Judge throws out global warming crazies lawsuit

T

traderob

Skip

Thrown%20out.jpg

In what should prove to be a precedent-setting decision, U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the climate liability lawsuit brought against five oil companies by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco.

In his June 25 decision, Alsup decided Congress and the president were best suited, as opposed to cities, states, or the judiciary, to determine what to do about human greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels. Alsup said if he allowed the lawsuit to continue and the plaintiffs won, he would essentially be allowing two cities to set U.S. domestic and international energy and climate policy, which would violate the Constitution’s division of powers and federal law.

“[P]laintiffs’ claims require a balancing of policy concerns. … Importantly, ‘[t]he political branches, not the Judiciary, have the responsibility and institutional capacity to weigh foreign-policy concerns,’” writes Alsup, citing a ruling from a previous case.

In addition, sounding like he’d read The Heartland Institute’s Policy Brief developed for him outlining the social benefits of fossil fuels, Alsup argued any harm greenhouse gas emissions may cause must be weighed against the tremendous benefits fossil fuels have delivered to the world.

“We must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal,” Alsup wrote. “Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted. Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?”

Alsup’s 16-page decision shook climate alarmists’ legal strategy—attacking fossil fuels, progress, and modernity—to its foundations.

Scholars from The Heartland Institute uniformly praised Alsup’s ruling in a press release following the decision, though some were clearly more surprised by it than others.

“As expected [italics added], Judge William Alsup dismissed the lawsuit filed by cities in California alleging oil companies should be held liable for flooding and other imagined damages caused by ‘global warming,’” said Joseph Bast, director of The Heartland Institute. “Along with reaching the right decision on the basis that difficult trade-offs concerning national energy and environmental policies are best left to elected officials, Judge Alsup showed an admirable interest in the science of climate change and the benefits as well as the costs of using fossil fuels.”

“As expected?” Hardly, at least by me. Although I hoped in my heart of hearts Alsup would follow the law, I feared and expected him to, as all too many judges do, substitute his policy preferences for that of the law on this matter. I have rarely been more pleased to be wrong.

Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp seemed equally surprised by the ruling, saying, “Judge Alsup did the right thing by tossing out this climate shakedown lawsuit, a surprising result considering the venue—a city filled with powerful people deluded into thinking humans are causing a climate crisis,” Huelskamp said. “It is not often the eco-Left gets such a public spanking and that common sense prevails in today’s federal courts. This should put an end to other ridiculous and wasteful lawsuits, which essentially stand against modernity.”

In the end, Oakland and San Francisco were wrong on the science, policy, and critically, the law. One can only hope judges in lawsuits filed against the fossil fuel companies by other cities, states, and interest groups will follow Alsup’s lead and dismiss these cases—and award legal costs to the companies for having to fight these unmeritorious claims.

— H. Sterling Burnett

SOURCES: Science; Associated Press; California v. BP Decision; The Heartland Institute; The Heartland Institute

IN THIS
 
Here4money said:
Had he ruled in favor, and went on a rant about clean air, melting ice caps, and the benefits of green energy, would you feel the same way?
More...

If he ruled in their favor it would be turned over in higher court because he would not be ruling on the basis of law. As noted in the summary, this type of suit is not appropriate at the local level.
 
gwb-trading said:
If he ruled in their favor it would be turned over in higher court because he would not be ruling on the basis of law. As noted in the summary, this type of suit is not appropriate at the local level.
More...

Read my edit, it's the "correct" decision, but just opened it to appeal by showing bias.
 
I had a feeling there was an edit in the statement, in bold. I also agree that this is not a local court matter though they can be tackled on emissions that affect local's breathing/quality of life if above what would be argued as reasonable levels.

"With respect to balancing the social utility against the gravity of the anticipated harm, it is true that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming. "

So for the science dunces and lobbyists, this is a problem ruling containing.


"A federal judge on Monday threw out a closely watched lawsuit brought by two California cities against fossil fuel companies over the costs of dealing with climate change. The decision is a stinging defeat for the plaintiffs, San Francisco and Oakland, and raises warning flags for other local governments around the United States that have filed similar suits, including New York City.

The judge, William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, acknowledged the science of global warming and the great risks to the planet, as did the oil and gas companies being sued. But in his ruling, Judge Alsup said the courts were not the proper place to deal with such global issues, and he rejected the legal theory put forth by the cities.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” Judge Alsup wrote in a 16-page opinion.

The cities wanted the defendants — including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell — to help pay for projects like protecting coastlines from flooding.

But Judge Alsup said the issues would more properly be handled by the other two branches of government. “The court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches,” he wrote.

Those solutions won’t come until climate hawks start voting consistently in elections, becoming an electoral force every bit as powerful as the NRA. Judge Alsup’s ruling is disappointing yet clarifying; if climate hawks conclude that the courts will never provide needed relief, that could provide the (clean) energy needed for growing political action on climate.

Climate litigation has proven to be profoundly difficult legal terrain, partially because the courts are reluctant to view the fossil fuel industry as malicious actors. In his ruling, Judge Alsup asserts:

With respect to balancing the social utility against the gravity of the anticipated harm, it is true that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming. But against that negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted. Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?…

[P]laintiff’s claims require a balancing of policy concerns — including the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions, our industrialized society’s dependence on fossil fuels, and national security…In our industrialized and modern society, we needed (and still need) oil and gas to fuel power plants, vehicles, planes, trains, ships, equipment, homes and factories. Our industrial revolution and our modern nation, to repeat, have been fueled by fossil fuels.

This echoes the argument made by Mississippi-based US District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. in a 2012 ruling dismissing the similarly themed Comer v. Murphy Oil case:

It is unclear how this Court or any jury, regardless of its level of sophistication, could determine whether the defendants’ emissions unreasonably endanger the environment or the public without making policy determinations that weigh the harm caused by the defendants’ actions against the benefits of the products they produce. Our country, this Court, and even the plaintiffs themselves rely on the products the defendants produce.

So long as that logic prevails in the courts, climate hawks are screwed in the courts. (James Hansen, take note.) The only path to a stable climate future lies in the consolidation of political power among climate hawks, not futile lawsuits. If that political power is not consolidated–and soon–our children and grandchildren will be the ones facing judgment. "
 
Here4money said:
Read my edit, it's the "correct" decision, but just opened it to appeal by showing bias.
More...

Decisions usually include commentary regarding the judicial basis for the ruling then has sections outlining counter commentary to the plaintiffs claims. To view materials supportive of the plaintiffs claims the summary from the judge will usually reference their filed documents.

EDIT: BTW -- after reading other articles, the judge's commentary includes a lot of points supportive of global warming arguments. Some articles seized on the few points he made to counter the arguments. It will be hard to calling the ruling document biased - or claim that it will be used as a basis to overturn the ruling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top