Sides bicker over meaning of SCOTUS ruling ahead of climate change hearing

[Elderberry]

Legal Newsline by John Breslin | Jan 10, 2020

Sides bicker over meaning of SCOTUS ruling ahead of climate change hearing

Final submissions are being made ahead of oral arguments in an appeal by two cities against a federal district court decision to dismiss their public nuisance action against five energy companies.

Oral arguments in the appeal by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, who sued the oil companies claiming they were liable for the harm caused by climate change, will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday, Feb. 5. The plaintiffs want compensation for present and future damages allegedly caused by climate change.

The cities are appealing against the 2018 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decision denying their motion to remand the case to state court, accepting jurisdiction, and dismissing the action because of the "extraterritorial reach" of the claims. New York City's case was similarly dismissed, as judges have found it is not the judiciary's role to impose climate change policy.

Five oil companies - including BP, Exxon and Chevron - were named as defendants in the lawsuits by San Francisco and Oakland. Both sides have filed briefs in support of their arguments ahead of the February hearing.

More: https://legalnewsline.com/stories/522951037-sides-bicker-over-meaning-of-scotus-ruling-ahead-of-climate-change-hearing

[Smokin Joe]

In the meantime, pull the plug, trip the breakers, shut off the valves, idle the pipelines, stop shipping fuel...

If that were done, just what would be the result?

We all know it would be considered terrorism.

Millions would die, starve, kill each other over rapidly disappearing resources.

If these cities don't like the energy these companies provide, quit using it.