[ad_1]
On Monday, June 25, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in which the cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued the world's five largest fossil fuel companies for the consequences of global warming caused by the use of fossil fuels.
"The dangers mentioned in the complaint are very real," said William Alsup, a US District Court Judge, appointed by Clinton at the end of his 16-page opinion. "But these dangers are global, their causes are global, the benefits of fossil fuels are global and the problem deserves a solution on a larger scale than a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case."
Alsup, one named Clinton, also cited a more legalistic reason for his decision to rule in favor of BP plc (BP), Chevron Corp. (CVX), Conoco Phillips (COP), Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A), the defendants in the case. According to the Supreme Court's precedent, the Environmental Protection Agency's power to set emissions standards under the Clean Air Act prohibits federal nuisance claims from the common law such as the one that the two cities of California have done.
Oakland and San Francisco have argued that they will eventually be submerged when the water level rises thanks to global warming. Although the judge acknowledged the science behind this claim, he described the scope of the complaint as "staggering", since it would incorporate the worldwide sale of fossil fuels by a seller who knew their contribution to global warming.
While the legal precedent allowed Alsup to dismiss the case, he also acknowledged the moral dilemma posed by the lawsuit. "Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world were literally fueled by oil and coal, we all benefited from it, would it be fair to ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and to blame global warming? Is it really fair, in light of these benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?
Source link
