Baltimore is currently engaged in a lengthy legal battle with a number of American energy companies and American subsidiary of European energy companies. They are arguing about alleged greenhouse gas emissions from their operations. They are currently engaged with a dispute over technicalities, formalities, and whether the case will be tried in Maryland or in a federal court.
On January 25, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments. Baltimore has, ironically, used an argument that if it succeeds would help undermine the idea of global warming.
In 2018, Baltimore sued these energy companies. In 2018, Baltimore filed suit against these energy companies in federal court. However, the city wants the case to remain in state court because it believes it will be given a better consideration. The U.S. Supreme Court This issue was addressed once last year. The Fourth Circuit sent the case back with directions to expand its assessment, and to reconsider its previous decision to allow the case to be in Maryland’s courts.
Baltimore claimed in its written response that the Supreme Court had remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit. ArgumentsThe Fourth Circuit announced to the Fourth Circuit in September 2021 it was bringing this case in state court to address the localized harms resulting from the defendants actions. This is a gross misinterpretation about the theories of climate change, and in particular the role of global emissions of greenhouse gases.
Baltimore would not be the only city that suffers from any alleged harms caused by the greenhouse gas release. The reality is that greenhouse gas emissions are spread unabated throughout the globe like all other gasses.
The global effects of greenhouse gas emissions have a direct impact on the entire globe. Its effects are the antithesis to localized effects that are caused by companies.
According to the Second Circuit, in an April 2021 statement DecisionNew York City’s lawsuit was dismissed. Global warming, as its name implies, is a global problem that the United States can’t face alone. The decision also stated that emissions in [New York or]New Jersey may not contribute as much to flooding in New York as China’s emissions.
Global warming is also a unique international concern that touches upon issues such as federalism, foreign policy, and other issues. It is therefore necessary to apply federal common law and not state law.
Global, Complex Issue
While climate change is widely accepted, we still don’t know how the complex interaction of energy production, greenhouse gases, and global temperatures affects the planet’s climate. We know that any harm comes from the accumulation of all activity and cannot be attributed to a few.
The complexity of climate change cannot be attributed to the actions of a few energy companies. Baltimore chose to sue all American and American subsidiaries of European companies.
Baltimore is also affected by actions from all over the world, just like the alleged damages would not be localized to that area of Maryland. Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the energy companies, stated: arguedThe Fourth Circuit ruled that the complaint was not liable.
Baltimore’s effects from oil refining in China, for example, are just as significant as similar activities within Maryland. Baltimore is just as affected if operations are conducted in the Middle East or by subsidiaries of Middle Eastern businesses in the United States.
This is a global problem that can’t be handled in local court. Even if Baltimore sues companies it feels are easier to reach than, for example, energy companies in South America, Africa or Asia. Curiously though, Baltimore isn’t suing Russian, Chinese or Middle Eastern energy producers.
As Shanmugam arguedThis case was brought before the Supreme Court last summer. There is something deeply contradictory about the idea that cases seeking relief from injuries caused worldwide by greenhouse gas emissions should be tried in state courts.
Climate Change is for the Federal Government
Global warming cannot easily be divided by country or state. To argue otherwiseas Baltimore doesundermines climate change itself. It is perhaps relevant that all parties referred, in oral arguments on January 25, to the threat to our environment by calling it global climate change. Shanmugam first used the term, but then judges and even Victor Sher, the opposing counsel, referred to it as global.
Only the federal government is able to address climate change issues. Although the issues are best left to Congress, federal regulatory agencies delegated, this case should be heard in federal court.
This is not a problem for a particular city. This is what the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote about a decade ago. American Electric Power Co.When it comes to climate change and energy, Congress and federal regulatory bodies are better equipped.
This article does NOT necessarily reflect the opinions of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
Information for Authors
Ellen R. WaldTransversal Consulting is her president. She is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Councils Global Energy Center. She is also the author, Saudi, Inc., which is a history of Saudi oil industry.