Major Oil Companies Face First 'Climate Death' Lawsuit 59
The daughter of a Seattle woman who died during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave has filed the first wrongful death lawsuit directly linking fossil fuel companies to an individual's climate-related death.
Misti Leon is suing seven oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, claiming they caused her mother Juliana Leon's death from hyperthermia on June 28, 2021, when temperatures reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit. The lawsuit alleges the companies created a "fossil fuel-dependent economy" that resulted in "more frequent and destructive weather disasters and foreseeable loss of human life." Attribution science research determined the 2021 heatwave would have been "virtually impossible" without human-made climate change and was at least 150 times rarer without warming.
The case seeks damages and funding for a public education campaign about fossil fuels' role in planetary heating.
Misti Leon is suing seven oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, claiming they caused her mother Juliana Leon's death from hyperthermia on June 28, 2021, when temperatures reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit. The lawsuit alleges the companies created a "fossil fuel-dependent economy" that resulted in "more frequent and destructive weather disasters and foreseeable loss of human life." Attribution science research determined the 2021 heatwave would have been "virtually impossible" without human-made climate change and was at least 150 times rarer without warming.
The case seeks damages and funding for a public education campaign about fossil fuels' role in planetary heating.
Publicity (Score:4, Insightful)
But the current supreme Court is hopelessly corrupt so it'll die there. It might make a headline or two which is probably the main point. The oil industry can't settle on something like this because once they start there's no end to it. The damage climate change is causing is in the tens of trillions. The only way the industry can survive is by continuing to externalize their costs onto all of us.
Re: (Score:3)
> t'll get shot down at the supreme Court and everyone involved knows that
SCOTUS only hears cases that related to either lawsuits involving the government or government officials, or matters of law/legality (including constitutional/civil rights).
The defendants would have to try to argue they have a right to pollute or that it's illegal to sue them or something, which would actually end up as a different case all together, meaning this specific case will not end up before the Supreme Court.
=Smidge=
Re: Publicity (Score:2)
This is a case about whether the decedent has a constitutional right to nice weather. It could end up at the supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think this is whats being argued here. Its a Tort suit, so its going to really be more akin to a personal injury claim.
Thats not to say it won't end up in the Supreme Court as its invoking potentially novel legal theories, nor that there won't be potential constitutional questions, but I dont think they are arguing a constitutional right, rather that its simply "your client hurt my client, and we want compensation", so the legal question will be "what responsibility does the oil company have to actio
Re: Publicity (Score:2)
The suit is also asking for funding for education programs about climate change. I doubt that part will make it to the SCOTUS. Probably the tort part won't either. The reach of fossil fuel companies is king, regardless of what President appointed these judges.
Re: Publicity (Score:2)
King=long . Love autocorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a complete asshole. "Nice weather" is not the opposite of "heat that kills".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's cute that you think we want to hear your commentary on this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're all younger judges that were appointed by Reagan. And the guys appointed by Trump are often in their 30s because they were appointed for loyalty not competency and the Democrats don't have the balls to hold up judicial appointments.
although for the most part except for the actual supreme Court the lower courts have been surprisingly sane in re
Re: Domestic mining. (Re:Publicity) (Score:2)
They would also stop selling petroleum if it became illegal to do so. Which it should be, for all use cases where reasonable alternatives exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Paper straws are not a reasonable alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that oil industry executives knew that their product was going to cause deadly heat waves. It was their own research back in the 30s 40s and 50s that got the ball rolling on our understanding of anthropogenic climate change.
I was unaware that it went back as far as the 30s. But I do know they recognized by the 50s that AGW was going to be a problem. By the 60s they had models for predicting temperature rise that were still remarkably accurate up to a decade or so ago.
All that to say that they aren't just guilty, but that there have been decades of ongoing malice aforethought. The petroleum corporations should be taken over by the appropriate governments, the C-suite occupants should be imprisoned, and any payments to investors
We are Responsible, not Oil Companies (Score:4, Insightful)
The evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that oil industry executives knew that their product was going to cause deadly heat waves
That's not true because climate and weather are not the same. The best you can say is that use of their products increased the chance of a heatwave but not that they caused any specific heatwave. Then there is the question of exactly how much more likely did use of their specific products increase it - a company like BP is not liable for the increase in heatwave chance caused by burning forests, deforesting the Amazon, burning coal and peat, producing cement etc. since none of that involves use of their products.
Global warming is not the responsibility of any one company or country: it is the collective responsibility of humanity. We are the ones burning fuel to keep ourselves warm - or increasingly cool - to travel or to make and build things etc. This is not at all like the tobacco companies where their product was addictive and exceptionally hard to stop using because it altered brain chemistry. The reason we don't stop using fossil fuels is because it would massively decrease our standard of living and we are not willing to do that to ourselves with good reason. Although we are working to find ways to maintain living standards without fossil fuel we are not there yet so, if we want to see who, if anyone, is responsible all we need to do is look in a mirror....but hey why take responsibility for our own choices when we can blame a rich company instead and see if we can get them to pay?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just their products, but their misinformation campaigns and them sitting on data showing that fossil fuels were causing climate change, and that pollution was causing harm.
Such lawsuits have been successful in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that oil industry executives knew that their product was going to cause deadly heat waves. It was their own research back in the 30s 40s and 50s that got the ball rolling on our understanding of anthropogenic climate change.
The only way the industry can survive is by continuing to externalize their costs onto all of us.
Their costs onto all of us? Remind me again who burns hydrocarbons. Is it the oil industry or the industries customers?
Are customers in some way ignorant or confused as to the well known global impacts of burning hydrocarbons?
I know it is easy and satisfying to blame everyone else especially large corporations for the worlds problems but WTF people who think this makes any sense whatsoever need to look in the mirror.
These lawsuits are illogical and insane. If you accept the underlying premise then what i
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies are just middle men. If they want to sue those responsible for burning hydrocarbons, they have to sue the general public. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The science around climate change, because it involves complex systems, is so convoluted, that it's going to keep many expert witnesses well paid for a long time to come, if in any way the law has to establish whether it is "true" or not. It's one of the reasons the anti-climate change voices will never go away -- ultimately it is too complex and people simply take a view on what they think is the more likely truth.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll get shot down at the supreme Court and everyone involved knows that.
It'll get shot down long before it gets there. Oil companies aren't the ones setting oil on fire causing emissions. That would be you and me. That would be the power company.
This case will enjoy great success until... (Score:1)
This case will enjoy great success until someone establishes that the temperature in the region exceeded 108 degrees before fossil fuels were a thing.
You don't think the folks at the major oil companies won't be able to establish that fact in court when their existence is on the line?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, but the other side can display all the science showing that the specific event in question was casused by the emission of way too much global greenhouse gas emissions.
Then remember that civil trial evidence standards are not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of the evidence", IE "more likely than not". With a criminal trial the defense can win by injecting enough slivers of doubt to reach "reasonable doubt" to get a not guilty verdict. With a civil trial, they have to go much further
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very naive understanding of how things operate in courts of law.
Standing (Score:1)
The lawsuit alleges the companies created a "fossil fuel-dependent economy"...
The oil companies created the fossil fuel-dependent economy? Really?
that resulted in "more frequent and destructive weather disasters"...
More frequent? Than when - I'd like a citation, not an opinion please.
...and foreseeable loss of human life."
Humans are mortal, everyone dies, on the day her relative died literally millions of others in the same region survived, why did she die? What did she lack that those other millions of had? Air conditioning? Water? Shade? A fan?
This case will get thrown out LONG before it ever gets to SCOTUS. I predict the reason will be the ever-popular "standing" issue, the plaintiffs
Re: Standing (Score:2)
I agree the case is very likely to get thrown out. I don't think it will be for standing, though. Someone died, and surviving family members should have standing. But I'm sure courts will find a way to toss it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
My grandma died, I should be able to sue someone and get money! Typical US attitude.
What a horrible idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
This sort of lawsuit proceeding is a horrible idea. Some people say this is similar to suing tobacco companies. But it's just not. What is the goal here? In other words what do they want from the oil companies? To cease all production and consign us all to a pre-industrial way of living? Turn off all the lights, shut down all the cars? But most likely they just want lots of money. Which won't solve any problems with climate change, but it will make a bunch of people miserable. And it's passing the buck to blame it on the oil companies when we're the ones demanding oil and gas. We share a collective responsibility.
Meanwhile I'm in favor of promoting renewable energy and other forms of carbon-neutral energy. Electric cars are pretty neat for those that can afford them and have a place to charge them. Suing oil companies won't help with this transition.
Re:What a horrible idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
At the moment, some very large costs are externalized for the fossil fuel companies. And it's the concept that the fossil fuel companies are getting a free ride, profiting without bearing any costs of the impacts, that is the common element with the tobacco companies.
Although not the specific goal of this lawsuit, I could easily see that an end goal is to build a carbon price into the economy to make sure that the costs of the impacts are appropriately assigned.
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon price built into the economy, perhaps that means, eventually, resource rationing for every human being. Most of what we do causes pollution or just using something up, even if just fresh water. This is the look in the mirror moment.
We kinda use money but it's so abstract now that it has no connection to the natural environment. And yes what's sand until someone invents a process to coverts it to something useful. But many processes deplete.
Some regenerate, like soil regeneration. So maybe the conce
Re: (Score:3)
"To cease all production and consign us all to a pre-industrial way of living? "
This is weapons level stupid and or disingenuous. Do you actually think a) that's the point of the suit b) the person who filed it wants that?
It's mostly a bad idea because it will not succeed, and in the current judicial climate (no pun intended) of the USA may very well set some kind of precent at complete odds with the goal of the lawsuit.
And I say this as somebody who thinks the people behind such a lawsuit are not in it for
Re: (Score:2)
This is weapons level stupid and or disingenuous. Do you actually think a) that's the point of the suit b) the person who filed it wants that?
No but it's the only logical conclusion from such a suit as if it goes ahead the companies would cease existing given the insane liabilities that it would open them up to. But you're right, something is weapons level stupid here. What's the bet the lawyers and plaintiff drives to the court? Oil companies didn't create the emissions, people did. We're the one setting their product on fire.
Re: What a horrible idea. (Score:2)
They don't just want lots of money. They also want funding for education programs about climate change.
And I'm not passing judgment on the merits, here, just RTFS.
Wrong on all counts. (Score:3)
Some people say this is similar to suing tobacco companies. But it's just not.
As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me.
What is the goal here?
To hold people accountable for their actions.
In other words what do they want from the oil companies? ... most likely they just want lots of money. Which won't solve any problems with climate change.
That's not true at all! If oil companies have to start paying a ton of money then the price of oil goes up. This cascades into the general population (businesses included) seeking out and transitioning to non-fossil fuel solutions.
Meanwhile I'm in favor of promoting renewable energy and other forms of carbon-neutral energy.
Isn't that exactly what higher oil prices will do?
Electric cars are pretty neat for those that can afford them and have a place to charge them. Suing oil companies won't help with this transition.
Why would you think that? Faced with prospect of higher oil prices, people will want a solut
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me.
This is an absurd overgeneralization.
To hold people accountable for their actions.
Look in the mirror.
That's not true at all! If oil companies have to start paying a ton of money then the price of oil goes up. This cascades into the general population (businesses included) seeking out and transitioning to non-fossil fuel solutions.
I do not support artificially raising the cost of hydrocarbons just to enrich lawyers and randos. If people think it is a good idea to artificially raise the price of hydrocarbons to bias market activity for the sake of climate change the proceeds should at least be invested into actually fighting climate change.
The real issue here is people who support this nonsense know they don't have consensus for price hikes and so they are trying to short circui
Re:What a horrible idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're looking at this through the lens of a trade-off: whenever we make technological progress, we take risks. Your argument seems to be that as a society, we accepted the risks of climate change when we demanded cheap energy, and allowing individuals who are hurt to sue the oil companies would ultimately force them to close, and put us, figuratively speaking, back in the stone age.
You also doubt the motives of the folks making this lawsuit.
I wonder if you really believe that, and also whether you're the kind of person who can change their mind when presented with a different approach? Because - if you were the billionaire child of some an oil baron somewhere, I would understand why you are making this argument... barring that I'm not sure why you would want to do so.
For comparison sake - I drive a car regularly. If I were to accidentally kill someone while driving - even if it were truly just a bad luck mistake, and even in a world where bad luck car accidents are statistically inevitable, I would be held accountable. Financially.
Suppose I said: "Accidental death is an inevitable risk of driving. Therefore, anyone who wants compensation for a lost loved one is just greedy, and I shouldn't be held accountable for killing the accidental pedestrian because that's just the risk society took when it decided to have cars." If I really believed that, would you conclude that I should be allowed to drive anything bigger than a tricycle?
We expect accountability from people who prepare food, build skyscrapers, and perform heart surgery. That's not about greed. That's necessary component of a functioning society. It also has not meant giving up on food, skyscrapers, or medicine. Instead, the people who engage in those activities have to take responsibility for the risks that come with their decisions.
So on the one hand - I get that there is a trade off between advancing our society and risking lives. But I'm less clear on why you would want those trade offs to be made without accountability by the people making them; and even more unclear on why, of all the people you could decide should be exempted from the normal rules of accountability, you'd settle on billionaires from the oil industry.
Re: (Score:2)
For comparison sake - I drive a car regularly. If I were to accidentally kill someone while driving - even if it were truly just a bad luck mistake, and even in a world where bad luck car accidents are statistically inevitable, I would be held accountable. Financially.
Should the vehicle vendor also be held accountable financially for the accident? What about downstream suppliers of components and services that enabled the production of the vehicle?
I ask this question because the oil companies are mostly not the ones causing the carbon pollution. It is their customers intentionally and willfully polluting the atmosphere with CO2.
So on the one hand - I get that there is a trade off between advancing our society and risking lives. But I'm less clear on why you would want those trade offs to be made without accountability by the people making them; and even more unclear on why, of all the people you could decide should be exempted from the normal rules of accountability, you'd settle on billionaires from the oil industry.
The people harming the environment are mostly not "billionaires from the oil industry". It is everyone else burning hydrocarbons that are doin
Cause of death (Score:1)
From TFA:
On June 28, 2021, a heatwave saw temperatures rise to over 42 degrees Celsius (108 degrees Fahrenheit) in Seattle, the hottest ever recorded in the US coastal city. On that day, Juliana Leon was found unconscious in her car and died soon after from hyperthermia â" the overheating of the body.
In her car? Of course that'll kill her. Was she not capable of opening the door and stepping out?
Re: Cause of death (Score:2)
Kind of hard to open the door if you're already unconscious due to heat.
Re: (Score:3)
From TFA:
On June 28, 2021, a heatwave saw temperatures rise to over 42 degrees Celsius (108 degrees Fahrenheit) in Seattle, the hottest ever recorded in the US coastal city. On that day, Juliana Leon was found unconscious in her car and died soon after from hyperthermia â" the overheating of the body.
In her car? Of course that'll kill her. Was she not capable of opening the door and stepping out?
If she died while burning fossil fuels and the fossil fuels killed her isn't that like suicide?
I guess no one spotted the irony (Score:2)
"found unconscious in her car "
I guess it could have been an EV , but there weren't many around in 2021 so unless it was a Fred Flintstone style vehicle it was powered by oil. Why didn't she take the bus?
Stop using oil products then? (Score:1, Troll)
Throw away.... pretty much everything you can buy anywhere in the world.
She was in her car, pulled over with the window down in a heat wave (without air conditioning?) on her way to visit a doctor.
The oil companies don't produce most of the greenhouse emissions. The people who put it in their cars and burn it do. Like this woman.
What about the coal industry?
Complete nonsense (Score:1)
Re: You - yes you - are the religious nutjob. (Score:2)
Galileo would be proud.
With that kind of logic, though, no scientific evidence could ever be admitted in court.
Re: Correlation is not causation (Score:2)
Why does it need to be direct ?