I said back then and I’ll say now, I’m not sure why any of these companies are doing business and selling their products to the state of Minnesota while the suit is pending. But, if they are going to sell to the state, they should use that in their defense saying “if fossil fuels are so Evil then why is the state buying lots of fossil fuels from us?”
In what could be a landmark case, Minnesota sued the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil and three Koch-owned companies to force them to pay for the effects of climate change on Minnesotans.
But the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Keith Ellison in state court in June of 2020 has been subject to battles over a jurisdictional issue — whether the case based on the state’s consumer protection laws belongs in a state court, or whether it belongs in federal court where it could be easier to dismiss.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court, which began its new term last week, will consider hearing an appeal by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the other petitioners who seek to move the case to federal court.
The oil companies argued that damage lawsuits for climate change go beyond the limits of state law and are governed by federal law — but there is no federal common law for greenhouse gases. (snip)
The lawsuit also says that during this period, Mobil and Koch earned hundreds of billions of dollars in profits while Minnesota shouldered the costs and consequences of “unmitigated climate change.” It asks for the courts to mandate those profits be used to help Minnesota pay for what it says are the “devastating consequences” of climate change.
Can the state prove damages and that they were caused solely by the use of fossil fuels? And why did the state keep using them? I hope the defendant lawyers are keeping an eye on how many fossil fueled trip Ellison has taken
API declined a request for an interview. But it did provide a statement from its general counsel, Ryan Meyers:
“The record of the past two decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable American energy to U.S. consumers while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint,” Meyers’ statement said. “This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless, politicized lawsuits against a foundational American industry and its workers is nothing more than a distraction from important national conversations and an enormous waste of Minnesota taxpayer resources. Climate policy is for Congress to debate and decide, not the court system.”
Just stop selling in Minnesota. Let’s see how the state does in the winter without them.
I fully support your stand. FedGov shut down one cupro-nickel mine about to break ground because close to wilderness, the courts shut down an OSB mill because Muh Cryin’ Indians and that was just a two-week span in February.
I say shut down all “fossil fuels” to Somalifornia Norte, including liquids, natural gas, and coal.
We have enough timber falling down in the state to heat the homes in the wooded areas, the rest of the state can burn the dried horseshit from transportation routes.
Most transportation can go back to wood-fired steam trains, there are a few of those at the Duluth train museum. That should support the mining business or the logging business (for heat) or the farming business, but it will take some tough choices as to who moves what when.
I guess those of us who live in the woods would fair well, the swarthy-skinned New Minnesotans might have issues and move to someplace warmer, like Florida or Texas.
But that may just be the fate of everybody within the borders of FUSA.
Mr Teach: I’m not sure why any of these companies are doing business and selling their products to the state of Minnesota while the suit is pending.
They make a lot of money selling gasoline. If not Exxon, other sellers will fill the gap.
Dear Elwood:
Stupid is as stupid does.