Not long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to get involved in suits brought by energy companies and trade groups to stop lawsuits brought by authorities over climate change. As a result, lower courts have kept the lawsuits that allege giant fossil fuel companies should be held accountable for climate change, allowing them to be dealt with in state courts.
Lawsuits filed by California, Rhode Island and additional municipalities and states are based largely on state nuisance statutes, accusing fossil fuel producers of causing global warming and of failing to warn of the dangers carbon emissions pose.
As part of a rising trend, these governments turn to the courts as well as to official policies when trying to handle the problems of climate change. Among other costs, the lawsuits try to recover damages for rising sea levels, more frequent wildfires and extreme weather, saying these events have stretched resources for public services and emergency responses.
Plaintiffs believe hitting the purse strings of oil companies will force them to accept responsibility for environmental damage over the years and help deter similar damage in the future.
Those who oppose these actions, including groups from the energy industry and a number of Republican-led states, predict severe impacts. They believe that if such cases are heard in state courts, there will be different rules and more burdens for energy companies which could upset the nation’s energy policy.
Other doubters argue that, with this approach, courts are shaping environmental laws, normally something decided by the nation’s lawmakers. It is also feared that allowing lawsuits against domestic energy firms could keep investors away, increasing the costs for ordinary people.
Environmentalists and groups concerned with climate change think the court’s decision is a significant win. The idea is that by doing this, both states and municipalities can demand redress in local courts and increase pressure for climate responsiblity on all levels of government.
Tessa argues that fossil fuel companies have gotten away with deeds that harm the planet even as the damage to our environment falls on us and our leaders. Their aim is to get strong compensation and encourage companies to act more accountably through the courts.
The results of these cases may be felt not only in the oil sector but in related industries too. If policies are effective, guidelines for dealing with the environmental damage caused by other sectors could be made.
As a result, the rules for handling such cases could transform, bringing on a surge of related lawsuits here in the United States and internationally. How the cases develop will probably become an important setting for resolving the issue of how to deal with global climate change and its costs.