By now, many states are starting to feel significant economic damage from global warming. In Colorado, Boulder City and County filed a lawsuit against Suncor Energy and Exxon-Mobil to recover some of the damages. Boulder sued the energy companies in 2018. They argued that Suncor and Exxon deceived the public about the dangers of climate change and should be forced to pay damages for climate-induced heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods.
A 2026 fiscal analysis projected that from 2025 to 2050 Colorado would face about $36 billion in costs directly attributable to climate change, plus defined climate resilience spending. That's about $1.4 billion/year.
An article discussing the lawsuit, Burned Cattle, Drought, Smoke-Choked Pastures—and the SCOTUS Case to Make Exxon and Suncor Pay, points out damage from the new climate situation and the potentially fatal flaw in Boulder's lawsuit against the polluters. An expert, Alejandro Camacho (UCLA law professor) comments: “Suncor is not about whether climate change is real, and it’s not about who sets national emissions policy. It’s about whether a state court may hear an ordinary damages claim. ..... And that’s why I think it’s more useful for people to see it for what it is: a tort case.” The professor points out that Boulder linked its legal argument to climate change, not tort damages. He asserts that could hurt Boulder’s chances in front of a pro-pollution MAGA USSC. In corporate liability situations, tort law allows a plaintiff who’s been harmed, e.g., from pesticides or medications to the recent lawsuit against Meta for damages from social media addiction. That is how people can sue a company for compensation.
Not surprisingly Suncor and Exxon are going for a total knock-out blow against all such lawsuits. Their argument is simple. Pollution is a matter of interstate commerce and only the federal government can regulate that. Suncor-Exxon argue that those damages claims are an unconstitutional attempt by states and others to regulate interstate and international emissions using state or local laws. They argue that federal law and constitutional limits on state authority foreclose the lawsuit. Also not surprisingly, the pro-pollution, pay-to-play Trump administration supports the polluters and the distribution and socialization of damages, while trickling profits up to the owners and executives.
A major ruling for the companies would probably gut dozens of similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions. A sufficiently expansive constitutional rationale would also threaten other state-law claims involving nationwide or international corporate conduct. How bad this will be for society that is eating the costs right now depends on how the MAGA judges word their opinion.
In oral arguments on Oct. 5, the MAGA judges signaled their worries about the well-being of the polluters. Apparently, damages the states are are incurring is of little to no concern. For example, Chief Justice Roberts asked what would happen if a municipality in every state copied Boulder’s lawsuit. He's worried about protecting the polluters. Similarly, Justice Beer Boofer Kavanaugh raised the possibility that such litigation could bankrupt energy companies. And of course, there's Trump pounding his shoe on the podium asking for more power, arguing that dealing with interstate air pollution belongs to the federal government.
Plus, there are other legal arguments being asserted in this case. Also relevant is the reality that a Boulder victory only allows this litigation to continue. It would not establish deception, causation, liability, or damages. There's possibly a long way to go on this. But even at this early stage, one gets the feeling that MAGA's staunch protection of polluters and it's hostility to the concepts of service to the public interest and global warming is going to mostly dictate how this will eventually play out.
The polluters will probably get most of what they want, maybe all of it. Regardless, big polluter contributions called free speech will continue to roll in for Trump and MAGA politicians.
No comments:
Post a Comment