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

“We share Bucks County’s desire to address the 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. As the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned more than a decade ago, courts are simply not the appropriate places to decide climate policy. 

The challenge of our time is developing technologies and public policies so that the world can produce and use energy in ways that are sustainable for the planet while being affordable to people. It should not be figuring out how to creatively plead lawsuits that seek to monetize climate change, will raise the cost of energy on American families and businesses, and provide no solutions.”

Washington D.C. – Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the follow statement in response to a Cert Petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the merits of the Honolulu climate suit.

“The U.S. Supreme Court should grant the companies’ Petition for Certiorari and review the merits of Honolulu’s claims. Regulating the worldwide production and use of energy – as the plaintiffs’ case attempts to do – is simply beyond the limits of any individual state’s law. The Supreme Court found in AEP v. Connecticut that claims relating to global fuel emissions raise issues ‘of special federal interest’ and that ‘borrowing the law of a particular state would be inappropriate.’ And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a climate case brought by New York City, has already reaffirmed this point, leading it to dismiss the state law claims in that case. Trying to apply Hawaii state law to climate change here is directly at odds with these rulings, and the Supreme Court should take this case to make sure that states properly follow its jurisprudence.”

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

“We share Chicago’s desire to address the 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. As the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned more than a decade ago, courts are simply not the appropriate places to decide climate policy. 

The challenge of our time is developing technologies and public policies so that the world can produce and use energy in ways that are sustainable for the planet while being affordable to people. It should not be figuring out how to creatively plead lawsuits that seek to monetize climate change, will raise the cost of energy on American families and businesses, and provide no solutions.”

Washington, D.C. – Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the Delaware Superior Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss the state’s climate lawsuit.

“The Delaware state court clearly recognized that regulating out of state and global greenhouse gas emissions is ‘beyond the limits’ of Delaware law. This ruling underscores the fact that determining how best to address climate change and its impacts should be addressed by Congress and federal agencies, not by a patchwork of state judges.”

Washington, D.C. – Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement addressing the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear Minnesota’s climate suit.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to not review Minnesota’s case, while unsurprising, is certainly disappointing because it will allow the creation of a patchwork of state court rulings to interfere with important, federal regulatory efforts on climate change. Nevertheless, we remain confident that when courts around the country consider the substance of these claims—just like in New York City’s case that was dismissed in 2021—it will be evident that this type of climate litigation has no legal or factual foundation. Regardless of whether heard under state or federal law, selling Americans the energy they need and use every day is not a liability inducing event.

“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 that provide no solutions.”  

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the Makah Indian Tribe and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe’s climate suits against manufacturers over the impacts of climate change.

“We share the Makah Indian Tribe and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe’s desire to address 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. As the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned more than a decade ago, courts are simply not the appropriate places to decide climate policy. 

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.”

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations voluntary dismissal of their climate lawsuit, after a federal judge ruled it belongs in federal court. This marks the second climate case to be voluntarily dismissed, after King County, WA did so in September 2021.

“PCFFA’s decision to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit shines a light on the fact that the goal of this litigation campaign is to avoid the federal courts, which have a history of rejecting climate lawsuits. As these courts have recognized, addressing climate change is an important public policy matter for Congress, EPA and countries around the world, not a liability issue for our courts. We have every confidence that, at the end of the day, state courts will reach the same conclusion, that selling Americans the energy we all need and use every day is not a liability inducing event.

“When it comes to the fight against climate change, we should be working with, not against, each other. Meaningful action requires leadership and innovation so we can produce and use energy in ways that are affordable for people and sustainable for the planet.”

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

“We share San Juan’s desire to address 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. As the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned more than a decade ago, courts are simply not the appropriate places to decide climate policy. 

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.”

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

“The Second Circuit’s ruling, while not surprising, misses the real issue here. Connecticut’s case may be creatively packaged under state law, just like many of the other climate cases, but the nature of climate change, this whole litigation and the remedies that Connecticut and other jurisdictions seek are all beyond the scope of any state law. Determining how best to address climate change, its causes and its impacts is a major national and international priority that cannot be decided piecemeal by state judges based on which companies each state or locality decides to sue.

“The best way to address climate change is for Congress, federal agencies, and local governments to work with manufacturers in the U.S. on policies and new technologies that reduce emissions. Innovation and collaboration, not litigation, remain the right path to bring about the type of society-wide technological advancements needed to address this global challenge.”

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

“California’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 already been rejected by the federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court cautioned more than a decade ago that courts are simply not the appropriate places to decide climate policy. 

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 California wants 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.”