- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

California Governments Can Pursue Lawsuits Against Oil Companies over Climate Change
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:15 pm
sweet. now they can prove once and for all, in legal proceedings, that climate change is real and that it is the fault of oil companies. piece of cake, no?
Federal Appeals Court: California Governments Can Pursue Lawsuits in State Courts Against Oil Companies over Climate Change
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday local governments in California can sue oil companies in state courts for allegedly causing climate change and hiding it from the public.
The suit, which dates back to 2017, is seeking damages for more than 30 companies, which the anti-oil San Francisco Chronicle said fossil fuels producers “profit from products contributing to rises in temperatures and sea levels.”
And that means climate change is forcing cities and counties in the state to spend more money on infrastructure, including sea walls.
The plaintiffs in the case are San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz counties and the cities of Richmond, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach in San Diego County.
The Chronicle reported:
The local governments sued in state court under California’s law allowing damages for a “public nuisance,” private actions that harm the public health. The companies want the case to be heard in federal court, where judges can consider state laws but are generally less receptive to those laws than state courts, and are more likely to dismiss such suits.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled initially that the suits raised no issues of federal law and belonged in state court. The Supreme Court told the appeals court last year to reconsider its ruling after ordering another court to review possible federal issues in a similar suit by the city of Baltimore. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit panel said it had considered all applicable federal laws and reached the same conclusion.
The suits contend the oil companies’ “wrongful conduct in producing, selling, marketing fossil fuels contributes to global warming and sea-level rise, which led to property damage and other injuries” to the cities and counties, Judge Sandra Ikuta said in the 3-0 ruling. While the companies produced some of the oil as federal government contractors or on federal land, Ikuta said, they did not carry out government orders or policies, and none of their actions implicated federal laws.
LINK
Federal Appeals Court: California Governments Can Pursue Lawsuits in State Courts Against Oil Companies over Climate Change
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday local governments in California can sue oil companies in state courts for allegedly causing climate change and hiding it from the public.
The suit, which dates back to 2017, is seeking damages for more than 30 companies, which the anti-oil San Francisco Chronicle said fossil fuels producers “profit from products contributing to rises in temperatures and sea levels.”
And that means climate change is forcing cities and counties in the state to spend more money on infrastructure, including sea walls.
The plaintiffs in the case are San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz counties and the cities of Richmond, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach in San Diego County.
The Chronicle reported:
The local governments sued in state court under California’s law allowing damages for a “public nuisance,” private actions that harm the public health. The companies want the case to be heard in federal court, where judges can consider state laws but are generally less receptive to those laws than state courts, and are more likely to dismiss such suits.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled initially that the suits raised no issues of federal law and belonged in state court. The Supreme Court told the appeals court last year to reconsider its ruling after ordering another court to review possible federal issues in a similar suit by the city of Baltimore. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit panel said it had considered all applicable federal laws and reached the same conclusion.
The suits contend the oil companies’ “wrongful conduct in producing, selling, marketing fossil fuels contributes to global warming and sea-level rise, which led to property damage and other injuries” to the cities and counties, Judge Sandra Ikuta said in the 3-0 ruling. While the companies produced some of the oil as federal government contractors or on federal land, Ikuta said, they did not carry out government orders or policies, and none of their actions implicated federal laws.
LINK
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:18 pm to djmed
What specific damages do they have that can be attributed to an oil company?
If they were so bad, why are the legally allowed in California?
quote:
wrongful conduct in producing, selling, marketing fossil fuels
If they were so bad, why are the legally allowed in California?
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:19 pm to djmed
They already banned fracking, which is being litigated.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:19 pm to djmed
quote:
wrongful conduct in producing, selling, marketing fossil fuels contributes to global warming and sea-level rise,
How about we sue everyone who actually used fossil fuels.
Oh, wait…
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:20 pm to djmed
Everyone that drives a car, rides a bus, exhales of farts should be included in the lawsuit. Let’s stop climate change where it starts.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:21 pm to member12
Did california governments accept royalty payments from said fossil fuels? Did they lease land for said production? Are they using fossil fuels???
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:27 pm to djmed
Would love to see petroleum dealers ban sales of fuel to California. Similar to some of the gun manufacturers refusing to sell the precincts guns for officers due to their strict regulatory laws.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:29 pm to djmed
Solution is simple: stop all petroleum based products being sold to California. Problem solved!
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:31 pm to djmed
and California should forfeit all tax dollars collected at the pump!
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:40 pm to djmed
When you guys call for earthquakes to destroy all of California just be sure to remember that the plaintiffs in this case are from the Bay and SoCal. Central California has nothing to do with this. 
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:44 pm to djmed
Man, that would help out the supply & demand problem for the rest of the country once the oil companies pull out of California due to local government lawsuits. Why sell O&G in California if they're just going to sue you because of it?
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:45 pm to djmed
California should ban all carbon based fuels and products immediately and arrest anyone caught using them.
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:46 pm to Figgy
quote:
When you guys call for earthquakes to destroy all of California just be sure to remember that the plaintiffs in this case are from the Bay and SoCal.
I think you are mistaken. You are confusing L.A. with the rest of Southern California. Most of the counties in SoCal are red. They even proposed a new state there.
This post was edited on 4/21/22 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 4/21/22 at 2:47 pm to djmed
quote:
“profit from products contributing to rises in temperatures and sea levels.”
Posted on 4/21/22 at 3:29 pm to Bearcat90
Trust me on this one. We joke about there only being three regions: SoCal, CenCal & NorCal because it's easier to describe but the map below is really accurate to how the state and its people divide itself up regionally. Central California is generally considered be the San Joaquin Valley from just south of Bakersfield to just a little south of Sacramento (we don't claim Sacramento even though it fits geographically and is still part of the SJV) and from the coastal mountain range to the Sierra Nevadas.

Posted on 4/21/22 at 3:30 pm to djmed
So will cattle farmers be next because of cow farts??
Posted on 4/21/22 at 3:32 pm to doubleb
Any food product such as dried beans, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, raisins, dried fruits, V8 juice, etc. known to be potent gas generators should be eliminated from human consumption, per penalty of a "gas tax."
Posted on 4/21/22 at 3:36 pm to djmed
Time for every oil company that has HQ in cali to join the other companies that have moved out of the state.
Popular
Back to top

20









