'Big Win'
for Rhode Island in Court Battle to Make Polluters Pay for Consequences of
Climate Crisis
In what one advocate called a "big win" for climate liability litigation, a federal judge on Monday remanded Rhode Island's lawsuit targeting 21 fossil fuel giants to state court, where the oil and gas companies are more likely to be forced to pay for their significant contributions to the global climate crisis.
Last July, Rhode Island became the first state in the country
to file suit against dirty energy companies—including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil,
and Shell—seeking to hold them accountable for knowingly contributing to a
climate emergency that is "causing catastrophic consequences to Rhode
Island, our economy, our communities, our residents, our ecosystems."
The Ocean State accused fossil fuel
producers of "externalizing the responsibility" for the consequences
of the human-caused crisis—such as sea level rise, drought, extreme
precipitation, and heatwaves, and the damage those events cause—by expecting
taxpayers to foot the bill.
The case was filed in state court. In response, the fossil fuel industry employed a strategy of trying to move climate liability suits filed by municipalities or states to federal court, where the companies are more likely to win—in part because of differences in case law.
Judge William Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island delivered a blow to the industry's
strategy in his Monday ruling (pdf). Smith wrote that
"because there is no federal jurisdiction under the various statutes and
doctrines adverted to by defendants, the court grants the state's motion to
remand."
"Climate change is expensive,
and the state wants help paying for it," the judge wrote. He also pointed
out that the defendants, collectively, "have extracted, advertised, and
sold a substantial percentage of the fossil fuels burned globally since the
1960s."
"This activity has released an
immense amount of greenhouse gas into the Earth's atmosphere, changing its
climate and leading to all kinds of displacement, death (extinctions, even),
and destruction," he continued.
"What is more, defendants understood the consequences of their activity decades ago, when transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy would have saved a world of trouble."
"What is more, defendants understood the consequences of their activity decades ago, when transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy would have saved a world of trouble."
"But instead of sounding the
alarm, defendants went out of their way to becloud the emerging scientific
consensus and further delay changes—however existentially necessary—that would
in any way interfere with their multi-billion-dollar profits," Smith
added. "All while quietly readying their capital for the coming
fallout."
Ann Carlson—an environmental law
professor at UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment who
has done pro-bono consulting for municipality cases—explained to Climate Liability
News that "the district court's decision to send Rhode Island's
case back to state court is important because what the oil companies are really
after is dismissal of the case under federal law."
According to Carson, "They want
a big substantive outcome—to get rid of the case all together."
Rhode Island Democratic Attorney
General Peter Neronha, who took over the state lawsuit filed by his
predecessor, welcomed the judge's ruling. He said
in a statement that "as the federal court recognized, the state's lawsuit
contains no federal question or cause of action, rather, contains only state
law causes of action regarding damage to Rhode Island's resources that are better
suited to resolution in the state courts."
Smith's decision was also celebrated
by Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity,
who told The Hill that
"this is more bad news for Exxon and a welcome sign for taxpayers and
local governments seeking just compensation for climate damages oil and gas
companies knowingly caused."
"Big oil and gas producers are
desperate to stay out of state courts where tobacco lost and and opioid
manufacturers are on the ropes," said Wiles. "But now a third federal
district court has ruled that state courts are where climate liability cases
belong."
Summarizing the other two wins Wiles
referenced, Climate Liability News reported that "a
federal judge in Maryland recently remanded Baltimore's suit to state court and a
group of California communities won a decision by U.S. District Court
Judge Vince Chhabria that their cases belong in state court, a decision under
appeal to the Ninth Circuit."