Email Icon Twitter Icon Facebook Icon Youtube Icon

MAP Statement on Multnomah County, Oregon Climate Lawsuit

Washington, D.C. – Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the County of Multnomah, Oregon filing a lawsuit against manufacturers over the impacts of climate change.

“We share Multnomah County’s drive to tackle the challenge of climate change, but this litigation is not the type of action that is going to lead to meaningful solutions. The challenge of our time is developing technologies and public policies so that the world can produce and use energy in ways that are affordable for people and sustainable for the planet. It should not be figuring out how to creatively plead lawsuits that seek to monetize climate change and provide no solutions. If these communities want to make a real difference in the fight against climate change, they should focus on working with manufacturers to foster the policies and innovations required to address this challenge.”

MAP’s Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cert Petition Decision

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement addressing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision with the cert petitions in the climate lawsuits:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the federal law issues in this case is certainly disappointing because it risks the creation of a patchwork of state court approaches to important public policy matters that are inherently federal and global in nature. But today’s events do not undermine the fact that, even under state law, selling Americans the energy they need and use every day is not a liability inducing event. When courts get to the substance of these claims—just like in New York City’s case that was dismissed in 2021—it will be evident that this litigation has no legal or factual foundation. The challenge of our time is developing technologies and public policies so that the world can produce and use energy in ways that are affordable for people and sustainable for the planet. It should not be figuring out how to creatively plead lawsuits that seek to monetize climate change and provide no solutions.”

MAP’s Statement on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling in Minnesota’s Climate Litigation Case

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement addressing the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ misguided ruling directing Minnesota’s climate lawsuit to proceed in state court.

“The Eighth Circuit’s ruling, along with Judge Stras’s concurrence, underscores the importance of Supreme Court review and why the nature of climate change, this litigation, and the remedies they seek are all beyond the scope of any state law claim.  The ruling points out that, although a public nuisance claim was not in this lawsuit, it is the basis for most of the climate cases and “creates a stronger case for federal jurisdiction.” Then, Judge Stras got to the heart of why these cases need Supreme Court review. He said there is no denying that this lawsuit is a clear “attempt to set national energy policy,” that Minnesota “seeks a global remedy for a global issue,” and that “This is, in effect, an interstate dispute.” We agree with Judge Stras that the court’s rules should not operate “in such a confounding way” as to deny removal on this important federal issue and that “the Supreme Court gets to make that call.”

MAP’s Statement on the U.S. Solicitor General’s Brief to the Supreme Court

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Solicitor General’s brief to the Supreme Court regarding the Boulder case:

“Ironically, the Solicitor General’s brief underscores the importance of the Supreme Court taking up the petition and providing clarity on the proper jurisdiction for climate litigation. Her arguments, like those in the Tenth Circuit, are based on the premise that because Congress spoke on this issue through the Clean Air Act and made the EPA the governing authority over GHG emissions it somehow undermines the federal nature of this case. As the Second Circuit said in dismissing New York City’s climate lawsuit, this notion is ‘too strange to seriously contemplate.’” 

MAP’s Statement on the Puerto Rican Municipalities’ Lawsuit

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the Puerto Rican Municipalities’ lawsuit against manufacturers over the impacts of climate change:

“We share the Puerto Rican municipalities’ drive to tackle the generational challenge of climate change, but this litigation is not the type of action that is going to lead to meaningful solutions. It has no legal merit, which is why federal courts have already rejected similar cases, including one from New York City that was dismissed last year. As the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned more than a decade ago, courts are simply not the appropriate places to decide climate policy. 

If these communities want to make a real difference in the fight against climate change, they should focus on working with manufacturers to foster the policies and innovations required to address this challenge. In addition, the Biden administration has made hundreds of billions of dollars in funding available through federal programs to help communities like those in Puerto Rico mitigate the impacts of climate change. It’s time to move on from this litigation side-show and focus on real solutions.”

MAP’s Statement on the New Jersey Attorney General’s Lawsuit

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the New Jersey Attorney General’s lawsuit against manufacturers over the impacts of climate change:

“New Jersey’s lawsuit does nothing to advance meaningful solutions to climate change and is a costly distraction from the important work that needs to be done. This litigation has no legal merit, which is why it has been rejected by the federal courts already—including a nearly identical case filed by New York City and a similar case where the U.S. Supreme Court broadly cautioned against this type of litigation. Courts are simply not the appropriate places to decide climate policy. They cannot take into account important aspects of America’s energy policy, including affordability for families and businesses, and energy security, which has been highlighted because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If New Jersey wants to make a real difference in the fight against climate change, it should focus on working with manufacturers to foster the policies and innovations required to address this challenge—as the overwhelming majority of communities have done. And, the Biden Administration has made billions of dollars in funding available through federal programs to help communities like those in New Jersey deal with the impacts of climate change. It’s time to move on from this litigation side-show and focus on real solutions.”

MAP’s Statement on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling with Delaware and Hoboken’s Lawsuits

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement addressing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Delaware and Hoboken, New Jersey’s climate lawsuits:

“The Third Circuit, in our opinion, reached the wrong conclusion, but importantly, it called out this litigation for what it is: trying to sue energy producers over the public’s use of fuel for everyday activities, including ‘driving cars, heating homes, [and] fueling machinery.’ As the court said, ‘Delaware and Hoboken try to cast their suits as just about misrepresentations. But their own complaints belie that suggestion.’ These statements from the court underscore why, even though these cases may be creatively packaged under state law, this litigation and the remedies they seek are all beyond the scope of any state. Recent events where our energy security is at risk underscore why we cannot afford to subject federal energy policy to a patchwork of approaches from a multitude of state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has already cautioned against climate litigation for many of these reasons, and this ruling reinforces the reasons why the Supreme Court is likely to hear these cases again.”

MAP’s Statement on the First Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling with Rhode Island’s Lawsuits

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement addressing the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Rhode Island’s climate lawsuit:

“The First Circuit’s ruling continues to miss the key point. Rhode Island’s case may be creatively packaged under state law, but the nature of climate change, this litigation and the remedies they seek are all beyond the scope of any state. Recent events—where our energy security is at risk, Americans are facing rising gas prices and the federal government is working to encourage more domestic production—underscore why we cannot afford to subject federal energy policy to a patchwork of approaches from a multitude of state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has already cautioned against climate litigation for many of these reasons, which is why it is likely the Court will hear these cases again.”

MAP’s Statement on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling with California Counties and Cities’ Lawsuits

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement addressing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the California counties and cities’ climate lawsuits:

“This ruling was unsurprising, but what’s interesting about it is that the court started by reiterating its view that the fundamental question of whether the energy companies can be required to spend billions of dollars on climate mitigation based on their production and promotion of oil and gas is really a ‘policy question’ and concluded by emphasizing that this litigation raises ‘novel and sweeping causes of action.’ There is still no escaping that the nature of climate change, this litigation and the remedies being sought are all inherently beyond the scope of any state court.

What’s more, today’s events—where our energy security is at risk, Americans are facing rising gas prices and the federal government is working to encourage more domestic production—underscore why we cannot afford to subject federal energy policy to a patchwork of approaches from a multitude of state courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already cautioned against climate litigation for many of these reasons, which is why it is likely the Supreme Court will hear these cases again. It makes no sense to spend years litigating climate cases in state courts when it is clear that climate change is global in nature, has many causes and requires broad-based policy solutions.

If these California communities really want to address climate change, they would be working with manufacturers of all kinds to continue developing the technologies that will allow us to source and use energy more efficiently, protect our environment and ensure our energy security.”

MAP’s Statement on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling with Baltimore’s Lawsuit

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement addressing the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Baltimore’s climate lawsuit:

“Today’s ruling misses the real issue here. Baltimore’s case, which the court acknowledges is novel, may be creatively packaged under state law, but the nature of climate change, this litigation and the remedies they seek are all inherently beyond the scope of any state. Figuring out how to address climate change and its impacts around the country is a major national and international priority that cannot be decided piecemeal by state judges based on a narrow set of politically motivated allegations.

The U.S. Supreme Court already cautioned against climate litigation, which is why this ruling increases the likelihood the Supreme Court will ultimately hear these cases again. It makes no sense to spend years litigating climate cases in state courts when it is clear that climate change is global in nature, has many causes and requires broad-based policy solutions that only Congress has the ability to enact.

What’s more, at a time when our energy security is at risk, Americans are facing rising prices and the federal government is working to encourage more domestic productions, we can hardly afford to subject federal energy policy to a patchwork of approaches from a multitude of state courts. State and local governments should work with manufacturers of all kinds to continue developing the technologies that will allow us to source and use energy more efficiently, protect our environment and ensure our energy security.”