Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Oct 21, 2022 News
– says fossil fuel companies caused them to pay billions to clean-up after disasters
Kaieteur News – On Tuesday, another U.S state filed a lawsuit against American oil giant, ExxonMobil and four other oil giants seeking US billions in damages over their alleged deception of the impacts their fossil fuels emissions have on the environment.
The lawsuit was brought by the New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips. According to the lawsuit, decades-long deception by the oil companies has exacerbated climate change and forced the state of New Jersey to pay billions of dollars to clean up after deadly disasters such as Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Ida – Reuters reported.In a statement, the New Jersey Attorney General said that the fossil fuel companies “understood decades ago that their products were causing climate change” but went to “great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey, and the world. In short, these companies put their profits ahead of our safety. It’s long overdue that the facts be aired in a New Jersey court, and the perpetrators of the disinformation campaign pay for the harms they’ve caused.”
New Jersey’s lawsuit comes at a time where several other litigations were brought against the fossil fuels companies seeking US billions for their allege deception of impact their companies have on climate-change.
The suit follows other U.S attorneys general in Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
RHODE ISLAND
Back in May, Kaieteur News had reported that another attempt by the oil companies was denied to have a climate change lawsuit brought against them be tried in a federal court as opposed to a state court – which is considered more plaintiff-friendly.
Rhode Island’s lawsuit allege that various oil companies had created a public nuisance in the state and failed to adequately warn customers, consumers and regulators about the risks posed by their fossil fuel products. The lawsuit seeks to force the companies to pay for damage associated with climate change, citing the costs taxpayers were incurring to repair roads and bridges and rebuild coastal structures.
MASSACHUSETTS
On May 24, the Massachusetts High Court unanimously rejected Exxon’s submission to dismiss a lawsuit against them in which it was stated that the oil giant misled consumers and investors about climate change and the dangers of using fossil fuels.
The court ruled that the oil giant must face a trial over allegations that it lied about the climate crisis, and even hid the fossil fuel industry’s role in worsening environmental damage. The lawsuit was brought against Exxon by Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey. Exxon called the lawsuit politically-motivated and claimed that it violated a state law protecting defendants from lawsuits designed to silence them.
The lawsuit accuses Exxon of breaking the state’s consumer protection laws with a decades-long cover-up of what it knew about the impact on the climate of burning fossil fuels. The state also noted that the company deceived investors about the risks to its business posed by global heating.
BALTIMORE
Whereas, in April, Exxon, BP PLC and Chevron lost their second federal appeal against a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore seeking to hold them responsible for climate change. It was on April 7, 2022, when the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled and sent back the lawsuit once again to the State court, as opposed to the matter being heard in the federal court – like the oil giants desired.
With the court’s ruling, the city of Baltimore has once again, won the legal battle to have its climate change lawsuit against more than 20 energy firms returned to state court, where it believes it has a better chance of obtaining damages for the harm it maintains the fossil fuel firms knowingly inflicted on the city and its residents over decades.
According to Reuters, the Fourth Circuit “resoundingly” rejected the companies’ arguments that Baltimore’s state-law claims were inherently federal because it sought to hold them liable based on the production and sale of oil and gas abroad.
The oil giants had argued that the Clean Air Act is the exclusive vehicle to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and that Baltimore’s state-law claims conflicted with federal interests. Nevertheless, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that Baltimore’s case is built on state, not federal law and should be heard in state, not the federal court.
Baltimore’s 2018 complaint claims the companies deceived the public about the dangers associated with their fossil-fuel products, which contributed to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change. The lawsuit alleges that the energy giants created a public nuisance and should be forced to cover the climate-change costs the city faces, including increased infrastructure spending.
CALIFORNIA
On April 19, a federal appeals court sent lawsuits by six California cities and counties accusing Exxon, Chevron and other energy giants of fuelling climate change back to state court. The ruling was made by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reuters reported too that U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta rejected the companies’ arguments that the cases raised substantial federal issues that belonged in federal court, adding that the statute that governs removing cases from state to federal courts must be interpreted narrowly.
“Our adherence to this doctrine does not change merely because plaintiffs raise novel and sweeping causes of action,” she wrote for the three-judge panel.
California local governments including San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz counties had sued more than 30 energy companies beginning in 2017, alleging their production and marketing of fossil fuels contributed to global warming.
The lawsuits claimed the companies, which also include BP and Shell, created a public nuisance, failed to warn about the risks of climate change and should be forced to cover the climate-change costs the local government face, such as infrastructure repair due to rising sea levels.
Notably, in all of the cases that were filed in state courts, which are perceived as advantageous for plaintiffs – state courts are established by the laws of each state and have broad jurisdiction, in contrast, federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution and have a much narrower jurisdiction – resulting in oil companies preferring lawsuits against them to be tried in federal courts.
GUYANA
Meanwhile, on the local front, Exxon is facing multiple court action on the issue of climate change. Two citizens, through their lawyers, filed a case in the High Court against Exxon’s Stabroek Block projects. The first applicant, Dr. Troy Thomas, is a Scientist and a University of Guyana lecturer. The second applicant, Quadad de Freitas, is a young man from the South Rupununi Region of Guyana, an area rich in biodiversity, now threatened by climate change.
According to the case, the High Court is being asked to determine whether Exxon’s operations violate the Constitutional right of current and future generations to a healthy environment. According to Dr. Thomas, “Guyana is a carbon sink. The Guyanese people are not responsible for climate change, but we are already suffering the effects. Climate change, ocean acidification and rising sea level pose existential threats to the people and State of Guyana. As a scientist, I urge people to look at the evidence and to face reality.” The case refers to the overwhelming scientific evidence of the devastating effect of greenhouse gas emissions, pointing out that oil and gas production are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Guyana is particularly vulnerable to climate change and rising sea levels while ocean acidification threatens the Guyanese livelihoods that depend on healthy marine ecosystems.
The case cites Guyana’s international obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement in support of its claim for declarations that emissions from oil and gas production make the environment more harmful to health and wellbeing in violation of Article 149J of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment and requires the State to protect the environment for present and future generations.
Article 149 J specifically states that: (1) everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to his or her health or well-being. (2) The State shall protect the environment, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures designed to – (a) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (b) promote conservation; and (c) secure sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
The case, which is set to be heard in the Demerara High Court – also seeks to protect children, young people and future generations who bear a disproportionate burden in having to live with the effects of climate change.
Please share this to every Guyanese including your house cats.
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]