June, 22 2023, 05:13pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sanjali De Silva, sdesilva@ucsusa.org, 303-396-7325
Science Group Applauds New Climate Accountability Lawsuit by Oregon's Most Populous County
The County of Multnomah—encompassing Portland and parts of Vancouver metro areas—today filed a new lawsuit aiming to hold Big Oil accountable for public nuisance and damages related to the climate change crisis, as well as consumer fraud and deception.
County Commissioners, led by County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, passed the resolution Thursday afternoon to sue oil and gas companies, energy companies, industry trade associations, and a consulting firm on behalf of their constituents, the residents of Multnomah County. The County is seeking remedies for damages related to the 2021 heat dome event, that has been directly linked to climate change through a growing body of attribution science.
The entities named in the suit include Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, the American Petroleum Institute (API), Peabody Energy, and Koch Industries. The case is also the first time the consulting firm McKinsey and Company and the trade association Western States Petroleum Association have been named as defendants.
Oregon is facing increased costs from climate related impacts including worsened air quality, increased heat related deaths and increased risk of wildfires. In a recent report, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that the world’s 88 largest fossil fuel companies—including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell—and cement manufacturers are responsible for over a third of area burned by wildfires across Western North America in the last 40 years. The historic heat dome named in the complaint also led to at least 69 heat deaths in the Portland area and record‑setting maximum temperatures of 116 degrees. The county estimates that costs from human-caused climate change will soon reach $27 billion annually in Oregon.
With today’s announcement, Multnomah County joins more than 40 cities, counties, and states across the U.S. and its territories that are suing major fossil fuel companies over devastating climate impacts and deliberate campaigns to spread disinformation about climate science and the harmful effects of their products.
Below is a statement by Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at UCS:
“Multnomah County residents are on the frontlines of devastating climate change impacts. Extreme heat and wildfires are taking a massive toll on the health, well-being, and livelihoods of community members and leaving scars that will last for generations. A growing body of attribution science is paving the way for real accountability, showing over and over that the fossil fuel industry bears a great deal of responsibility for the damage done. As the first constitutional climate lawsuit trial draws to a close in Montana, plaintiffs, advocates, and scientists are hopeful that our justice system will work effectively, informed by robust scientific evidence.
“Across the country and the world, climate litigation is helping communities resist the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to further extend a dangerous, unjust and destructive fossil fuel-dependent energy system and economy. While nothing can truly compensate for the lives lost, the homes destroyed, or the irreplaceable natural landscapes forever altered, legal avenues provide a glimmer of hope for justice. Climate litigation is a necessary mechanism to hold these corporations accountable for their callous disregard for the well-being of communities and the planet.”
Additional Resources and Analyses:
- A UCS report, “The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation.”
- A UCS report, “The Fossil Fuels Behind Forest Fires: Quantifying the Contribution of Major Carbon Producers to Increasing Wildfire Risk” and an Oregon-specific factsheet.
- A UCS report, “Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days.”
- A UCS podcast with Dr. Kristy Dahl, principal climate scientist at UCS, “Off the Charts Heat: Zombie Fires, Drought, and Heat Domes.”
- A UCS blogpost by Dr. Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation, “Three Predictions for Climate Litigation in 2023.”
- A UCS blogpost by Dr. Merner, “From Research to Action: The Growing Impact of Attribution Science.”
- A UCS blogpost by Dr. Merner, “US States and Communities are Suing the Fossil Fuel Industry: Six Things You Need to Know.”
- A UCS blogpost by Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director at UCS, “An A to Z of Fossil Fuel Industry Deception.”
- A UCS blogpost by Dr. Dahl, “In a Changing Climate, What Does a ‘Normal’ Year of Wildfires Look Like?”
- A UCS blogpost by Mark Specht, “Both Utilities and Fossil Fuel Companies Are to Blame for Western Wildfires”
- A UCS blogpost by Dr. Juliet Christian-Smith, “Western Wildfires are Burning Through Local and State Budgets”
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
'We Will Organize Those People,' Anti-Poverty Crusader William Barber Says of Millions Set to Lose Medicaid
"They will not kill us and our communities without a fight."
Jul 02, 2025
Armed with 51 caskets and a new federal analysis, faith leaders and people who would be directly impacted by U.S. President Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill got arrested protesting in Washington, D.C. this week and pledged to organize the millions of Americans set to lose their health insurance under the package.
Citing Capitol Police, The Hill reported Monday that "a total of 38 protestors were arrested, including 24 detained at the intersection of First and East Capitol streets northeast and another 14 arrested in the Capitol Rotunda. Those taken into custody were charged with crowding, obstructing, and incommoding."
The "Moral Monday" action was organized because of the "dangerous and deadly cuts" in the budget reconciliation package, which U.S. Senate Republicans—with help from Vice President JD Vance—sent to the House of Representatives Tuesday and which the lower chamber took up for consideration Wednesday.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the megabill would result in an estimated 17 million Americans becoming uninsured over the next decade: 11.8 million due to the Medicaid cuts, 4.2 million people due to expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits, and another 1 million due to other policies.
"This is policy violence. This is policy murder," Bishop William Barber said at Monday's action, which began outside the U.S. Supreme Court followed by a march to the Capitol. "That's why we brought these caskets today—because in the first year of this bill, as it is, the estimates are that 51,000 people will die."
"If you know that, and still pass it, that's not a mistake," added Barber, noting that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)—one of three Republican senators who ultimately opposed the bill—had said before the vote that his party was making a mistake on healthcare.
Moral Mondays originated in Tillis' state a dozen years ago, to protest North Carolina Republicans' state-level policymaking, led by Barber, who is not only a bishop but also president of the organization Repairers of the Breach and co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival.
This past Monday, Barber vowed that if federal lawmakers kick millions of Americans off their healthcare with this megabill, "we will organize those people," according to Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
In partnership with IPS and the Economic Policy Institute, Repairers of the Breach on Monday published The High Moral Stakes of Budget Reconciliation fact sheet, which examines the version of the budget bill previously passed by the House. The document highlights cuts to health coverage, funding for rural hospitals, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The fact sheet also points out that while slashing programs for the poor, the bill would give tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, plus billions of dollars to the Pentagon and Trump's mass deportation effort.
"Instead of inflicting policy violence on the most vulnerable, Congress should harness America's abundant wealth to create a moral economy that works for all of us," the publication asserts. "By fairly taxing the wealthy and big corporations, reducing our bloated military budget, and demilitarizing immigration policy, we could free up more than enough public funds to ensure we can all survive and thrive."
"As our country approaches its 250th anniversary," it concludes, "we have no excuse for not investing our national resources in ways that reflect our Constitutional values: to establish justice, domestic tranquility, real security, and the general welfare for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Asylum Crackdown Dealt Major Blow in 'Hugely Important' Court Ruling
"Nothing in the Constitution grants the president the sweeping authority asserted," wrote a U.S. district judge.
Jul 02, 2025
President Donald Trump's crackdown on asylum-seekers was dealt a major blow on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that the administration had vastly overstepped its legal authority with an executive order issued on the first day of his second term.
Politico reports that Moss found that Trump's January 20 executive order slapping new restrictions on asylum-seekers even if they arrive at proper points of entry exceeded his powers as outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which the judge described as containing the "sole and exclusive" procedure for properly deporting undocumented immigrants. In fact, Moss went so far as to say that Trump had established "an alternative immigration system" with his asylum order.
Moss—appointed to the district court in Washington, D.C. by former President Barack Obama—also didn't buy the administration's rationale that such drastic measures were necessary due to the emergency of an "invasion" at the southern border.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president... the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance," the judge wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in court, praised the ruling as "a hugely important decision" that will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
The original Trump order not only barred asylum-seekers who showed up at the border outside the proper points of entry, but also mandated that asylum-seekers at the points of entry provide additional documentation beyond what is required by law, including medical histories and information about potential past criminal records.
Moss' order is not going into effect immediately as he is giving the administration two weeks to prepare an appeal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowlreporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular