Supreme Court Allows Hawaii To Sue Oil Companies Over Climate Change Effects (cbsnews.com) 70
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not consider whether to quash lawsuits brought by Honolulu seeking billions of dollars from oil and gas companies for the damage caused by the effects of climate change, clearing the way for the cases to move forward. The legal battle pursued in Hawaii state court is similar to others filed against the nation's largest energy companies by state and local governments in their courts. The suits claim that the oil and gas industry engaged in a deceptive campaign and misled the public about the dangers of their fossil fuel products and the environmental impacts.
A group of 15 energy companies asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court that allowed a lawsuit brought by the city and county of Honolulu, as well as its Board of Water Supply, to proceed. The suit was brought in Hawaii state court in March 2020, and Honolulu raised (PDF) several claims under state law, including creating a public nuisance and failure to warn the public of the risks posed by their fossil fuel products. The city accused the oil and gas industry of contributing to global climate change, leading to flooding, erosion and more frequent and intense extreme weather events. These changes, they said, have led to property damage and a drop in tax revenue as a result of less tourism.
The energy companies unsuccessfully sought to have the case moved to federal court, arguing that the claims raised by Honolulu under state law were overridden by federal law and the Clean Air Act. A state trial court denied their efforts to dismiss the case. The oil and gas industry has argued that greenhouse-gas emissions "flow from billions of daily choices, over more than a century, by governments, companies and individuals about what types of fuels to use, and how to use them." Honolulu, the companies said, was seeking damages for the "cumulative effect of worldwide emissions leading to global climate change." The Hawaii Supreme Court ultimately allowed (PDF) the lawsuit to proceed. The state's highest court determined that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law governing suits seeking damages for interstate pollution. It also rejected the oil companies' argument that Honolulu was seeking to regulate emissions through its lawsuit, finding that the city instead wanted to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil fuel products "without warning and abetted by a sophisticated disinformation campaign."
"Plaintiffs' state tort law claims do not seek to regulate emissions, and there is thus no 'actual conflict' between Hawaii tort law and the [Clean Air Act]," the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled. "These claims potentially regulate marketing conduct while the CAA regulates pollution." The oil companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling from the Hawaii high court and urged it to stop Honolulu's lawsuit from going forward. Regulation of interstate pollution is a federal area governed by federal law, lawyers for the energy industry argued. [...] The Supreme Court in June asked the Biden administration to weigh in on the cases and whether it should step into the dispute. In a filing submitted to the Supreme Court before the transfer of presidential power, the Biden administration urged the justices to turn away the appeals, in part because it said it is too soon for them to intervene.
A group of 15 energy companies asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court that allowed a lawsuit brought by the city and county of Honolulu, as well as its Board of Water Supply, to proceed. The suit was brought in Hawaii state court in March 2020, and Honolulu raised (PDF) several claims under state law, including creating a public nuisance and failure to warn the public of the risks posed by their fossil fuel products. The city accused the oil and gas industry of contributing to global climate change, leading to flooding, erosion and more frequent and intense extreme weather events. These changes, they said, have led to property damage and a drop in tax revenue as a result of less tourism.
The energy companies unsuccessfully sought to have the case moved to federal court, arguing that the claims raised by Honolulu under state law were overridden by federal law and the Clean Air Act. A state trial court denied their efforts to dismiss the case. The oil and gas industry has argued that greenhouse-gas emissions "flow from billions of daily choices, over more than a century, by governments, companies and individuals about what types of fuels to use, and how to use them." Honolulu, the companies said, was seeking damages for the "cumulative effect of worldwide emissions leading to global climate change." The Hawaii Supreme Court ultimately allowed (PDF) the lawsuit to proceed. The state's highest court determined that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law governing suits seeking damages for interstate pollution. It also rejected the oil companies' argument that Honolulu was seeking to regulate emissions through its lawsuit, finding that the city instead wanted to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil fuel products "without warning and abetted by a sophisticated disinformation campaign."
"Plaintiffs' state tort law claims do not seek to regulate emissions, and there is thus no 'actual conflict' between Hawaii tort law and the [Clean Air Act]," the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled. "These claims potentially regulate marketing conduct while the CAA regulates pollution." The oil companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling from the Hawaii high court and urged it to stop Honolulu's lawsuit from going forward. Regulation of interstate pollution is a federal area governed by federal law, lawyers for the energy industry argued. [...] The Supreme Court in June asked the Biden administration to weigh in on the cases and whether it should step into the dispute. In a filing submitted to the Supreme Court before the transfer of presidential power, the Biden administration urged the justices to turn away the appeals, in part because it said it is too soon for them to intervene.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
*) Please keep the argument that it takes about a barrel's worth of energy to produce a barrel of oil to yourself. The demand ultimatelty is still 100% from us, not the oil companies.
Re:nonsensical hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
but somehow the suppliers are solely to blame
It isn't so simple, though.
While it was widely known in narrow circles that tobacco is bad for the health - especially so among suppliers, the tobacco companies did engage in a long, sustained and expensive campaign to deny this and to promote their product, creating more demand.
Similarly, the oil industry has spent a lot of money and efforts [senate.gov] to kill alternatives and deny the effects of fossil fuels on climate change thus causing damage, including by tilting the perceived costs so that the "you" who make a decision on consumption, are mislead and make a choice that isn't optimal.
Where you are right is that there is a better chance to make this choice out of "self-interest", but big oil has worked hard to make sure you have no options, so that your self-interest is aligned with theirs. Quite similar to the tobacco industry, actually.
Re: nonsensical hypocrisy (Score:2)
The question of whether the suit itself was barred by Clean Air Act preemption should be obvious: the US Supreme Court has made it clear that act doesn't regulate CO2.
Re: (Score:1)
The primary problem comparing tabaco to oil is that smoking tabaco was a completely voluntary process whereas energy is a necessity for basic life. Even now Hawaii burns oil to produce several GW of power with most power plants on the islands being oil plants.
This is the equivalent of the plaintiff suing the tabaco industry while voluntarily chain smoking in the court room, except it's even dumber than that because unlike smoking, oil isn't addictive. The onus is on the state to perform proper impact assess
Re:nonsensical hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Logic escapes you, but then I recall you love our martian padishah-emperor, so I'm not surpised.
The primary problem comparing tabaco to oil is that smoking tabaco was a completely voluntary process whereas energy is a necessity for basic life.
"Energy is a necessity for basic life" is a correct generic statement, but it completely sidesteps the real issue, what energy is available to you and why, and this problem is from a rather different species.
Since the oil industry has been involved in a long and sustained fight to mislead the public and influence it both in the matter of availability of choices, and in the matter of their relative costs, there is a good reason for the representatives of the people to confront it about that.
The onus is on the state to perform proper impact assessment of the projects they sanction.
Sure. This lawsuit is a part of the process of impact assessment and redress, as provided by your constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but somehow the suppliers are solely to blame
It isn't so simple, though.
While it was widely known in narrow circles that tobacco is bad for the health - especially so among suppliers, the tobacco companies did engage in a long, sustained and expensive campaign to deny this and to promote their product, creating more demand.
The Surgeon General's warning about the health effects of smoking cigarettes has been on packaging since 1964. "Narrow circles" indeed. Shit, I remember standup comedians back in the early 80s joking that inhaling burning leaves certainly wasn't going to have any negative health effects while everyone laughed (you know, rather than express confusion because they thought it was good for them).
If you started smoking in the 50s, hey, I get it, you were (purposefully) misled. After that? Everyone was fully
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever needed cigarettes for survival (except maybe tobacco farmers).
Re: (Score:2)
Better granularity (Score:4, Insightful)
Done so that the newly anointed judges can maximize the profits from whoring themselves out to the oil lobby, no doubt.
And I'm only half-joking.
Re: (Score:2)
You and iggymanz above should order this immediately, being so smart and all, you must be swinging a lot of influence with big oil across the board.
Re: Oil companies should immediately stop deliveri (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure nobody on their boards is so dumb.
Where's the slap on the wrist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting rich by deception resulting in harm to others? That deserves a slap on the wrist, after paying the appropriate legal fees of course.
Re:Where's the slap on the wrist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely, or at least the oil companies thought it was worth millions (billions?) to run a deception campaign about it.
In any case, if they had been honest then all or nearly all liability would be on the users to use the product safely (ie either not burn it or handle the CO2), but by actively hiding the danger what lunatic moral system do you propose where that would be acceptable behavior? Would you also support a company hiding reports that their product is a fire hazard, and if your son's friend used that product and burned your house down would you say that they're legally in the clear?
Re: (Score:2)
If that product was firewood, I sure would.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say for this example that the product is glowy shoes. You know, something that you shouldn't naturally expect to have that sort of danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say for this example that the product is glowy shoes. You know, something that you shouldn't naturally expect to have that sort of danger.
You're suggesting that you shouldn't naturally expect to have pollution from burning oil? Does the ugly black smoke and the choking sensation caused by inhaling said smoke not give it away?
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Republicans, many of them still claim they don't think CO2 is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
but by actively hiding the danger what lunatic moral system do you propose where that would be acceptable behavior?
While that is true, we have conclusively known about the dangers of burning oil for 2 decades now, and yet Hawaii continues to derive the majority of the electricity through the process, and continues to design American style non-walkable cities with poor public transport options.
20 years is a long time, but they've demonstrated that even with the information available they've decided to not make any meaningful ways. They are suing someone else for their own incompetence. It would be like someone reading th
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion that Hawaii is the only location that burned oil is ridiculously stupid. No, most of the harm to Hawaii is from other people's use of fossil fuels; and oil companies took a good portion of the liability from those other users by actively hiding the danger which they knew about it, specifically to avoid the dangers being mitigated.
Re: So then the petroleum companies declare bankru (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Exxon Mobil's market cap is just short of a half trillion, so my guess is Hawaii would get a heck of a lot of environmental remediation. It is, after all, better to be first in line than let your slippery-slope misgivings plant you at the window after all the tickets have been sold.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens then? Well, Exxon Mobil's market cap is just short of a half trillion, so my guess is Hawaii would get a heck of a lot of environmental remediation. It is, after all, better to be first in line than let your slippery-slope misgivings plant you at the window after all the tickets have been sold.
More like Exxon Mobil start charging a $25/gallon climate change fine recovery fee in Hawaii.
why fucking javascript? (Score:5)
Why do we need fucking stupid javascript on slashdot now?
da fuck!
Re:why fucking javascript? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I am using the site way less. It's pretty awful.
Re:why fucking javascript? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously. Very annoying!!!!!! Are they trying to make us leave?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. Especially if it's costing them more to run it than they're making in revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth wouldnt they just shut the site down if it was costing them more then it was making them? There's absolutely no need to drive users away in this scenario.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we need fucking stupid javascript on slashdot now? da fuck!
Reading this in an incognito window on Chrome (instead of Firefox) with all of my extensions turned off, and I still got a warning pop-up.
Re: (Score:2)
No javascript or ads for me. classic discussions (Score:2)
No javascript or ads for me. classic discussion system plus good ublock and noscript cleanup is working fine. Did see some intrusive ads yesterday, and the site did prompt me to allow scripting for html-load or somesuch, but I just ignored it and added some rules.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Then answer this: why did the oil companies spend so much money fighting acceptance of climate change?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but if you knowingly sell a product that hurts a third party (one who didn't buy your product), while actively lying about the harmfulness of your product, you should expect to be liable for civil or criminal penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
What does a product being legal have to do with anything? Companies get sued and individuals go to prison all the time for breaking other laws or causing harm, this is why most companies put warning labels on dangerous products to reduce their liability.
Re: (Score:3)
To protect sales.
Scenario 1: you correctly claim my product damages the environment.
Scenario 2: you incorrectly claim my product damages the environment.
My response: I will spend money to fight acceptance of EITHER claim.
And that was, in fact, the defense given by the oil companies.
However, later release of documents showed that, in fact, yes, they did know and understand the greenhouse effect, and their own scientists confirmed the predictions [harvard.edu] that their public relations campaign were attempting to disparage.
Short summary: they lied, and knew they were lying when they did so.
The fact that I spend money to dispute your claim doesn't imply that your claim is accurate.
In this case, however, they knew the claims were accurate.
Re: (Score:1)
It is an excellent question, I actually wonder what the thinking was, that people would build more nuclear power plants? I don't know, people still use gasoline, kerosene, etc. every day, knowing very well that there is such a thing as change of the climate. I guess as anyone would be protective even of the possibility that their business model may be in danger, they were too. However again, people knew about these issues, what, did the oil companies have monopoly on science or something? I don't think
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people predictably responded by using and investing into research in alternatives to fossil fuels, and in using them more efficiently, and in capturing the CO2 and burying it. Not immediately of course, but it was the obvious course of action.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe oil companies should be suing their customers right back for buying the oil?
If I'm gathering the argument correctly the issue is the people burning the oil acted out of ignorance because the people selling the oil were not upfront about the hazards of global warming from using their products, presumably they went so far as to suppress attempts from others to inform the public.
This is a nonsense argument, at least in my estimation. There's been talk of global warming from burning fossil fuels for something like 40 or 50 years. Before global warming was a popular issue there was kn
Re: (Score:2)
There's been talk of global warming from burning fossil fuels for something like 40 or 50 years.
And there's been an aggressive denialist campaign against the veracity of this scientific conclusion, financed by the oil industry during the same period, up to and including filing lawsuits to attack climate scientists for publishing their peer-reviewed work.
This campaign resulted in a large number of people misinformed about the issue, as you can observe even in most /. threads on the topic, a site, which supposedly has an audience that is at least literate in basic physics.
If the oil companies lose on this then they should absolutely have some kind of appeal or counter suit based on people knowing that global warming could result from burning petroleum but people did it anyway
Sure, but there is so much evid
Re: (Score:1)
1896
In 1896 calculations on the global warming effect of (man made) CO2 emissions in our atmosphere were published:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Next year we will have known about this for 130 years.
Hawaii should ban sales of ICE cars (Score:5, Interesting)
Hawaii should switch to EVs.
After all people there aren't going to be driving long distances to other states, and they don't have winter, so they should charge fine all year round.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the fossil fuel usage in Hawaii is from aviation. Basically tourists coming and going. Then there;s electrical generation, with 2/3rds of it being from oil. So EVs alone will not fix the problem. They are building out renewables, but there is not currently a viable replacement for long-distance air travel. That's stuck on fossil fuel based aviation fuel for the time being. It's possible it could become carbon neutral with more advanced methods of making it from air, water and power. This may actua
Re: (Score:2)
They can go ahead with their lawsuit.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
...just as soon as they outlaw gasoline on their islands.
And ban any oil fueled ships bringing them cargo.
Maybe such a policy will speed along nuclear powered ships. Maybe it will leave the island in the dark with everyone dying of starvation and disease for lack of food, medicine, and so on.
I mean, if they now know that this stuff is ruining their environment, they would have to be grade-A morons to continue allowing it's use, right?
They clearly had not thought this through. Maybe the courts are allowing the lawsuits to continue in order to teach Hawaii a lesson of being careful for what you wish for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burn a barrel of oil and get 1/2 barrel in CO2
1/2 a barrel of CO2? CO2 is one part carbon and two parts oxygen. The oxygen doesn't come from the barrel, just the carbon, the O2 masses 2 2/3rds as much as the carbon. The carbon was about 85% of the mass of the original barrel's worth. So that's 3.6666*.85=3.11 barrels worth of CO2. I think you failed basic chemistry.
Re: (Score:2)
... half a gallon of another greenhouse pollutant - WATER.
Just to remind people, water vapor emitted into the atmosphere has a very short lifetime; it leaves the atmosphere in the form of rain.
It is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it enters and exits the atmosphere constantly through evaporation and condensation.
Fantastic (Score:2)
Hopefully this will officially expose the big lie and land a blow against the climate cult. Even if climate change were dire, this would be the least practical course of action.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. They merely agreed with Biden that it was too soon to get involved; they will rule for corporations as they always do now. While it takes YEARS to work the case forward and then upward, the corrupt judges can get a lot more "gifts" from "friends." If not pass a law forbidding any peasants from complaining about anything done to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so there are still retards who don't believe in climate change.
Consumers , states and fed should be sued too (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically I agree with your premise that's meant to be absurd.
CO2 should be taxed (at extraction or import of fossil fuels) and that tax should ONLY be used for remediation (better flood/storm protection, cleaner power, etc.).
Basically yes, we ALL are responsible, and we ALL should be paying for it
Enrichment for lawyers (Score:2)
They are just waiting to hear it when (Score:2)
Is that a joke? (Score:2)
The city accused the oil and gas industry of contributing to global climate change, leading to flooding, erosion and more frequent and intense extreme weather events. These changes, they said, have led to property damage and a drop in tax revenue as a result of less tourism.
Conveniently forgetting the little detail that Hawaii is a remote island and the reason they get any tourism at all is because of air travel, which is currently impossible without fossil fuels. Same thing for ships. If anything Hawaiians are the ones who should pay, profiting from a form of tourism with high environmental impact.
Or even better, stop pointing fingers and try to do something productive.
Note: suing oil companies for doing something illegal, like causing an oil spill is fine, but what did they
I could see this backfiring on Hawaii.... (Score:2)