• 4 minutes England Running Out of Water?
  • 7 minutes Trump to Make Allies Pay More to Host US Bases
  • 10 minutes U.S. Shale Output may Start Dropping Next Year
  • 14 minutes Washington Eyes Crackdown On OPEC
  • 2 hours One Last Warning For The U.S. Shale Patch
  • 9 hours Once Upon A Time... North Korea Abruptly Withdraws Staff From Liaison Office
  • 10 hours Oil Slips Further From 2019 Highs On Trade Worries
  • 2 hours Modular Nuclear Reactors
  • 1 day Chile Tests Floating Solar Farm
  • 10 hours Poll: Will Renewables Save the World?
  • 3 hours Climate change's fingerprints are on U.S. Midwest floods
  • 5 hours Read: OPEC THREATENED TO KILL US SHALE
  • 2 days China's E-Buses Killing Diesel Demand
  • 2 days China's Expansion: Italy Leads Europe Into China’s Embrace
  • 2 days Trump Tariffs On China Working
  • 2 days Biomass, Ethanol No Longer Green
  • 1 day US-backed coup in Venezuela not so smooth
  • 2 days New Rebate For EVs in Canada
Flurry Of Bearish News Sends Oil Lower

Flurry Of Bearish News Sends Oil Lower

Renewed demand concerns are spooking…

Oil Price Rally Hits Resistance

Oil Price Rally Hits Resistance

Oil prices are holding their…

California Cities Want Big Oil Lawsuit Back In Court

oil sands

San Francisco and Oakland have approached a federal appeals court with a request to reinstate their lawsuits against five Big Oil companies, which a U.S. District Judge dismissed last year.

NBC reports the two municipalities had also asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of San Francisco to return the lawsuits on their own turf, to the San Francisco Superior Court and the Alameda County Superior Court, where the lawsuits were filed originally.

San Francisco and Oakland are suing Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips for selling oil products despite their knowledge of the effect these products had on the environment.

"Defendants have known for decades that the continued burning of fossil fuels would increase global temperatures and cause devastating impacts on coastal communities like Oakland and San Francisco. Yet they continued to wrongfully promote the increased, unrestricted use of their products," the attorneys of the two plaintiffs wrote in a brief.

The five companies’ stance was that control over the production of oil and gas and carbon emissions from the industry is the prerogative of environmental regulators and not courts. They argued the case should be dismissed, which is exactly what happened eventually.

Yet, the Big Oil defendants have also argued the environmental damage the two cities’ authorities claim they have sustained is “speculative”, involving billions of people using oil and gas as well as long environmental processes.

Another anti-Big Oil case against the same five companies was dismissed in New York City as well, a month after the SF/Oakland case dismissal. “Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants,” the Manhattan judge wrote in his ruling. “But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government.”

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News