Due to a lack of public support, legislative feasibility, and political will, courts have become the favored venue for environmental activists to advance their preferred climate agendas. The result has been a flood of activist-backed lawsuits, which have been facilitated by state attorneys general, mayors, and local governments, seeking to cash in as plaintiffs against energy companies. The justifications for these lawsuits inevitably stand on shaky legal ground. More concerning is the fact that the suits also threaten to undermine much of the progress that private companies and manufacturers have made to date in reducing emissions while responding to consumer demand for reliable power and fuels.
On January 19th the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in BP Plc v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. This is one of the dozens of climate lawsuits that have popped up across the country. The underlying premise of the public nuisance lawsuits, like one brought in my home state of Rhode Island, is that energy companies and manufacturers are responsible for the effects of climate change merely because they extract and refine the resources, we all use to light our cities, power our vehicles, and to heat our homes. Climate change is a global issue and everyone to a certain extent is responsible for the effects of climate change because of our day-to-day activities. If you drive a gasoline powered vehicle, heat your home with oil, natural gas or propane or fly on vacation…you are contributing to the negative impacts of climate change. This fact appears to be lost on the municipalities and plaintiffs’ attorneys pursuing these lawsuits.
Read Full Article »