NYC sues the Big 5 oil companies in USA over climate change

❝ New York City has sued five of the United States’ biggest oil companies on the grounds that they have contributed to global warming and will divest from fossil fuel companies over a five-year period.

Mayor Bill de Blasio is seeking damages from BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell for the billions of dollars he anticipates the city will spend to protect New Yorkers from the effects of climate change. The city filed the lawsuit on Tuesday night…the 13th.

The city wants compensation for damages that the city has already experienced, as well as for damage the city will undergo over the course of the 21st century…

❝ The mayor and city comptroller Scott Stringer plan to submit a join resolution to pension fund trustees to start analyzing ways to divest from fossil fuel owners—a first-in-the-nation goal. In total, the city’s five pension funds hold about $5 billion in the securities of more than 190 fossil fuel companies, according to the administration.

You can stand up for principles like this no matter where you live. It doesn’t take big city smarts – just educated good sense – to oppose the pimps of carbon-based power, profit before people.

6 thoughts on “NYC sues the Big 5 oil companies in USA over climate change

  1. Oyez says:

    In the country’s first court hearing on the science behind climate change, a lawyer for Chevron, Theodore Boutrous Jr., said the oil company accepts the scientific consensus. He quoted chapter and verse from the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change, the thousands of scientists assembled by the United Nations to figure out exactly what’s going on. “From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change,” Boutrous said.
    San Francisco and Oakland are suing BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell, arguing that the corporations that profit from fossil fuels should pay for the seawalls and pumps needed to protect them from rising tides. But Boutrous, the only oil company lawyer to speak at the hearing, didn’t accept blame, pointing the finger instead at the people who burned the fossil fuels. In other words, oil doesn’t cause climate change. People burning oil cause climate change.

  2. Oyez says:

    “In a San Francisco courtroom, climate science gets its day on the docket” (Science magazine March 22, 2018)
    Breitbart: “Finally ‘Climate Change’ Gets Its Scopes Monkey Trial–and the Bad Guys Are Gonna Lose”
    Meanwhile: “Texas oil output surge clogs pipelines, depresses prices” and “Unintended consequence: West Texas shale boom puts strain on state’s electric grid”

  3. Update says:

    In Cities v. Fossil Fuels, Exxon’s Allies Want the Accusers Investigated
    The elbowing for advantage between ExxonMobil and the California cities and counties suing the oil giant for billions of dollars in climate change damages has spread to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
    Exxon alleged in a Texas court earlier this year that in selling municipal bonds, the local governments may have withheld critical information from buyers about their vulnerability to sea level rise. That would cast a poor light on the cities’ claims that Exxon knew about climate risks but ignored them in its own financial disclosures.
    Now two industry-friendly groups are turning the tables and asking the SEC to investigate the cities and counties for possible fraud. The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers complained to the SEC’s Public Finance Abuse Unit of a breach of federal disclosure laws.
    …Exxon, where scientists in the 1970s and `80s warned executives about the risks the burning of fossil fuels posed for the climate, has been fighting to shut down two state fraud investigations into whether it misled the public and investors about climate risk.

  4. Update says:

    “Inside the climate change lawsuit pitting Big Oil against San Francisco and Oakland : Oil companies are trying to get the suit tossed out of court” (May 25, 2018) “At the three hour-plus hearing on Thursday, an assorted legal team representing the oil companies — plus a lawyer from the US Department of Justice — argued that the case should be dismissed. Damage from global warming isn’t an issue that federal law should decide in the courts, the defendants claimed. Rather, they argued, it’s an issue for the US government to regulate through policy. Plus, “Congress has repeatedly authorized and encouraged oil and gas production activities,” said Theodore Boutrous, the lawyer representing Chevron. So, he added, deeming oil and gas drilling a public nuisance would “invade the prerogatives of Congress and the executive branch.”

  5. Cassandra says:

    “Judge rules that sea-level rise doesn’t fall under public nuisance laws : Oakland and San Francisco won’t get money to deal with sea-level rise.”
    In March, a federal district court case led to an unexpected spectacle: a “tutorial” on climate science requested by the judge. Oakland and San Francisco had filed suit against several oil companies, alleging that they should help pay for the impacts of sea-level rise because they had intentionally misled the public about global warming. Judge William Alsup apparently wanted to make sure he understood the physics and chemistry of the situation before he weighed legal standards.
    On Monday, Alsup granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case—a blow for Oakland, San Francisco, and other cities eyeing the outcome. “The issue is not over science,” Alsup writes in his decision, “All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so.”
    Instead, the decision turns on legal precedents and Alsup’s unwillingness to overstep what he views as the judicial branch’s role.
    …Past cases have established that nuisance suits cannot be brought against emitters of greenhouse gases because the EPA has been tasked with regulating the impacts of these emissions. If the EPA’s regulations (or lack thereof) fail to protect you, your beef is with the agency rather than the emitter.”

  6. Finito pie says:

    A federal on Thursday dismissed New York City’s lawsuit seeking to make several major oil companies financially responsible for dealing with climate change, saying that the legal effort wasn’t permitted under the federal Clean Air Act.
    U.S. District Judge John Keenan tossed out the suit against Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips, ruling that Congress and the executive branch, not courts, must tackle the issue of climate change, Bloomberg reported.
    “The immense and complicated problem of global warming requires a comprehensive solution that weighs the global benefits of fossil fuel use with the gravity of the impending harms,” Keenan wrote in his ruling.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.