Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts May 26, 2020
Response to Ninth Circuit’s Decision on California Climate Litigation: Ruling Underscores Why the Supreme Court Should Hear These Cases
From the Manufacturers Accountability Project (MAP)
May 26, 2020 Washington D.C. – Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to today’s decision by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to keep climate litigation filed by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and San Mateo County in state court:
“The Ninth Circuit ruling identifies the main reason this case and all climate tort litigation is not suited for federal or state court, stating ‘whether the Energy Companies can be held liable for public nuisance based on production and promotion of the use of fossil fuels and be required to spend billions of dollars on abatement is no doubt an important policy question.’
Selling us the energy we need to power our homes, businesses and communities is not unlawful and, therefore, not a subject for tort liability in any court.
It makes no sense to spend years of judicial resources on these procedural rulings when it is abundantly clear that this is a policy issue for executive or legislative bodies, not courts. In fact, today’s ruling underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should hear the climate tort cases now and resolve them once and for all.
More:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/26/response-to-ninth-circuits-decision-on-california-climate-litigation-ruling-underscores-why-the-supreme-court-should-hear-these-cases/
