In the run-up to the 2020 election, voters have been tuning in to a series of debates, and town halls featuring the Democratic candidates, several of which were dedicated solely to global warming and climate change (GWCC). However, new polling found GWCC “barely registers as a priority issue.” Voters are more concerned about the economy, jobs and healthcare. California voters share those same concerns with added worries about the state’s homelessness crisis. In New York they are concerned about economic development and every day issues like road paving.
Then why have local officials in California, New York City, and elsewhere chosen to sue energy companies over climate change, an issue low on the list of voters’ priorities? No rational person disputes that climates are always changing. Nor does any rational person dispute that we must also address the issue of climate change. The debate then becomes how we take on this global challenge. At the recent United Nations climate summit, 500 scientists sent a letter urging leaders to follow a climate policy based on “… realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.” Litigation fails to meet these criteria.
These lawsuits—and ones filed in Colorado, Maryland, Washington State, and Rhode Island—utilize the legal theory of “public nuisance.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys working on a contingency fee basis who stand to pocket millions should they find courtroom success in are driving this litigation.
The San Francisco, Oakland, and New York City cases were dismissed last year, but are currently under appeal in federal circuit court. Now conflicting legal rulings in five, state-level, district courts could bring muddied legal decisions. To date, courts are unsure where to adjudicate these weather-related claims; or whether voters, city councils, legislatures, Congress, and the U.S. executive branch should decide energy policies.
The full article can be read here.