Climate lawfare suffers another defeat

Is it any wonder that US judges are reluctant to put themselves in the position of climate experts, when the evidence for man changing the global climate is so nebulous and strongly disputed?

Today a U.S. District Judge threw out New York City’s lawsuit against five major energy companies alleging damages relating to climate change, reports The GWPF.

Judge John Keenan wrote in his opinion that, “Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government,” not the judiciary, according to Bloomberg.

This major blow marks the third climate case to be thrown out—litigation in San Francisco and Oakland was dismissed by a federal judge last month on similar grounds. Both of these cases were dismissed by U.S. District Court judges after the suits were ordered to be heard in federal court rather than state court, where they were initially filed.

Given these recent developments, it’s safe to say that the nationwide climate litigation campaign is not going exactly as planned. But while this isn’t the outcome activists are seeking, it’s possible that it’s still the outcome they expected.

Remember, the campaign itself can be traced back to a 2012 meeting among climate activists and lawyers in La Jolla, Calif., where a plan to stigmatize energy companies was devised. During the meeting, participants discussed ways to replicate the broad-based litigation brought against tobacco companies in the 1990s and apply it to fossil fuel companies.

But during the meeting, Dan Yankelovich, co-founder of Public Agenda and expert in public opinion research, expressed reservations about depending on a legal strategy to change climate change policy:

“I am concerned about so much emphasis on legal strategies. The point of departure is a confused, conflicted, inattentive public. Are legal strategies the most effective strategies? I believe they are important after the public agrees how to feel about an issue. Then you can sew it up legally. Legal strategies themselves are a double-edged sword. The more adversarial the discourse, the more minds are going to be closed.”

The recent case dismissals call into question the future of the other pending lawsuits.

Continued here.