Crosspost from breaking news - US Judge Throws Out Climate Change Lawsuits Against Big Oil

AN 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.

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2018-06-25/us-judge-throws-out-climate-change-lawsuits-against-big-oil
---------------------------

Judges conclusion:

It may seem peculiar that an earlier order refused to remand this action to state court on
the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were necessarily governed by federal law, while the current
order concludes that federal common law should not be extended to provide relief. There is,
however, no inconsistency. It remains proper for the scope of plaintiffs’ claims to be decided
under federal law, given the international reach of the alleged wrong and given that the
instrumentality of the alleged harm is the navigable waters of the United States. Although the
scope of plaintiffs’ claims is determined by federal law, there are sound reasons why regulation of
the worldwide problem of global warming should be determined by our political branches, not by
our judiciary.
In sum, this order accepts the science behind global warming. So do both sides. The
dangers raised in the complaints are very real. But those 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 in a public nuisance case. While it
remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims
based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of
government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those
branches. The Court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive
branches. For the reasons stated, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.