WASHINGTON, DC – A series of legal cases are being filed to quell plans by President-Elect Trump to crush climate change efforts, “but it may not be easy,” writes The Guardian.
Donald Trump, The Guardian adds, has promised to stop environmentalists trying to mitigate the climate crisis.
Richard Wiles, president of the nonprofit Center for Climate Integrity, which tracks and supports climate-related litigation, noted in The Guardian ongoing legal cases against the fossil fuel industry remain unaffected by changes in political leadership.
There are currently over 30 active lawsuits in the U.S., filed by states and municipalities, that accuse fossil fuel companies of downplaying the climate risks associated with their products and/or seeking damages for climate-related impacts, said Wiles, noting legal proceedings related to climate accountability are likely to continue regardless of who holds the presidency.
Trump, while on the campaign trail, stated that he would like to “stop the wave of frivolous litigation from environmental extremists, but Wiles responded the Trump administration’s ability to file lawsuits and obtain their goals against climate activists would be limited, said The Guardian.
Wiles said since the federal government is not involved as either plaintiff or defendant in any of the lawsuits, the outcome of these cases is not directly influenced by the election of Donald Trump.
And, The Guardian adds, each case was filed in state court, so the President does not have the authority to appoint judges who will oversee these proceedings
However, if any of the cases are moved to federal court—a shift that oil companies have long sought but have not yet succeeded in securing—the judges appointed by Trump, who have a more conservative leaning, could potentially rule in favor of the fossil fuel companies, Wiles said.
Speaking with The Guardian, Michael Gerrard, faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, noted that one of the significant factors in the climate accountability litigation could be the justices appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court.
Following the election, Trump appointed two supreme court justices that had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
The Guardian writes that, in early December, the Biden administration’s solicitor general advised the Supreme Court to reject requests from fossil fuel companies seeking to dismiss two climate accountability lawsuits, following the court’s July request for input. Experts suggest that the previous administration under Trump might have taken a position that favors the oil companies.
“The views of the federal government often hold significant influence with the Supreme Court, so if the Trump administration had taken such a position, it could have provided some advantage to the oil companies,” said Daniel Farber, director of the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.
However, Farber noted in The Guardian that this does not ensure the court would align with the administration’s position, noting, “The court does not always follow the government’s perspective, and the outcome would largely depend on the strength of their argument.”
Gerrard noted the Justice Department could file influential “friend of the court” briefs in these cases. The Biden administration filed such a brief in support of the plaintiff last year, while the Trump administration previously supported the defendants and might be expected to take a similar stance.
These can have a significant impact on the case, but this does not guarantee an outcome, The Guardian reported.
Another possibility that advocates are preparing for is the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, in collaboration with the administration, could propose measures to grant the fossil fuel industry legal immunity from lawsuits.
Farber stated that such a measure is unlikely to succeed, even with Republican control of both Congress and the presidency.
Farber explained that achieving such a measure would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. “I just don’t see that happening,” he added in his comments in The Guardian.
In 2005, the firearms industry secured a liability waiver that has effectively blocked most efforts to hold them accountable for violence. Fossil fuel companies have pushed to be granted the same treatment, but have failed so far.
The Trump administration’s pledges to roll back environmental regulation and boost fossil fuels could inspire additional climate accountability litigation, wrote The Guardian, adding the Trump administration’s actions to reduce environmental regulations and promote fossil fuel interests could lead to further climate accountability litigation.
Farber noted, “If other avenues for change are seen as limited, the legal route might become a more appealing option.”
Climate accountability lawsuits from cities and states have been gaining traction, reported The Guardian.
In December, a town in North Carolina filed the first climate accountability lawsuit against an electric utility, Maine filed a lawsuit against major oil companies in November, and a Kansas county sued fossil fuel producers, accusing them of misleading the public about the recyclability of plastics.
Even with expected environmental rollbacks under Trump, Wiles told The Guardian these lawsuits provide a way to “seek accountability for the climate impacts and damages caused by the fossil fuel industry.”
Maybe Trump can issue pardons to all of the energy companies just like Biden did for his son.
“accusing them of misleading the public about the recyclability of plastics.”
How much Davis plastic gets recycled?