Email Icon Twitter Icon Facebook Icon Youtube Icon

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.”

MAP Statement on the Eighth Circuit Court Oral Arguments in Minnesota’s Lawsuit

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement ahead of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals oral arguments in Minnesota’s climate lawsuit:

“Minnesota’s claims may be packaged under state law, but their goals, the nature of the litigation, and the remedies they seek are all inherently national.  Federal judges have long understood that climate policy is federal and regulatory in nature. That’s why they have repeatedly rejected this type of litigation and why the litigation campaign’s architects are now trying to avoid the federal courts. Ultimately, their goals are clear: they want to use these lawsuits to raise energy prices even more on Americans—a cynical tactic that comes at a time when our energy security is threatened by global events and when Americans are already facing rapidly rising prices. If those pushing these types of lawsuits cared about solving climate change, they would work with manufacturers to continue developing technologies that allow us to use energy more efficiently, protect our environment and ensure our energy security.”

MAP Statement on the Ninth Circuit Oral Arguments in the Honolulu and Maui Lawsuits

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement ahead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals oral arguments regarding the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui’s lawsuits:

“The City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui’s claims may be packaged under state tort law, but their goals, the nature of the litigation, and the remedies they seek are all inherently national. Federal judges have understood this and repeatedly rejected these cases, which is why the architects behind this litigation campaign are doing everything they can to avoid the federal courts. Their efforts to game the legal system should be stopped. The best way to address climate change concerns and impacts is for Congress, federal agencies, and local governments to work with U.S. manufacturers on policies and new technologies that reduce emissions. Innovation and collaboration, not litigation, remain the proven ways America has always brought about the type of society-wide technological advancement needed to address this global challenge.”

MAP Statement on the Tenth Circuit’s Ruling to Send Boulder’s Lawsuit Back to State Court

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement in response to the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to send the climate lawsuit brought by Boulder and counties of Boulder and San Miguel back to state court:

“The Tenth Circuit’s ruling today misses the key point. Boulder’s case 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 mitigate 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 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 most concerning here is that the people behind this litigation have repeatedly said their goal in bringing this case is to make energy more expensive for the rest of us, and few families and businesses can afford the bill for this litigation. If Boulder and other communities really want to do something about climate change, they should work with manufacturers on energy innovations that can make a meaningful difference in our ability to source and use energy in ways that are both climate friendly and affordable. This litigation does not provide any of these needed answers.”

MAP Statement on the Fourth Circuit Oral Arguments in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP PLC

Washington, D.C. — Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, issued the following statement ahead of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals oral arguments in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP PLC:

“The Fourth Circuit should recognize that this case does not belong in state courts. Baltimore’s claims 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 mitigate climate change—both globally and locally—is a federal legislative and regulatory matter that must not be decided piecemeal by state judges based on a narrow set of facts and interests. Federal judges have understood this and repeatedly rejected these cases, which is why the architects behind this litigation campaign are doing everything they can to avoid the federal courts. Their efforts to game the legal system should not be allowed to proceed.”