SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Fifty-five years after Loving v. Virginia and seven years after Obergefell v. Hodges, we can celebrate that marriage equality is now the law of the land. The Respect for Marriage Act guarantees that all couples - no matter their sex, race, ethnicity or national origin - can build their lives together without fear of having their rights stripped away. We thank President Biden and members of Congress who voted for this historic bill for ensuring that love wins."
AFSCME members provide the vital services that make America happen. With members in hundreds of different occupations, AFSCME advocates for fairness in the workplace, excellence in public services and prosperity and opportunity for all working families.
(202) 429-1000"The science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals," said one campaigner.
More than 125 climate, environmental, and health scientists and researchers on Thursday implored the Biden administration to "follow legitimate science and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs," pointing to a new study showing liquefied natural gas has a 33% greater greenhouse gas footprint than coal.
"As U.S. scientists and researchers we are closely following efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Treasury to develop greenhouse gas analyses of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen, and implore you to use the best available science when conducting this analysis," the scientists wrote in a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
"The stakes could not be higher," the letter asserts. "The choices that you make relating to modeling assumptions for the heat-trapping potential of natural gas will determine if the federal government will make decisions based on climate science or wishful thinking."
The scientists continued:
The main constituent in natural gas is methane, a powerful climate-disrupting pollutant that traps more than 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years, the relevant timeframe in which we must act. We agree with President [Joe] Biden's declaration to world leaders that this is the decisive decade. As the climate crisis becomes more urgent, we are rapidly approaching planetary thresholds that, once breached, cannot be reversed.
The fossil fuel industry wants you to distort the scientific evidence and asserts, falsely, that decisions to expand natural gas production and consumption are consistent with U.S. and global climate goals. They are advocating for flawed modeling assumptions that would hide the true climate impact of gas. It is imperative that the Departments of Energy and Treasury reject these efforts.
The letter's signers cite a study published this month by Cornell University climate scientist Robert Howarth which—when properly accounting for LNG's full life cycle, including extraction, liquefaction, transportation, and end-source combustion—found that the fracked gas has a 33% greater greenhouse emissions impact than coal.
"An abundance of scientific evidence now shows that natural gas is at least as damaging to the climate as coal and may be worse due to inevitable leaks and disproves the claim that natural gas can serve as a 'bridge fuel' while renewable energy sources ramp up," the scientists wrote.
Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement that "the science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals."
"This administration must ignore industry propaganda, follow legitimate science, and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs like LNG exports and gas-sourced hydrogen," Walsh added.
Noting that "over 20 years, methane is a far more powerful climate villain than ever previously appreciated," Science & Environmental Health Network senior scientist Sandra Steingraber said that "methane is the Houdini of greenhouse gasses, escaping into the atmosphere from all parts of the natural gas system at a pace that far exceeds earlier estimates."
"Taken together, these findings mean that the stakes for the modeling assumptions chosen for estimating the climate impacts of LNG and hydrogen fuels could not be higher," Steingraber stressed. "It's imperative that our Departments of Energy and Treasury base their climate modeling assumptions on the abundance of scientific evidence and not the distorted claims and wishful thinking of the fossil fuel industry."
Despite campaign pledges to center climate action—including by banning new fossil fuel drilling on public lands—Biden oversaw the approval of more new permits for drilling on public land during his first two years in office than former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican nominee, did in 2017 and 2018.
The Biden administration has also held fossil fuel lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and has approved the highly controversial Willow project and Mountain Valley Pipeline. Biden also increased liquefied natural gas production and export before pausing LNG exports earlier this year.
Despite the pause—which activists are calling on the Biden administration to make permanent—the president has also overseen what climate defenders have called a "staggering" LNG expansion, including Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and more than a dozen other projects that, if all completed, would make U.S. exported LNG emissions higher than the European Union's combined greenhouse gas footprint.
"The growing number of lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations underlines how their historic and continued role in driving and profiting from climate change is catching up to them."
An increasing number of climate lawsuits filed against fossil fuel companies in the last decade could put a dent in the business model of large fossil fuel companies, according to a report released Thursday.
The 16-page report—titled Big Oil in Court and co-created by Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics—documents dozens of cases worldwide, mostly since 2015, when the Paris agreement was signed. Many of the cases center on climate damages, misleading advertising about fossil fuels, or failure to reduce emissions in line with legal agreements. Over half of the cases have been filed in the United States, with a majority of others in Western Europe.
"The growing number of lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations underlines how their historic and continued role in driving and profiting from climate change is catching up to them," David Tong, an industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, an advocacy group, said in a statement.
"The wave of lawsuits against Big Oil could lead to serious impacts on their bottom line, a disincentive for investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, a reduction in corporate value, and a challenge to their social license to continue harming communities around the world," Tong added.
Last year saw 14 climate cases targeted at Big Oil filed worldwide, a record. A database cited in the report that dates to 2005 records 86 total cases, the vast majority having been file since 2015. Forty of the cases are still pending.
The most common type of climate-focused case has been for damages, with 30 filed just since 2017—prior to that year, only three had been filed. Dozens of U.S. states and cities have filed such cases, though none has yet reached a trial. The damages case in the U.S. that's the furthest along, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al., has faced extraordinary legal and political pushback from the industry, which is seeking to have it dismissed.
One of the most prominent damages cases outside the U.S. features Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer who sued energy giant RWE in German court in 2015 for having a partial role in the melting of a glacier in the Andes. He seeks reimbursement for the flood protection infrastructure that he and 50,000 other residents had to erect. Lawyers and judges traveled from Germany to Peru in 2022 to assess Luciano Lliuya's claims. The case is ongoing.
In the statement accompanying Thursday's report, Lliuya said:
Taking on carbon majors in court can be daunting. But the fear of losing your home and everything you’ve worked for due to the reckless actions of fossil fuel companies is even greater. For those of us directly impacted by the climate crisis, the courts offer a glimmer of hope. People like me are in court because our livelihoods are at serious risk and we are asking judges to hold the fossil fuel companies responsible.
The second most common type of climate case against Big Oil has focused on misleading advertising. Of the nine cases of this type that have reached a conclusion, Big Oil won only one case; in each of the others, the companies retracted their claims or were ruled against. The United Kingdom's Advertising Standard Authority found Shell's low-carbon claims to be misleading in separate cases in 2020 and 2023, for example.
There have also been a number of cases seeking to force fossil fuel companies to adhere to legally mandated climate targets. The most prominent outcome from these cases was a landmark ruling against Shell by a Dutch court in 2021, which found that the company must cut emissions by 45% by 2030; the seminal ruling, which was based on emissions limits set in the Paris agreement, pertains to emissions that come Shell's fossil fuel products, and not just the company's direct business activities.
The report's analysis doesn't include climate lawsuits targeted at governments or at companies involved in other areas of the fossil fuel supply chain.
In response to the report, Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, toldThe Guardian that there have been a "formidable number of cases" but "none of them have broken through" except those dealing with advertising.
"This case is about addressing the climate crisis and protecting our fundamental rights like our right to life and freedom. However, it is also about ensuring access to justice," said one plaintiff.
Demanding that the U.S. Supreme Court correct "an egregious error" by the Trump-appointed judges who dismissed their landmark case in May, the 21 plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States on Thursday filed a petition asking the high court to take action that would require the lower judicial panel to "follow the rule of law and precedent."
The petition was announced by Our Children's Trust, the legal group that has represented the Juliana plaintiffs for nearly a decade since they filed their lawsuit asserting that the government's support for fossil fuel extraction and other actions have "violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources."
The group asked the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus—a legal tool which can be used to "confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power," according to the Department of Justice.
The maneuver is the same one that was used repeatedly by the DOJ under three different presidents since Juliana was first filed in 2015, with the Biden administration successfully dismissing the case this year.
By adhering to the DOJ's writ of mandamus and blocking a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who late last year had decided in favor of giving the plaintiffs a court trial, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel "did not follow the rule of law and precedent, and flagrantly disregarded the limits Congress and the Supreme Court placed on its jurisdiction," said Our Children's Trust on Thursday.
"Today, I'm asking the Supreme Court to correct the 9th Circuit's abuse of the rules meant to protect our ability as young citizens to bring cases against our government. The rule of law and our constitutional democracy depend on it," said one plaintiff named Avery. "If you care about justice, fundamental rights, and the preservation of our democracy, you care about Juliana. This case is about addressing the climate crisis and protecting our fundamental rights like our right to life and freedom. However, it is also about ensuring access to justice. I urge the Supreme Court to make a decision that will make their children, grandchildren, and all future generations proud. Let us go to trial."
Our Children's Trust noted that the panel of judges appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump attempted to "obscure" their ruling in May "by issuing a brief, unpublished order."
"Such actions undermine the integrity of the judiciary and threaten the fairness of the legal process for citizen litigants who are not wielding the power of the federal government's resources," the group said.
The 9th Circuit ruling also disregarded the Supreme Court's mandatory conditions for a writ of mandamus, which can only be granted if there is no other way to get relief from a "significant harm" caused by a lower court and if the right to relief is "clear and indisputable."
"The DOJ's petition did not even address or come close to meeting these criteria," said Our Children's Trust.
The group noted that the federal government's efforts to block a case in which young people are claiming the right to be protected from planetary heating and from diseases and premature death caused by pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure have gone on so long that the case's youngest plaintiff, who was eight when Juliana was filed, "can now drive and has spent more than half his life as a plaintiff waiting for trial in the face of the most aggressive litigation tactics ever to come out of the Department of Justice."
In federal civil cases that go to trial, a trial begins an average of 27 months from the case's first filing. Juliana was filed 109 months ago.
The writ of mandamus petition is necessary to correct the 9th Circuit's "overreach," said chief legal counsel Julia Olson. "Upholding these principles of fair process is vital for maintaining trust in our judicial system, regardless of what the justices may think about the merits of the case."
The petition was filed a day after Our Children's Trust sent a letter to the Biden administration asking officials to engage in meaningful settlement talks. Nearly 350,000 people signed petitions asking the administration to meet the demand, and the signatures were delivered Wednesday by 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben and Jerome Foster II, the youngest ever White House environmental justice adviser.
"Our ability to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution harming our planet and our children are fundamental freedoms we risk losing," said McKibben, calling on the Biden administration to take the opportunity "to show [its] commitment to climate action, to youth, and to the future!"