Climate Campaigners Intensify Court Battles Against Fossil Fuel Industry

[Social Media]

 

Climate campaigners are increasingly turning to the legal system in their fight against the fossil fuel industry, seeking to hold energy companies accountable for their role in driving climate change. A recent report from the London School of Economics (LSE) highlights a significant surge in climate-related lawsuits against energy companies, revealing that the UK has become a major battleground in this legal fight. The LSE report found that there are currently 132 climate cases in the British legal system, up from 102 a year ago. This positions the UK as the third highest center for climate litigation globally, following the US and Australia.

 

Authored by Dr. Joana Setzer and Cathy Higham of the Grantham Climate Research Institute, the LSE report predicts a record number of climate cases this year, driven by innovative legal strategies such as "ecocide." This new legal concept aims to hold oil and gas company executives personally accountable for the deaths and environmental damage caused by emissions from their products. The report states, "Increasingly, we are seeing the physical and mental health impacts of climate change becoming the focus of litigation – as both the scientific evidence and people’s lived experience of those impacts develop."

 

The United States leads the world with the highest number of ongoing climate cases, totaling 1,745, with 129 new cases filed last year. Australia follows with 132 cases, on par with the UK. This surge in climate litigation is seen as a strategic move to pressure the fossil fuel industry to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to cleaner energy sources.

 

This legal onslaught comes at a crucial time, just before the UK faces its most significant environmental lawsuit to date. This landmark case involves the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam in southeast Brazil, operated by BHP, a UK-based mining conglomerate. The disaster resulted in 19 deaths and the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses. BHP is being sued by 700,000 plaintiffs seeking £36 billion in damages. Scheduled for a London High Court hearing in October, this case is expected to set legal precedents that could pave the way for more climate litigation in the future.

 

In addition to the BHP case, the study also references last month's Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by environmentalist Sarah Finch. The ruling mandates that planning authorities must consider the emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels when approving new drilling sites. This decision has thrown the UK fossil fuel industry into disarray, casting doubt on the future development of new oil and gas fields and potentially ending the prospects for fracking in the country.

 

The growing trend of climate litigation is likely to intensify as more individuals and organizations seek legal reparations for the damages caused by climate change. Emma Montlake of the Environmental Law Foundation, which promotes climate litigation, expects a surge in cases against energy companies and governments. She remarked, "As climate chaos and sea level rises unfold and other impacts get worse, people will ask in ever-increasing numbers how legal reparations can be made by those who knew about the effects of burning fossil fuels but hid their conclusions."

 

The increasing use of the courts to address climate change reflects a broader shift in the fight against fossil fuels. With traditional political avenues proving slow or ineffective, campaigners are leveraging the legal system to drive change. This approach not only seeks to hold companies accountable but also aims to create legal precedents that can accelerate the transition to a more sustainable future.

 

Despite the significant rise in climate litigation, major oil and gas companies, such as Shell and BP, along with the industry trade body Offshore Energies UK, have declined to comment on the matter. Their silence underscores the tension and uncertainty within the industry as it faces mounting legal challenges and public scrutiny.

 

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-09

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

[blazes]

What's the betting that the litigants will be comfortably off middle-class types who don't give a toss if millions of less well-off people have to suffer the increased price of energy resulting from this insanity.

[Purdey]

If any individual or organization thinks they have a case against a company, they have the right to litigate. That's democracy.

When you read that this or that politician or high profile person is a crook, you don't hear later that a member of the public sued. I wish they would.

But these people are concerned about the environment - whichever class they belong to - and they went ahead with the case, which is something I admire. If you accuse, and have the evidence to back it up, go for it.

[WDSmart]

We're already "over the cliff" on climate change. Read this book New tab (books2read.com)

[James105]

13 hours ago, Social Media said:

the study also references last month's Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by environmentalist Sarah Finch. The ruling mandates that planning authorities must consider the emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels when approving new drilling sites. This decision has thrown the UK fossil fuel industry into disarray, casting doubt on the future development of new oil and gas fields and potentially ending the prospects for fracking in the country.

 

Another pea brained size decision.   Unless the UK suddenly reduces its energy usage then this energy needs to come from somewhere.   Does any "climate expert" on here know why it is better for "the climate" to import the energy from other countries at an inflated cost than consuming their own? 

[Donga]

Santos in Australia recently won a landmark decision in the High Court over Indigenous claims of sacred sea beds for their mega LNG offshore project. The judge castigated the federal government funded Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) for their lack of transparency and general strategy. Santos is now going to sue some of the antagonists for the substantial costs in delay that their case caused. https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/santos-wins-court-battle-on-edo-funding-quest-20240704-p5jr5b

These groups need to be very careful of their activism at a time when the world needs gas for the transition to low carbon energy. As usual The Greens and their useful idiots are either very naive and/or hypocritical.

[susanlea]

5 hours ago, WDSmart said:

We're already "over the cliff" on climate change. Read this book New tab (books2read.com)

Do you pay to promote your book on here?

[Yagoda]

8 hours ago, Purdey said:

If any individual or organization thinks they have a case against a company, they have the right to litigate. That's democracy.

When you read that this or that politician or high profile person is a crook, you don't hear later that a member of the public sued. I wish they would.

But these people are concerned about the environment - whichever class they belong to - and they went ahead with the case, which is something I admire. If you accuse, and have the evidence to back it up, go for it.

The suits are meritless and an abuse of the legal system

[placeholder]

I think a pretty good case could be made against Exxon:

ExxonMobil: Oil giant predicted climate change in 1970s - scientists

One of the world's largest oil companies accurately forecast how climate change would cause global temperature to rise as long ago as the 1970s, researchers claim.

ExxonMobil's private research predicted how burning fossil fuels would warm the planet but the company publicly denied the link, they suggest.

The academics analysed data in the company's internal documents.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994

 

The Heartland Institute

The Heartland Institute is a free market think tank at the forefront of denying manmade climate change...

From 1997-2006, the Heartland Institute received at least $686,500 from ExxonMobil- $140,000 of which were specifically earmarked for climate change programs in disclosure reports by the corporation.
Heartland has received over 21 million dollars from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Funds.  Both organizations are conservative nonprofits that advertise the ability to anonymously give by moving grant money through them.

https://climateinvestigations.org/heartland-institute/

 

It’s been seven years since journalists first revealed Exxon Mobil Corp.’s decadeslong efforts to undermine the scientific certainty around climate change, despite knowing how serious a problem it was.
Now, a new analysis demonstrates exactly how much the company knew — and how its public disinformation campaigns sabotaged the warnings of its own scientists

https://archive.ph/D83vs#selection-771.0-775.157

[WDSmart]

12 hours ago, susanlea said:

17 hours ago, WDSmart said:

We're already "over the cliff" on climate change. Read this book New tab (books2read.com)

Do you pay to promote your book on here?

No, I promoted it as a public service. You can download a free copy of an ebook on its Facebook page. Facebook

[susanlea]

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, I promoted it as a public service. You can download a free copy of an ebook on its Facebook page. Facebook

 I read the science. Very weak theory. It is like protein. Once you go above 1 gram per kg there is very little impact. Thats why the temperatures have stalled since 2016.

 

Great money making scam though.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, susanlea said:

 I read the science. Very weak theory. It is like protein. Once you go above 1 gram per kg there is very little impact. Thats why the temperatures have stalled since 2016.

 

Great money making scam though.

Temperatures have stalled since 2016? Really? From the landing page of the world forum:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

In fact, 2023 had a higher average temperature and it looks like 2024's will be even higher.

What you clearly don't understand is that 2016, like 2023 was a year with a powerful El Nino. So naturally it was higher than several subsequent years.

This is the same misleading class of nonsense promulgated by denialists in the wake of 1998 which was the year of another super powerful El Nino. It was farar higher than several subsequent years. But now, it doesn't even make it into the top 10.

The trend is clear. Average global temperatures are getting warmer.

Here's a graph. I've added an arrow and year to distinguish 1998 from the other years listed.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature#:~:text=2023 was the warmest year,F (13.9°C).

 

 

 

[Donga]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think a pretty good case could be made against Exxon:

ExxonMobil: Oil giant predicted climate change in 1970s - scientists

One of the world's largest oil companies accurately forecast how climate change would cause global temperature to rise as long ago as the 1970s, researchers claim.

ExxonMobil's private research predicted how burning fossil fuels would warm the planet but the company publicly denied the link, they suggest.

The academics analysed data in the company's internal documents.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994

 

The Heartland Institute

The Heartland Institute is a free market think tank at the forefront of denying manmade climate change...

From 1997-2006, the Heartland Institute received at least $686,500 from ExxonMobil- $140,000 of which were specifically earmarked for climate change programs in disclosure reports by the corporation.
Heartland has received over 21 million dollars from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Funds.  Both organizations are conservative nonprofits that advertise the ability to anonymously give by moving grant money through them.

https://climateinvestigations.org/heartland-institute/

 

It’s been seven years since journalists first revealed Exxon Mobil Corp.’s decadeslong efforts to undermine the scientific certainty around climate change, despite knowing how serious a problem it was.
Now, a new analysis demonstrates exactly how much the company knew — and how its public disinformation campaigns sabotaged the warnings of its own scientists

https://archive.ph/D83vs#selection-771.0-775.157

That's fine, so then the extremist Green groups, and left wing NGOs can start suing individuals for driving oil fueled vehicles? Exxon doesn't drill for the fun of it. It keeps the world moving as EVs evolve.

Very few people rely on Exxon for the their views about climate change.

Meanwhile Greens, NGOs and mainstream media have consistently lied about the folly of relying too much on renewable energy. Even when anyone with half a brain can see what carnage it has brought Germany, and increased energy prices in so many countries. They twist data to show how much renewable energy is being used vs idle capacity, e.g. China. They persist in terming the burning of US imported wood chips, "renewable biomass energy", exaggerate the risks of nuclear energy (2 died from radiation in Fukushima), even deceive about polar bears haha. They overstate the capabilities of battery technology while largely ignoring why OECD, IEA, WEF state, and even UNIPCC let's it slip occasionally, that emission targets have no chance of being met without a substantial increase in nuclear energy plants.

With all the ongoing deceit and falsehoods ad nauseam, some from supposed scientists - the more extreme in views, the better for mainstream news - you really think Exxon is the big bad wolf?

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, Donga said:

That's fine, so then the extremist Green groups, and left wing NGOs can start suing individuals for driving oil fueled vehicles? Exxon doesn't drill for the fun of it. It keeps the world moving as EVs evolve.

Very few people rely on Exxon for the their views about climate change.

Meanwhile Greens, NGOs and mainstream media have consistently lied about the folly of relying too much on renewable energy. Even when anyone with half a brain can see what carnage it has brought Germany, and increased energy prices in so many countries. They twist data to show how much renewable energy is being used vs idle capacity, e.g. China. They persist in terming the burning of US imported wood chips, "renewable biomass energy", exaggerate the risks of nuclear energy (2 died from radiation in Fukushima), even deceive about polar bears haha. They overstate the capabilities of battery technology while largely ignoring why OECD, IEA, WEF state, and even UNIPCC let's it slip occasionally, that emission targets have no chance of being met without a substantial increase in nuclear energy plants.

With all the ongoing deceit and falsehoods ad nauseam, some from supposed scientists - the more extreme in views, the better for mainstream news - you really think Exxon is the big bad wolf?

You lost me when you called the activists extremist, claimed Exxon keeps the world moving and the Exxon research was meaningless.

[Donga]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

You lost me when you called the activists extremist, claimed Exxon keeps the world moving and the Exxon research was meaningless.

Didn't say it was meaningless. Btw do you drive a car? Does it keep you moving? Most of the 8 billion people on the planet with drive a car, travel as a passenger or use a motor bike.
 

If you walk or cycle everywhere, that’s great but unfortunately most serious commercial transport uses oil for fuel.
 

Without it the world economy goes back to pre industrial times. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Donga said:

Didn't say it was meaningless. Btw do you drive a car? Does it keep you moving? Most of the 8 billion people on the planet with drive a car, travel as a passenger or use a motor bike.
 

If you walk or cycle everywhere, that’s great but unfortunately most serious commercial transport uses oil for fuel.
 

Without it the world economy goes back to pre industrial times. 

From the world's biggest car market:

 

China’s EV sales now over 50%

https://carnewschina.com/2024/04/20/chinas-ev-sales-now-over-50/

[CallumWK]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

From the world's biggest car market:

 

China’s EV sales now over 50%

https://carnewschina.com/2024/04/20/chinas-ev-sales-now-over-50/

 Nice clickbait and incorrect post, as we are used from you.

 

History has been made over the period April 1-14, sales of new energy vehicles (NEV) exceeded half of all car sales in China.

 

Obviously this is just the result for two weeks of the year but there are indications that this result will extend for the year as well.

[placeholder]

The point is that EVs are rapidly rising as a percentage of new car sales. From the article

"Previously the Economist Intelligence Unit predicted that NEVs wouldn’t make up over half of sales until 2028. And the Chinese Federation of Passenger Cars only predicts a 40% penetration rates for 2024. Based on that prediction sales would be in the region of 12 million this year...

Last month Wang Chuanfu, CEO of BYD, predicted that the result would be achieved within the next three months.

https://carnewschina.com/2024/04/20/chinas-ev-sales-now-over-50/