Now Reading
Big Oil Accused of Preventing Climate Law Suits through Disinformation and Scare Tactics

Big Oil Accused of Preventing Climate Law Suits through Disinformation and Scare Tactics

Big Oil Accused Of Preventing Climate Law Suits Through Disinformation And Scare Tactics


4 Mins Read

By Chris McGreal.

US oil firms have been accused of using scare tactics after telling a federal court on Tuesday that lawsuits alleging fossil fuel companies lied about the climate crisis could threaten America’s oil supply.

At a closely watched appeals court hearing to decide whether a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore should be heard in state or federal court, an attorney for BP, Exxon, Shell and other energy firms painted the case as a threat to America’s energy independence.

Baltimore’s case accuses oil firms of breaching Maryland state consumer protection and other laws by running disinformation campaigns to cover up what they knew about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. Alejandro Barba, Unsplash.

Kannon Shanmugam, representing this industry, told the court that if a city was to win in state court and receive billions of dollars in damages, it could end offshore drilling.

“The relief that Baltimore seeks would deter, if not render entirely impractical, any further production on the outer continental shelf,” he said.

Karen Sokol, a law professor at Loyola University who specialises in climate litigation, called the claim one of a number of “scare tactics” deployed by the oil industry as it fights to move the Baltimore case and other cases out of state jurisdictions, where consumer protection and other laws favour the plaintiffs, and into federal courts, where the fossil fuel companies believe they have the advantage.

“It’s a scare tactic, which is telling the courts to back off, we’re a very powerful industry and we’re essential right now to energy security. If you step into this, you’re going to screw everything up,” she said.

Baltimore’s case accuses oil firms of breaching Maryland state consumer protection and other laws by running disinformation campaigns to cover up what they knew about the dangers of burning fossil fuels.

Photo by Arvind Valabh on Unsplash

The outcome of Tuesday’s hearing will influence similar cases within the same federal jurisdiction, including a suit by Charleston, South Carolina. It could also impact nearly a dozen other lawsuits brought by municipalities and states in other jurisdictions. A similar case is being heard by a federal appeals court in Hawaii next month.

Shanmugam informed the court that the case should come under federal jurisdiction as pollution is regulated under national laws, and that the climate crisis is both a national issue and an international one. Shanmugam also accused Baltimore, and other municipalities, of using the courts in an attempt to change climate policy.

“Global climate change is obviously the subject of international agreements, as well as pervasive regulation by the federal government,” he said.

Vic Sher, representing Baltimore, said the city’s case was not about the regulation of pollution but the lies told by the fossil fuel industry.

See Also
In the Philippines, a Landmark Finding Moves Fossil Fuel Companies’ Climate Liability into the Realm of Human Rights

“The goal of the complaint, sadly, cannot address global climate change. It’s focused very narrowly on a past pattern of conduct based on deception and failure to warn, and it seeks compensatory damages for injuries that flow from that past conduct,” he said.

Sokol said the judges appeared “very sceptical” about the basis of the oil industry’s claim that the Baltimore case belongs in federal court. She said the industry’s legal argument did not address the substance of the city’s claim that Big oil ran a disinformation program and lied about the harm caused by its part in creating the climate crisis, and instead tried to put the focus on who regulates pollution.

Sokol said that if Sokol’s appeals court decision is against the oil sector, she expects the firms to attempt to return to the supreme court to delay the Baltimore case as well as other cases before a jury.

“It will continue to fight this thing out in the procedural stage till hell freezes over, before it allows it to get to discovery, much less a trial, because it knows the civil discovery system of state courts is so powerful that it would be forced to disgorge documents that would shed light on the extent of this disinformation campaign even beyond what we already know.”

This is the story.This article was republished from The GuardianAs part of the Climate Coverage Now InitiativeAs part of our partnership, we are enhancing coverage of the climate story through the global journalistic collaboration.


Lead photo by Marc Rentschler on Unsplash.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.