Gazeta Lodz - US Republicans seek to shield oil giants as climate lawsuits advance

Now Republicans are moving to shut them down with a two-pronged strategy: pushing for a federal shield law and urging the Supreme Court to intervene.

"The issue for the oil companies is that they know they did it," Richard Wiles, president of the nonprofit Center for Climate Integrity, told AFP.

"Their only avenue out of this is to get some kind of a waiver of liability, make the cases go away, bar the courthouse doors, get a 'get out of jail free card.'"

Dozens of cases modeled on successful actions against the tobacco industry in the 1990s are playing out in state courts nationwide -- including claims of injuries, failure to warn, and even racketeering, meaning acting like a criminal enterprise.

Some have been dismissed, and none have yet gone to trial -- though crucially, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to intervene and block them.

- 'They have no shame' -

In June, 16 Republican state attorneys general urged the Trump administration to enact a shield law to end such cases.

"Under the banner of 'global climate change,' they have effectively declared an all-out war on traditional American energy," their letter said, calling the lawsuits "lawfare against the energy industry."

It faulted the Supreme Court for not moving the cases to federal court, where companies believe they stand a better chance of winning, and cited a 2005 statute granting gunmakers a similar liability shield.

"They have no shame," said Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor of environmental law at the University of Vermont, pointing to the epidemic of gun violence. "I mean, come on, that's your argument?"

Congress has yet to act, but observers see worrying signs it may be edging closer. A recent appropriations bill for the District of Columbia would bar the city from using funds to enforce consumer protection laws "against oil and gas companies for environmental claims."

And just last week, more than 100 House Republicans filed a friend-of-the-court brief in one Colorado case, urging the Supreme Court to "put an end to these unconstitutional attempts to dictate national energy policy."

AFP contacted Nebraska and West Virginia, which led the letter, as well as the Department of Justice, oil majors ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and BP, and the American Petroleum Institute. None responded.

- Coordinated campaign -

The Trump administration, for its part, has escalated attacks on Democrat-led states passing "polluter pays" laws -- suing for example New York and Vermont to block "Superfunds" that would require companies to pay billions toward climate and extreme weather resilience.

The Justice Department has also asked the Supreme Court to weigh in through a friend-of-the-court brief in the Colorado case, where the state's top court allowed Boulder County to proceed with its lawsuit against Suncor Energy.

A constellation of conservative legal scholars has joined what appears to be a coordinated push, including a FoxNews.com op-ed by John Yoo -- author of the Bush-era "torture memos" -- urging the Supreme Court to "reaffirm federal authority over national energy."

Results in the cases have so far have been mixed: oil firms have won dismissals in some states, while others have allowed cases to advance.

"There hasn't been a big verdict yet. It's not clear there's going to be a big verdict. And you've always got the Supreme Court lurking in the background," said Parenteau.

That may explain why Congress has hesitated to act, he added -- though "given the craziness that's going on in America right now, anything's possible."

Environmental groups have urged Democrats to hold firm, and this summer, the 3,000-member National Association of Counties passed a resolution opposing "any legislation that would limit or preempt counties' access to courts or give companies immunity from lawsuits."

Brigid Shea, commissioner for Texas' Travis County, who helped lead the resolution, told AFP local governments were being "walloped" by extreme weather. "We have to protect our access to the courts," she said. "This is fundamental to our democratic process."

F.Jankowski--GL