CAUSE OF ACTION/UPDATES

The lawsuit accuses the companies of having known, for nearly five decades, “that greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels.” They say the companies’ “awareness of the negative implications of their behavior corresponds” with rising greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the lawsuits say, the companies were responsible for roughly 20 percent of total emissions from 1965 to 2015.

The lawsuit accuses the companies of having known, for nearly five decades, “that greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels.” They say the companies’ “awareness of the negative implications of their behavior corresponds” with rising greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the lawsuits say, the companies were responsible for roughly 20 percent of total emissions from 1965 to 2015.

The lawsuit accuses the companies of having known, for nearly five decades, “that greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels.” They say the companies’ “awareness of the negative implications of their behavior corresponds” with rising greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the lawsuits say, the companies were responsible for roughly 20 percent of total emissions from 1965 to 2015.

The lawsuit accuses the companies of having known, for nearly five decades, “that greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels.” They say the companies’ “awareness of the negative implications of their behavior corresponds” with rising greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the lawsuits say, the companies were responsible for roughly 20 percent of total emissions from 1965 to 2015.

The lawsuit accuses the companies of having known, for nearly five decades, “that greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels.” They say the companies’ “awareness of the negative implications of their behavior corresponds” with rising greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the lawsuits say, the companies were responsible for roughly 20 percent of total emissions from 1965 to 2015.

The Climate Defense Project, one of the organizations whose attorneys represented the defendants, said the defense had prepared for a full trial in which they would mount a climate necessity defense—relying on experts including climate scientist James Hansen and the founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben—but that the prosecutor had reduced charges of trespass and disorderly conduct to civil infractions that did not require a trial. The Climate Disobedience Center said the judge nevertheless allowed each defendant to testify regarding the necessity of their actions.

Attorney General Healey opened an investigation by issuing a civil investigative demand to Exxon Mobil concerning potential violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, M.G.L. c. 93A, Section 2, and its implementing regulations, arising both from Exxon’s (1) marketing and/or sale of energy and other fossil fuel derived products to consumers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and (2) the marketing and/or sale of securities, as defined in M.G.L. c. 110A, Section 401(k), to investors in the Commonwealth.

The participating states are exploring working together on key climate change-related initiatives, such as ongoing and potential investigations into whether fossil fuel companies misled investors and the public on the impact of climate change on their businesses.

Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) confirmed that it had received a subpoena from the New York State Attorney General’s Office related to the company’s statements to investors and its board of directors regarding climate change risks and their consistency with the company’s internal research. Reports on the subpoena are available in the New York Times, Bloomberg Business, and InsideClimate News. [Update: The subpoena subsequently became public when Exxon included it in filings made in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas.]

Youth filed Juliana v. U.S., against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015, asserting that, through the government’s affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources. The fossil fuel industry initially intervened in the case as defendants, joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed.

New York State reached a historic settlement with Peabody Energy – the world’s largest publicly traded coal company – concerning the company’s misleading financial statements and disclosures.

Five individual teenagers, and two non-profit organizations representing thousands more young people, Kids vs. Global Warming and WildEarth Guardians, partnered with OUR CHILDREN’S TRUST to file a federal lawsuit that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The youth sought to require the federal government to immediately plan for national climate recovery according to the scientific prescription of Dr. James Hansen and other leading international climate scientists that will restore our atmosphere to 350 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 by the end of the century and avoid the disastrous scenarios of 2°C of warming. The lawsuit was premised on the long-established legal principle of the Public Trust Doctrine, which requires our government to protect and maintain survival resources for future generations.

The case alleged that their village is being threatened by the effects of climate change—specifically, by the reduction in protective sea ice and an increase in storms and flooding—and asserted that the 24 oil, energy, and utility companies named as defendants should be held liable for the costs of relocating the village, estimated at $400 million, because they had allegedly contributed to the risks of climate change through their greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs styled their cause of action as a “nuisance” claim under federal common law, although they asserted in the alternative that their claims might also proceed as a matter of state common law because about two dozen energy companies not only created a public nuisance by causing coastal flooding but also worked together to hide the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.