U.S. Supreme Court backs energy companies over Baltimore in climate case
News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Group
U.S. Supreme Court backs energy companies over Baltimore in climate case
By Lawrence Hurley: 3 MIN READ:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of BP PLC, Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and other energy companies contesting a lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore seeking monetary damages from them due to costs caused by global climate change.
The 7-1 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, came on a technical legal issue that could help the companies in their effort to have the case heard in federal court, as they would prefer, instead of state court, which the city favors as it is seen as a more amenable venue.
The high court decided that the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not correctly analyze whether the case could be heard in federal court.
The Democratic-governed Maryland city’s lawsuit targeted 21 U.S. and foreign energy companies that extract, produce, distribute or sell fossil fuels, arguing that their activities contribute to emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases linked to climate change. An important port city, Baltimore noted that it is vulnerable to sea-level rise and flooding driven by climate change.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect around a dozen similar lawsuits brought by various U.S. states, cities and counties.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the ruling. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, did not participate in the case, likely because he owns stocks in two oil companies involved in the litigation.
The legal question concerned a provision of U.S. law that puts limits on appeals courts reviewing decisions by federal district court judges to remand a case to state court. The companies have said that in this instance the 4th Circuit had broad scope to review a district court’s decision because of a provision that permits appeals of such rulings when a case directly concerns federal officials or government entities.
The energy companies have argued that energy production is an inherently federal issue, meaning the case should be heard in federal court. Greenhouse gas emissions that cross state and international lines are likewise an issue that cannot be addressed under state laws, the companies added.
With Congress long divided over action on combating climate change, the lawsuits represent an effort to force action through litigation rather than legislation.
Posted in: Big Oil, BP, Business Ethics, Business Principles, Chevron, Climate Change, Environment, Exxon Mobil, Fossil Fuels, Litigation, Oil, Pollution, Reuters, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, United States.
Tagged: BP · Chevron · Environment · ExxonMobil · Litigation · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Shell
See our link list of over 500 articles by the FT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, Dow Jones Newswires, New York Times, CNBC etc, plus UK House of Commons Select Committee Hansard records, information on U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission website etc. all containing references to our Shell focussed websites, or our website founders Alfred and John Donovan. Includes TV documentary features in English and German, newspaper and magazine articles, radio interviews, newsletters etc. Plus academic papers, Stratfor intelligence reports and UK, U.S. and Australian state/parliamentary publications, also citing our Shell websites. Click on this link to see the entire list, all in date order with a link to an index of over 100 books also containing references to our websites and/or our activities.
John Donovan, the website owner
A head-cut image of Alfred Donovan (now deceased) appears courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.
MARKETWATCH.COM ARTICLE: Shell’s Voser regrets U.S. shale bet, Arctic fail: 13 March 2013
FINANCIAL TIMES ARTICLE: Shell takes impairment on North America as profit slides: 1 October 2013
FINANCIAL TIMES ARTICLE: Peter Voser says he regrets Shell’s huge bet on US shale: 6 October 2013
ZEROHEDGE.COM: About That Shale Oil & Gas Miracle: 7 October 2013
POWERSOURCE/POST-GAZETTE ARTICLE: Shell to restructure shale assets in U.S.: 13 March 2014
Shell cuts spending and jobs at US shale gas arm: 13 March 2014
OILPRICE.COM ARTICLE: Shell's American Woes Highlight Difficulty of Cracking Shale: 13 March 2014
JEREMYLEGGETT.NET ARTICLE: Shale fracking is a ‘ponzi scheme’, ‘….equivalent of the dot.com crash’: 19 September 2014
SEEKINGALPHA.COM ARTICLE: Chevron A Safer Bet Than Shell: 13 April 2015
This is not a Shell website. That fact should be abundantly plain from the overall content of this home page and our sister Shell focussed websites, including shellnazihistory.com. Click on the Disclaimer link at top of this page for more information. You Can Be Sure Shell does not endorse or approve of this website. There are no subscription charges nor do we solicit or accept donations. It is an entirely free to use website drawing attention to the negative side of Shell while also publishing positive news about the company. The Shell logo image with the white text used on this website, as per the above example, is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous. It can be found on WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. Our shellenergy.website publishes Shell Energy customer complaints posted on Trustpilot where there is an ample supply. Use this link for Shell’s own website.
EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON
EBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA – HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
© 2023 Royal Dutch Shell Group .com | Powered by WordPress
PrimePress theme by Ravi Varma