoming decision is about whether the lawsuit should be heard in state or federal court. I presume federal law would be more favorable to the oil companies, as that is what they're arguing for. This particular question has been bouncing up and down the courts since before the pandemic. From what I can tell[0], the confusing procedural history is something like this:
> Baltimore: oil companies owe us for climate change
> Big Oil: No we don't. Also, this should be decided in federal court.
> Federal district court: Nah, we'll keep it in state court
> Big Oil: 4th Circuit, tell the District court they're wrong!
> 4th circuit: Actually, we don't have the authority to review their decision
> Big Oil: Supreme Court, tell the 4th circuit that they do
> SCOTUS: They do.
> 4th Circuit: Okay, we'll review it.
We are here. After this decision comes down and then is appealed to the Supreme Court, then they'll start arguing over a motion to dismiss. After that gets all the way up to the Supreme Court again and the lawsuit survives, a galactic-scale discovery process will ensue. Then probably a settlement. All this is going to take years, if it happens at all. I find it hard to imagine that Baltimore has the will and resources to take this all the way.
The biggest hurdle to come is meeting the legal requirement that specific actions from the defendant, which they knew were negligent, led to specific damages to the city of Baltimore.
Those are the three basic requirements to any claim under tort law.
The hardest one is proving that these specific companies caused global warming to a sufficient degree that it directly damaged Baltimore.
The defense will make obvious counter-arguments - for example that Baltimore itself engaged in the same CO2 emmissions behavior by purchasing oil/gas and facilitating trade of such (and taxing it) within their own jurisdiction. ...and further that many many other companies throughout history have contributed to atmospheric CO2, not just these companies. ...AND that the damage to Baltimore thus far might be considered normal weather variations.
> The National Association of Manufacturers, an industry group, made an even more sweeping argument in a brief filed in support of the companies, writing, "state courts are not positioned to decide who, if anyone, is to be legally accountable for climate change, how energy policies should change to address it, and how local mitigation projects should be funded."
It's true that courts cannot do all three, I doubt that courts are trying to create policies, that seems a straw man argument. But "decide who, if anyone, is to be legally accountable for X" seems the main job of courts.
Companies lied to and/or mislead consumers with grave consequences to their health and economy. I see that to attribute a concrete amount on damages is challenging, but courts do it all the time.
The question of where liability should sit for our collective reliance on fossil fuels is interesting. One reckoning I want to see is with our collective delusion that plastics are fundamentally recyclable.
Frankly I think a “truth and reconciliation committee” solution is probably the best we can hope for. So many parts of western society profited from, and actively propagated, that myth, and we’d benefit from a full accounting of harms done.
Sure, but few of us are ready for that. Almost everyone is still in the denial, anger, or bargaining phases — mostly denial. Only a handful of us have accepted that we are children of a dying planet. Reconciliation can’t happen until we acknowledge there is something to forgive.
It's gonna take a lot of older folk. Being "green" is trendy but it's not really like younger generations are sewing their own clothes out of recycled materials. The only thing that will stop climate change is lucky geoengineering breakthroughs, no generation is willing to give anything up for it. I'm in my 20s,its easy to yell at boomers but I look at my friends throwing working phones away every year for a new one and know we wouldn't have done any better.
I'm actually surprised _anyone_ is fighting big oil. they're one the bigger players in infrastructure.
It may be only me who thinks this but, it seems like gov always rests on the side of self-interest. If it hurts the bottom line for America it just gets down-played and treated as a nesessary evil.
How does one prove global warming is based on humans and isnt a natural phenomenon?
Then claim that the proof is so substantial/wide spread that its obvious to everyone involved. They would _need_ to know of wrong doing to be guilty of turning a blind eye/disinformation to it, right?
FWIW, I do think we (humans) are the cause of the earth warming up and, those with the biggest part at play should be held accountable for their actions.
> If it hurts the bottom line for America it just gets down-played and treated as a nesessary evil.
American companies? Corporate profits and citizens well being are often misaligned.
> How does one prove global warming is based on humans and isnt a natural phenomenon?
The same way you prove that someone died of natural causes or was assassinated. It's not always easy but there are ways from toxicology to study of bodies in decomposition.
> I'm actually surprised _anyone_ is fighting big oil.
Big tech is the rising sun. Car makers are losing power by the day, and the same goes to big oil. They are still extremely powerful, but investment money is moving slowly to other places. So, fights that seemed impossible will become more common with time.
This hearing was not on the merits. The upcoming decision is about whether the lawsuit should be heard in state or federal court. I presume federal law would be more favorable to the oil companies, as that is what they're arguing for. This particular question has been bouncing up and down the courts since before the pandemic. From what I can tell[0], the confusing procedural history is something like this:
> Baltimore: oil companies owe us for climate change
> Big Oil: No we don't. Also, this should be decided in federal court.
> Federal district court: Nah, we'll keep it in state court
> Big Oil: 4th Circuit, tell the District court they're wrong!
> 4th circuit: Actually, we don't have the authority to review their decision
> Big Oil: Supreme Court, tell the 4th circuit that they do
> SCOTUS: They do.
> 4th Circuit: Okay, we'll review it.
We are here. After this decision comes down and then is appealed to the Supreme Court, then they'll start arguing over a motion to dismiss. After that gets all the way up to the Supreme Court again and the lawsuit survives, a galactic-scale discovery process will ensue. Then probably a settlement. All this is going to take years, if it happens at all. I find it hard to imagine that Baltimore has the will and resources to take this all the way.
[0]http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case/m...