But a judge ruled the science is still correct.
JUN 26, 2018, 11:36 AM
Two California cities suffered a major setback in their fight to make fossil fuel companies pay for costs associated with climate change after a federal judge threw out their lawsuit Monday evening. While the judge acknowledged that the risks of climate change are real and ongoing, he argued the courts were not suited to take such a case, handing a big win to oil companies.
In a 16-page opinion, William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco sided with fossil fuel companies over the cities of Oakland and San Francisco. The two north California hubs had argued that Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell should financially support local projects meant to protect against the effects of global warming caused by the companies’ product: fossil fuels. Suggested projects included efforts like reinforcing coastlines against sea level rise and similar endeavors.
The cities also argued that the oil companies knew about the dangers of climate change for decades, but chose not to act, instead prioritizing their own interests. They argued that the companies’ actions had interfered with the use of property, making the products they sell a public nuisance.
Judge Alsup agreed with both Oakland and San Francisco that climate change is real. “This order accepts the science behind global warming,” the judge wrote, going on to say that climate science “dates back 120 years.”
Ultimately, however, he argued that assessing blame for the damage caused by climate change is a political decision, not a judicial one.
“The court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches,” Alsup wrote, dismissing the lawsuit and arguing that fossil fuels played an important role in contributing to national development, regardless of their ultimate role in causing global warming.
“Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity,” said Chevron vice president and general counsel R. Hewitt Pate.
Climate advocates, by contrast, cautioned that the ruling could have sweeping implications in the fight to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in global warming.
“The case before the judge was never about how to solve global climate change but simply whether oil and gas producers should help San Francisco and Oakland pay for the costs of adapting to it,” Richard Wiles, executive director for the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement.
“By kicking the case to a do-nothing Congress and a climate denying White House,” Wiles continued, “the court essentially ruled that taxpayers alone should pay the massive costs of adapting to climate change.”