{"id":254888,"date":"2023-04-27T12:21:47","date_gmt":"2023-04-27T10:21:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=254888"},"modified":"2023-04-27T12:21:49","modified_gmt":"2023-04-27T10:21:49","slug":"scotus-to-allow-junk-climate-lawsuits-in-state-courts-yawn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=254888","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS to allow junk climate lawsuits in State courts\u2026 Yawn"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest \u201cfake news\u201d by David Middleton<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Guest \u201cfake news\u201d by David Middleton<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cO Vanguard of the Climatariat, smite the denialists and lead the masses. O forward-looking shepherds of a mindless flock, go forth and cool the earth\u201dTongan prayer according to the Columbia Journalism Review<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Supreme Court deals blow to oil companies by turning away climate cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

PUBLISHED MON, APR 24 202310:45 AM EDT<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"NBC<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Lawrence Hurley<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 The Supreme Court on Monday allowed lawsuits brought by municipalities seeking to hold energy companies accountable for climate change to move forward in a loss for business interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court turned away oil company appeals in five cases involving claims brought by cities and municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii and Rhode Island as part of efforts to hold businesses accountable for the effects of climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[\u2026]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBig Oil companies have been desperate to avoid trials in state courts, where they will be forced to defend their climate lies in front of juries, and today the Supreme Court declined to bail them out,\u201d said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[\u2026]NBC News<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Why is this \u201cfake news\u201d? Because it\u2019s not really newsworthy and certainly not a \u201cblow to oil companies.\u201d It just means that the junk climate lawsuits will have to work their way through State and Federal courts. This ruling was foreordained by the 2022 SCOTUS 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/em><\/a>. (I don\u2019t care if foreordained might not be the right word here.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The misguided 2005 SCOTUS 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/a><\/em> essentially federalized the issue of regulations related to climate change. The subsequent 2009 endangerment finding<\/a> essentially self-empowered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mind bogglingly stupid Clean Power Plan of 2015<\/a> effectively established a framework for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. While being baseless in fact and law, these three events essentially blocked junk climate lawsuits in State courts. In 2016, SCOTUS stayed<\/a> the Clean Power Plan in a 5-4 decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The stay was issued along party lines, with the five conservative-leaning justices voting for the stay and the liberal-leaning justices voting against it. However, four days after the high court issued its stay, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. Because the Court issued its stay prior to Justice Scalia\u2019s death, it remains in place. However, there is now a 4\u20134 tie among the justices as to whether the EPA has the powers it proposes to exercise under the Clean Power Plan. The Court is expected to remain at just eight justices for quite some time, due to an impending standoff between President Obama and the Senate over Justice Scalia\u2019s replacement. If that is the case, then the ultimate decision on the legality of the Clean Power Plan may lie with the D.C. Circuit for the time being, due to Supreme Court rules on ties. In the event of a tie, the Court upholds the decision of the lower court, but that decision does not apply outside the circuit and does not create precedent.ABA<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Had Donald Trump not crushed<\/a> Hillary Clinton in 2016, SCOTUS would have upheld the Clean Power Plan, the EPA would be aggressively regulating greenhouse gas emissions and, as a consolation prize, the junk climate lawsuits would be deader than Elvis. SCOTUS is now composed of 3 Justices who will always uphold the Constitution, 2 who will almost always uphold the Constitution, a Chief Justice who will usually uphold the Constitution and 3 who will always uphold the Communist Manifesto\u2026 {\/Rant Off}<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2022, the Court ruled that the Clean Air Act did not empower the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions to the extent imposed in the 2015 Clean Power Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the \u201cmajor questions doctrine,\u201d there are \u201cextraordinary cases\u201d in which the \u201chistory and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,\u201d and the \u201ceconomic and political significance\u201d of that assertion, provide a \u201creason to hesitate before concluding that Congress\u201d meant to confer such authority. This is one such case, so the EPA must point to \u201cclear congressional authorization\u201d for the authority it claims. It cannot do so.Oyez<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This effectively opened to floodgates to junk litigation against energy companies. These junk lawsuits have no merits and will only succeed when juries rule on emotion. Ultimately, this will probably come back to SCOTUS for the final decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Monday\u2019s high court decision also finds that the Clean Air Act does not completely bar state law claims regarding interstate pollution, ClearView noted, adding \u201ctherefore, these cases can and should be adjudicated by state courts.\u201d The industry wagered that the state lawsuits might be quashed by the Clean Air Act, which federal agencies have used to address carbon emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research firm noted that the state court process can take a year or more and any decision on the actual merits of the cases \u201ccould still be years away.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also said that allowing the cases to play out in state court does not prevent the energy companies from winning on the merits \u2014 by arguing that federal law bars the cases. Nor does it prevent federal review of future state court rulings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court may still yet be the final word on the merits of the climate liability cases \u2014 several years from now,\u201d ClearView wrote.E&E Climatewire<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
\u201cYAWN!\u201d<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But\u2026 Hey\u2026 EXXON KNEW<\/em>\u2026 Right?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This cartoon appears on page 62 of the Charleston SC lawsuit and nearly every other junk climate lawsuit:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. This is Figure 3 in the Charleston lawsuit. It is Exxon\u2019s \u201cBlack\u201d cartoon. The exact image and caption are in multiple junk lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The exact same image, including the caption is in Delaware\u2019s recent junk lawsuit. The graph is from what is known as the \u201cBlack presentation\u201d and supposedly reveals Exxon\u2019s secret knowledge of climate change, which was being withheld from the public. The \u201cinfamous\u201d 1978 Black presentation<\/a> was derived from government and academic publications and conferences on the so-called greenhouse effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s what Exxon (and\/or Mobil) knew in 1978\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2.. Exxon knew that most government and academic scientists wanted more research money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 3. In 1978, Exxon knew that the effects on sea level and the polar ice caps would likely be negligible, models were useless and more effort should be directed at paleoclimatology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Black\u2019s allegedly proprietary climate model was just a cartoon based on publicly available literature. I overlaid HadCRUT4 (Northern Hemisphere) on the Black cartoon:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4. What Exxon knew during \u201cThe Ice Age Cometh<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If HadCRUT4 is right (it isn\u2019t), it\u2019s now only slightly warmer than the \u201capproximate range of undisturbed climate in past few centuries.\u201d  Just like the models of today, the observations track at or below the 95% confidence band.  Way back in 1977, Exxon Knew that the climate models overestimated warming!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s even funnier? The \u201cBlack presentation\u201d was made during the height of\u00a0That 70\u2019s Climate Crisis Show<\/em><\/a>. If the climate models are correct (they aren\u2019t), ExxonMobil and other purveyors of fossil fuels saved the world from this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 5. The Climatariat tell us that temperature observations have followed the black curve and that the blue curve is what the temperatures would have done if we just agreed to freeze in the dark for the sake of Polar Bears. Modified after IPCC AR4<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just imagine the lawsuit if Exxon and all of the other purveyors of fossil fuels had stopped producing and selling fossil fuels back when they first learned\u00a0\u201cthat unrestricted production and use of fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0and this actually occurred:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 6. Science News March 1, 1975<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This section was adapted from:\u00a0Charleston SC Junk Climate Lawsuit<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe we should be suing them<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The climatariat claim that fossil fuel consumption kills people (Bressler, 2021<\/a>) and we should immediately stop using them<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The social, or financial, cost of carbon has become a widely-used metric after its creation by economist William Nordhaus, who subsequently won a Nobel prize, in the 1990s. The measurement calculates the damage caused by a ton of emissions, factored with the ability to adapt to the changing climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Nordhaus\u2019 DICE model<\/a> the 2020 social cost of carbon is $37 a metric ton but Bressler\u2019s addition of the mortality cost brings this figure up to $258 a ton. This change to the model would imply that an economically optimal policy would be to radically reduce emissions to reach full decarbonization by 2050<\/a>, a scenario that has also been backed by climate scientists as one that would avoid the worst ravages of global heating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNordhaus came up with a fantastic model but he didn\u2019t take in the latest literature on climate change\u2019s damage upon mortality, there\u2019s been an explosion of research on that topic in recent years,\u201d said Bressler.The Grauniad, July 2021<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This carbon tax calculator<\/a> only goes up to $50\/ton. Just multiply the $50\/ton tax by 4.7 to get the effect of a $235\/ton tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A $258\/ton carbon tax would have this effect on reliable energy prices:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 5. Impact of a $235\/ton carbon tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While numbers can vary depending on grades of gasoline, on average, the combustion of 1 gallon of gasoline yields 8.89 kg of CO2<\/sub>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n