3 ms·

Note that this isn't the big multi-state case, but a case brought by the city of Baltimore. This hearing was not on the merits. The upcoming decision is about

Note that this isn't the big multi-state case, but a case brought by the city of Baltimore. This hearing was not on the merits. The upcoming decision is about whether the lawsuit should be heard in state or federal court. I presume federal law would be more favorable to the oil companies, as that is what they're arguing for. This particular question has been bouncing up and down the courts since before the pandemic. From what I can tell[0], the confusing procedural history is something like this: > Baltimore: oil companies owe us for climate change > Big Oil: No we don't. Also, this should be decided in federal court. > Federal district court: Nah, we'll keep it in state court > Big Oil: 4th Circuit, tell the District court they're wrong! > 4th circuit: Actually, we don't have the authority to review their decision > Big Oil: Supreme Court, tell the 4th circuit that they do > SCOTUS: They do. > 4th Circuit: Okay, we'll review it. We are here. After this decision comes down and then is appealed to the Supreme Court, then they'll start arguing over a motion to dismiss. After that gets all the way up to the Supreme Court again and the lawsuit survives, a galactic-scale discovery process will ensue. Then probably a settlement. All this is going to take years, if it happens at all. I find it hard to imagine that Baltimore has the will and resources to take this all the way. [0]http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case/mayor-city-council-of-baltimore-v-bp-plc/ http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case/m...

q1w2 5y ago
The biggest hurdle to come is meeting the legal requirement that specific actions from the defendant, which they knew were negligent, led to specific damages to the city of Baltimore. Those are the three basic requirements to any claim under tort law. The hardest one is proving that these specific companies caused global warming to a sufficient degree that it directly damaged Baltimore. The defense will make obvious counter-arguments - for example that Baltimore itself engaged in the same CO2 emmissions behavior by purchasing oil/gas and facilitating trade of such (and taxing it) within their own jurisdiction. ...and further that many many other companies throughout history have contributed to atmospheric CO2, not just these companies. ...AND that the damage to Baltimore thus far might be considered normal weather variations.

q1w2 5y ago

The biggest hurdle to come is meeting the legal requirement that specific actions from the defendant, which they knew were negligent, led to specific damages to the city of Baltimore. Those are the three basic requirements to any claim under tort law. The hardest one is proving that these specific companies caused global warming to a sufficient degree that it directly damaged Baltimore. The defense will make obvious counter-arguments - for example that Baltimore itself engaged in the same CO2 emmissions behavior by purchasing oil/gas and facilitating trade of such (and taxing it) within their own jurisdiction. ...and further that many many other companies throughout history have contributed to atmospheric CO2, not just these companies. ...AND that the damage to Baltimore thus far might be considered normal weather variations.