June 26 (Reuters) - A federal court in California dismissed climate change lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against five oil companies, saying the complaints required foreign and domestic policy decisions that were outside its purview.

San Francisco and Oakland sued Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc last year seeking an abatement fund to help the cities address flooding they said was a result of climate change.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in the ruling that the dangers raised by the complainants were real and worldwide, and both parties accepted the science behind global warming.

"(However), the problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a District Judge or jury in a public nuisance case," Judge Alsup said. http://bit.ly/2Irnpo4

The suit was one of several filed by cities and local governments around the country that argued in part the production of fossil fuels had led to rising tides that damaged shorelines, roads and other properties requiring remediation.

Alsup, who held a primer on climate change during the case, wrote that although scientists agree burning fossil fuels is raising ocean levels, the suits "could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus" on the social pros and cons of fuel use.

Chevron, which took the lead in fighting the case, called the decision "important and well-reasoned" and said although the ruling is not binding on other courts, judges in similar cases "should follow Judge Alsup's lead and dismiss their cases as well," according to spokesman Sean Comey.

Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, an advocacy group that supports the lawsuits, called the decision disappointing, but added: "This fight is just getting started and we expect to win."

A Shell spokeswoman said the company regards climate change to be a complex problem, which is not an issue for the courts but requires sound government policy.

The case is City of Oakland V. BP, Chevron and others, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-CV-06011. </s> (Reuters) - A California federal court dismissed climate change lawsuits against five oil companies by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, saying the complaints required foreign and domestic policy decisions that were outside the purview of courts, Chevron Corp <CVX.N> said on Monday.

The cities of San Francisco and Oakland, California sued Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp <XOM.N>, ConocoPhillips <COP.N>, Royal Dutch Shell Plc <RDSa.L>, and BP Plc <BP.L> last year, seeking an abatement fund to help the cities address flooding they say is a result of climate change.

The dangers raised by the complainants are real and worldwide, and that both parties accepted the science behind global warming, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in the ruling.

"(However), the problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a District Judge or jury in a public nuisance case," Judge Alsup said. http://bit.ly/2Irnpo4

A Shell spokeswoman said the company regards climate change to be a complex problem, which is not an issue for the courts but requires sound government policy.

BP did not have an immediate comment, while ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil were not available for comment outside regular business hours. </s> A California court ruled in favor of the nation’s top oil companies on Monday, dismissing a lawsuit that held them responsible for the effects of global climate change.

Last year, the cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued Chevron Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc for an abatement fund that would help to aid cities affected by flooding allegedly caused by climate change. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Chevron’s motion to dismiss the suit, however, stating that “the scope of plaintiffs’ theory is breathtaking. It would reach the sale of fossil fuels anywhere in the world, including all past and otherwise lawful sales,” according to a statement released by Chevron.

Chevron noted that similar claims of the production and sale of oil and gas being a public nuisance that produces harmful greenhouse gas emissions had been rejected in courts across the country.

The company also stated that it had filed motions to dismiss such cases in other U.S. cities and counties, including in New York City and King County, Washington, although it does support “meaningful efforts to address climate change and accepts internationally recognized climate science.”

“Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity,” said R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron’s vice president and general counsel. “Tackling the difficult international policy issues of climate change requires honest and constructive discussion. Using lawsuits to vilify the men and women who provide the energy we all need is neither honest nor constructive.” </s> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A U.S. judge who held a hearing about climate change that received widespread attention ruled Monday that Congress and the president were best suited to address the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming, throwing out lawsuits that sought to hold big oil companies liable for the Earth’s changing environment.

Noting that the world has also benefited significantly from oil and other fossil fuel, Judge William Alsup said questions about how to balance the “worldwide positives of the energy” against its role in global warming “demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate.”

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” he said.

Alsup’s ruling came in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and neighboring Oakland that accused Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell of long knowing that fossil fuels posed serious risks to the environment, but still promoting them as environmentally responsible.

The lawsuits said the companies created a public nuisance and should pay for sea walls and other infrastructure to protect against the effects of climate change — construction that could cost billions of dollars.

The Oakland city attorney’s offices did not immediately have comment. John Cote, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney’s office, said the office was reviewing the ruling and would decide its next steps “shortly,” but the lawsuit had “forced a public court proceeding on climate science.”

“We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute,” he said.

New York City, several California counties and at least one other California city filed similar suits.

The companies said federal law controlled fossil fuel production, and Congress encouraged oil and gas development. The harm the cities claimed was “speculative” and part of a complex chain of events that included billions of oil and gas users and “environmental phenomena occurring worldwide over many decades,” they said in court documents.

National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons applauded the ruling in a statement. “From the moment these baseless lawsuits were filed, we have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,” said Timmons.

Alsup brought in the world’s leading experts on climate change at an unusual hearing in March that he said was intended to educate him about the science behind the Earth’s warming.

The nearly five-hour hearing covered topics including the history of climate change research, carbon dioxide’s role as a greenhouse gas, melting ice caps, rising sea levels and extreme weather.

In Monday’s ruling, the judge said he accepted the “vast scientific consensus” that the combustion of fossil fuels has contributed to global warming and rising sea levels. But he questioned whether it would be fair to “ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded.” </s> A federal judge dismissed a pair of lawsuits that two California cities filed against major oil companies for their roles in climate change and its effects.

The ruling is a blow to San Francisco and Oakland and environmentalists who have long tried to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change.

Judge William Alsup stated in his late Monday ruling that his decision did not hinge on climate science and that there was no dispute about the harms of fossil fuels.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Alsup, nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton William (Bill) Jefferson ClintonTrump probes threaten to overshadow Democrats' agenda Kansas, South Carolina GOP scrap presidential nominating contests Democrats ignore Asian American and Pacific Islander voters at their peril MORE, ultimately felt that the core questions raised in the case were best left up to the federal government, Congress and international organizations.

“Questions of how to appropriately balance these worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy itself, and of how to allocate the pluses and minuses among the nations of the world, demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate,” Alsup wrote.

“Nuisance suits in various United States judicial districts regarding conduct worldwide are far less likely to solve the problem and, indeed, could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus,” he continued.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”

Alsup also felt that for a court to weigh in on substantive policy questions would be a violation of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, since those are rights reserved for other branches.

The lawsuits, filed last year, employed a novel legal strategy to try to accomplish climate goals, a strategy that a handful of other major liberal cities have started to try as well.. The defendants were BP, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which has fought the strategy and sees the lawsuits as a threat to manufacturing, praised Alsup’s ruling.

“From the moment these baseless lawsuits were filed, we have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,” NAM president Jay Timmons said in a statement.

“Judge Alsup agreed. Other municipalities around the country who have filed similar lawsuits should take note as those complaints are likely to end the same way.”

Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri said the company has “said all along that addressing the risks of climate change is a serious global challenge that should be addressed by policymakers and not by the courts.”

Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, said the ruling is a disappointment. His group has been actively pushing for similar lawsuits around the country.

“The case before the judge was never about how to solve global climate change but simply whether oil and gas producers should help San Francisco and Oakland pay for the costs of adapting to it,” he said in a statement.

“By kicking the case to a do-nothing Congress and a climate denying White House, the court essentially ruled that taxpayers alone should pay the massive costs of adapting to climate change.” </s> Some cities think oil companies should foot the bill for their climate change impacts. At least one judge begs to differ.

District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco dismissed a major climate lawsuit Monday that the cities of San Francisco and Oakland filed against Big Oil bros like ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron last year. The cities believe companies like these should be paying to adapt to sea level rise because, well, they knew about climate change for a long damn time—even while they were claiming it wasn’t real—and their products are what’s driving it.

Alsup called this theory “breathtaking,” in his ruling.

While acknowledging the science of climate change, the judge doesn’t believe the court is the place to deal with the problem. In his view, the White House and Congress are. Plus, the warming of our globe stretches far beyond two cities in California or even the United States; it impacts the entire world.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” Judge Alsup wrote.

The judge is sure to point out Big Oil’s role in our global mess, but he’s also quick to note how we’ve benefited from fossil fuel extraction: “Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible,” he went on.

He’s not wrong. Still, this sets a disappointing precedent for the other cities across the U.S. litigating to acquire dollars from the companies that profited the most from progress. Cities like New York and Boulder, Colorado, are hoping for different outcomes than their friends on the Westest Coast. (Even oil brethens are attacking each other.)

Preparing for climate change ain’t cheap, and someone needs to pay for it. These cities are making the case that it shouldn’t be solely the taxpayer. Oil defendants, on the other hand, just want these suits to go away. In New York City, a Chevron lawyer attempted to convince a judge to throw out the suit, too, earlier this month. And, unfortunately, such arguments hold a bit more weight after Monday’s decision.

This is not the end, though. Attorneys in San Francisco and Oakland are deciding on what to do next. Oakland attorney Barbara Parker told E&E News the plaintiffs are “carefully reviewing the order and considering all options, including an appeal.”

They’re also championing Alsup’s recognition of climate change. A slap of reality is always refreshing in the era of climate denial. </s> In a blow to activists seeking a way to hold big oil companies accountable for the damaging effects of global warming, a federal judge dismissed a pair of groundbreaking climate change lawsuits on Monday brought by two California cities against several major oil firms.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who had ordered a first-of-its-kind climate change “tutorial” earlier this year to help him understand issues raised by the suits, said in a lengthy ruling that he “fully accepts the vast scientific consensus” that fossil fuels have contributed to increasing temperatures and rising sea levels. But he said the problem was simply too massive — and too global in scope — for just one “district judge or jury” to solve.

Noting that the world has reaped many benefits from fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial era, the San Francisco-based judge said “questions of how to appropriately balance ... worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy itself” must be handled by the U.S. government’s executive and legislative branches.

The cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell last year. City officials argued that the five companies had created a “public nuisance,” and should be held accountable for the destructive — and costly — ramifications of global warming.

The suits accused the companies of having long known of the link between fossil fuels and planet-warming greenhouse gases, yet had not only done little to prevent their damaging effects but had even tried to hide these facts from the public.

The suits argued that the companies should help pay for sea walls and other infrastructure projects aimed at protecting communities against the effects of global warming. San Francisco has estimated that some $10 billion of public property and up to $39 billion of private land has been put at risk because of climate change-related rising seas, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

While Alsup acknowledged the existence of climate change and its associated risks, he said he was not persuaded by the cities’ legal argument.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” Alsup wrote in his ruling, adding that the “court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches.”

Alsup, who invited experts from both sides of the case to be part of the climate change tutorial he presided over in March, also said he didn’t believe that oil companies were the only ones to blame for Earth’s environmental crisis.

“All of us have benefitted” from the “monumental progress” spurred by the industrial revolution, Alsup wrote. “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”

Michael Burger of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law told The New York Times it was “too early to tell” whether Alsup’s decision would have an impact on those efforts. Attorney and policy expert Andrew Grossman suggested on Twitter, however, that “given the respect for Alsup, expect his reasoning to carry weight in other cases.”

Alsup, who has presided over several high-profile cases, was nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton and has served on it since 1999. </s> While delivering a partial victory for science by affirming the undeniable role that fossil fuels have played in the global climate crisis, a federal judge on Monday tossed out a pair of lawsuits filed by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco, California that sought to make five oil and gas companies pay for their contributions to global warming-induced sea level rise, which has left oceanfront communities fighting increased flooding, coastal erosion, and property damage.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup—who was lauded earlier this year for hosting a historic "climate tutorial" in court for this case—wrote in his 16-page decision:

This order fully accepts the vast scientific consensus that the combustion of fossil fuels has materially increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which in turn has increased the median temperature of the planet and accelerated sea level rise. But questions of how to appropriately balance these worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy itself, and of how to allocate the pluses and minueses among the nations of the world, demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate. Nuisance suits in various United States judicial districts regarding conduct worldwide are far less likely to solve the problem and, indeed, could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus.

Because the cities accused these five major fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—of creating a "public nuisance" that warranted compensation, this particular case wasn't about solving the global climate crisis, explained Richard Wiles of the Center for Climate Integrity, "but simply whether oil and gas producers should help San Francisco and Oakland pay for the costs of adapting to it."

"By kicking the case to a do-nothing Congress and a climate denying White House, the court essentially ruled that taxpayers alone should pay the massive costs of adapting to climate change," Wiles said.

"There are always adverse decisions along the road to victory. That was true in tobacco, lead, and asbestos, where the courts ultimately crafted a solution to a major crisis. This fight is just getting started and we expect to win."

—Richard Wiles, Center for Climate Integrity

"This is obviously not the ruling we wanted, but this doesn't mean the case is over," John Coté, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney, said. "We're reviewing the order and will decide on our next steps shortly."

Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker told E&E News the lawyers are "considering all options, including an appeal."

Although Alsup sided with the fossil fuel companies, Coté added: "We're pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute. Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid. Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they've caused."

While dismissing the suits, Alsup wrote: "The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and California. The issue is a legal one." Though the five companies named in the suit are among the world's largest producers, the judge pointed out that "anyone who supplied fossil fuels with knowledge of the problem would be liable."

"It is never good when a judge says the other side wins," Niskanen Center attorney David Bookbinder—a co-counsel for a similar case brought by communities in Colorado—told Axios. However, "this is round one of many, many rounds of decisions in these cases," he said. "By no means is it the end of the process."

"There are always adverse decisions along the road to victory. That was true in tobacco, lead, and asbestos, where the courts ultimately crafted a solution to a major crisis," concluded Wiles. "This fight is just getting started and we expect to win." </s> Claiming that laying blame for so-called climate change is a political issue and not a legal one, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a frivolous lawsuit brought forth by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell.

While accepting the science of climate alarmists, which insists that man is responsible for global warming, Alsup believed that the scope of the case was beyond his purview.

“This order accepts the science behind global warming,” Alsup wrote in his ruling. “So do both sides. The dangers raised in the complaints are very real. But these dangers are worldwide. Their causes are worldwide. The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury.” Alsup contended that, given the global nature of so-called anthropogenic climate change, the issue was just too big for a district court to decide. The judge called the plaintiff’s theory — that the combustion of fossil fuels created a public nuisance — “breathtaking.”

“It would reach the sales of fossil fuels anywhere in the world, including all past and otherwise lawful sales, where the seller knew the combustion of fossil fuels contributed to the phenomenon of global warming,” the ruling read. “While these actions are brought against the first, second, fourth, sixth and ninth largest producers of fossil fuels, anyone who supplied fossil fuels with the knowledge of the problem would be liable.”

Both cities are looking to continue the fight against the oil companies. “We are carefully reviewing the order and considering all options, including an appeal,” said Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker. “We believe our lawsuit presents valid claims and these defendants must be held accountable for misleading the American people about the catastrophic risks to human beings and all forms of life on this planet caused by fossil-fuel driven global warming and sea-level rise.”

The suit was originally filed in state court, but was moved by the defendants into federal court. Alsup ruled that the case belonged in federal court because of the larger scope of the alleged problem. At that time, Alsup also ruled that the cities had standing to make such claims against the oil companies.

The Oakland and San Francisco lawsuit was simply the first in a long line of frivolous lawsuits brought forth against Big Oil by municipalities that claim to be injured by man-made global warming. In California, Imperial Beach, San Mateo, Marin County, Richmond, Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz County are suing more than a dozen oil companies along similar grounds. New York City; Boulder, Colorado; and two Colorado counties, San Miguel and Boulder, are also suing Big Oil companies.

While the decision is a win for the oil companies, the acceptance of the supposed science behind anthropogenic global warming by a federal district judge is irksome and possibly troublesome. Such acceptance in a court decision gives credence to the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming, which is far from proven at this point.

This was brought home in a statement by John Cote, communications director for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera: “We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute. Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid.”

And maybe that was the whole point of this frivolous suit, as well as all the others yet to come: to get judges and Big Oil companies on record admitting that the half-baked science is a fact. This could set up future suits arguing that the oil companies knew exactly what they were doing based on their acceptance of the climate alarmists’ theory.

It’s ironic that neither Oakland nor San Francisco has insisted that Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) shut down any of its fossil-fuel plants that produce electrical power for the area. At this point, only about 33 percent of California’s power comes from so-called renewable sources. Perhaps, if the good people of the Bay Area stop using all of the evil fossil fuels they claim to despise, they could make a small dent in this so-called global-warming crisis.
A U.S. judge dismisses legal action brought by two Californian cities against oil companies, regarding their contributions towards climate change.