Can a City Really Sue an Oil Company for Climate Change?

“Oil and gas, like cigarettes, are products. The companies that sell them are liable for the damages they cause,” says Sharon Eubanks, an attorney at Bordas & Bordas who was lead counsel in the Department of Justice’s RICO case against the Philip Morris tobacco company. “They have misled the public about the product’s dangers.”

ugg. the same could be said for govt as well. except the govt isnt liable for its actions, or inactions.

if i were those companies, i would consider moving my operations elsewhere. since they are one of the principle employers in the region, this would have a massive impact on the local economy.
it would regionally raise oil/fuel pricing, skyrocket the unemployment rate, and city treasuries would be depleted far more than they are now.
the companies should move, and offer current workers jobs at the new location. this might be far cheaper than dealing with current and future lawsuits which will:

  1. raise prices for products
  2. cause the companies to slash employees / employee benefits
  3. take other cost cutting measures that would impact the local economy in order to manage said lawsuits.
  4. close down completely with all the effects that would cause. (higher unemployment, less tax revenue etc).

this seems to be a classic case of “biting the hand that feeds you”

1 Like

Then they’d just claim jurisdiction for sure in Federal court because of interstate commerce. There is no way to “win”.

1 Like

using the “interstate commerce” clause wont fly in most cases, as the feds simply ignore the constitution (many times blatantly, affordable care act anyone?) unless it suits their agenda. in local/state courts, they do not even want to hear the constitutional argument at all. ( i know you said fed court, just putting that out there).
the only ones that “win” here (as in most court cases) is the lawyers. no one can take more of your money than a man with a briefcase.

Did you read the article?

yes i read it. and neither “interstate” nor “commerce” appear in it.how ever that clause is inferred upon the companies that claim to have minimal ties to california. various lawsuits are going on in various courts from local to federal and have been kicked back and forth on this issue.
my argument was :

and thats why it wont fly.

The article concludes with-

“I’ve told them, I said, look, in the best of all worlds, what would I want from Chevron? I’d want you guys to say, yes, we realize climate change is real, we realize fossil fuels are making it happen, and we have a plan to transition our business into a renewable energy business over the next 25 years.” says Mayor Butt. “They sort of shrug their shoulders and say, ‘We’ve gotta do what we’ve gotta do.’”

Isn’t that kind of like insisting that all cattle ranchers become bakers? The end result is still food/energy, but the skillsets and business infrastructures are entirely different.