SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
climate lawsuits
GOP Lawmaker Says Bill Being Crafted to Shield Big Oil From Climate Liability Lawsuits
"Let’s be clear: You don’t need immunity unless you are in fact responsible for the damages claimed in these lawsuits," said one climate organizer.
Feb 12, 2026
Weeks after the largest oil and gas trade organization in the US unveiled its 2026 policy agenda featuring the goal of shielding companies from "abusive state climate lawsuits," a Republican congresswoman acknowledged at a hearing Wednesday that GOP lawmakers are actively working to stop legal complaints and legislation that aim to hold the industry accountable for mounting climate harms.
At the House Judiciary Committee hearing in which the panel conducted oversight of Attorney General Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wy.) informed Bondi that she is currently "working with [her] colleagues in both the House and Senate to craft legislation tackling" superfund laws like ones passed in Vermont and New York, which require fossil fuel giants to contribute to paying for climate damage wrought by their oil and gas extraction.
The legislation Hageman is working on would also aim to kill state and local climate lawsuits like one filed last month by Michigan alleging antitrust violations by fossil fuel companies and another filed by Boulder, Colorado against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy subsidiaries. The parties in the latter case are awaiting a US Supreme Court review.
At the hearing, Bondi agreed with Hageman's assertion that such lawsuits and state laws "require a federal response" and said the Department of Justice would consider taking action to "protect federal supremacy over interstate emissions and energy policy."
“Multiple climate lawsuits are now advancing toward trial,” Hageman said. “Clearly this is an area in which Congress has a role to play."
Recent reporting suggests that Hageman's efforts are a response to the fossil fuel industry's lobbying to avoid accountability for climate disasters that have increasingly been linked to planetary heating, which international scientists agree is being caused by fossil fuel extraction—despite the congresswoman's dismissal of "speculative future climate change harms."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said last month in its policy agenda that it aims to "stop extreme climate liability policy" and end the "expansion of climate 'superfund' policies."
Last year, 16 GOP state attorneys general proposed the creation of a "liability shield" for fossil fuel giants, while state legislators in Oklahoma and Utah have introduced bills to bar most civil lawsuits against companies over the emissions or their role in the climate emergency.
Hageman and other opponents of scientists' and experts' demand for a transition away from fossil fuels have suggested such lawsuits are unserious attempts to increase "mismanaged state budgets by imposing fees on consumers and businesses," as the congresswoman claimed.
API president Mike Sommers said last month that the mounting legal challenges are “denying facts, delaying progress, and ignoring the realities of rising demand"—despite the fact that an analysis by climate think tank Ember last year found a growing expansion of renewable energy worldwide while the Trump administration insists on reviving coal production and killing solar and wind power projects.
"Congress should not close the courthouse doors to communities seeking redress. Big Oil is not entitled to special immunity from the consequences of its conduct.“
Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau told ExxonKnews in December that the efforts to shield companies from climate liability suggest that fossil fuel giants and proponents like Hageman know that lawsuits like Michigan's and Boulder's would likely stand up in court.
"If these cases are as frivolous as the oil companies’ briefs pretend, then why in the world are you busting your butt to get a declaration of immunity from Congress?” said Parenteau.
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, emphasized that "a federal liability shield for fossil fuel companies would not lower energy prices or ease the cost of living. It would simply shift more of the financial burden onto working families and local governments while insulating one of the most profitable industries in history from accountability."
"Congress should not close the courthouse doors to communities seeking redress," said DiPaola. "Big Oil is not entitled to special immunity from the consequences of its conduct.“
Climate lawsuits have been filed against companies by 11 states including Maine, California, and Rhode Island, and in addition to the Boulder case, lawsuits filed in Honolulu and Washington, DC are advancing toward trial after courts denied the defendant's motions to dismiss them.
Hageman announced her effort to stop climate liability lawsuits and laws the same day that new research led by Oregon State University ecology professor William Ripple was published in the journal One Earth, showing that multiple critical Earth systems are closer to becoming unstable than previously thought, due to the climate emergency.
That pattern is putting the planet on a "hothouse" path, the scientists warn, with feedback loops amplifying the effects of planetary heating like extreme heatwaves and weather disasters.
“As communities across the US move closer to putting Big Oil companies on trial to make them pay for the damage their climate lies have caused, the fossil fuel industry is panicking and pleading with Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card," said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity.
“Let’s be clear: You don’t need immunity unless you are in fact responsible for the damages claimed in these lawsuits," he said. "A liability shield for Big Oil would bar the courthouse doors for communities across the country and stick US taxpayers with the massive and growing bill for climate damages, while bailing out corporate polluters from having to pay for the mess they made."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress, Don't Shield Big Oil From Accountability
As city leaders from across the US gather this week to discuss our collective priorities, let’s reaffirm our commitment to protect access to the courts for all our communities.
Nov 18, 2025
As local leaders from across the country gather in Salt Lake City this week for the annual National League of Cities conference to advocate for the interests of local governments, the challenges of protecting and preparing our communities for the future are clearer than ever. Local governments and their taxpayers are being stretched thin. Between the rising cost of living, increasingly severe weather disasters, escalating maintenance costs, and other expenses, local leaders like us in Colorado, Wisconsin, and beyond are having to make tough decisions about our priorities—and the last thing we need is to have the tools at our disposal taken away from us.
And yet, there is a campaign in Congress right now that aims to do just that.
Goliaths of industry, including pesticide and oil companies, have been lobbying Congress for legal liability shields that would block communities from holding them accountable in court for any of their bad actions. No matter your politics, we should all agree that it’s dangerous and wrong to hand any industry a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card.
Bayer, the maker of Roundup, is asking Congress to put an end to the lawsuits the megacorporation is facing for the health harms its product has caused for years—and some lawmakers are actually pushing legislation that would do so.
Broad legal shields for entire industries would not only threaten local governments’ ability to pursue accountability, but also violate a core value of our justice system.
Similarly, lobbyists for oil and gas companies are lobbying federal lawmakers for a legal shield that could effectively put the fossil fuel industry above the law and block dozens of state and local lawsuits the companies are currently facing for deceiving the public about how their products’ fuel climate change. Municipalities in Colorado, one of our home states, are among the communities demanding that Big Oil companies pay their fair share of the climate costs taxpayers are now facing to adapt to an increasingly severe climate. Like tobacco and opioid companies, fossil fuel companies have long known their products were dangerous, but pushed disinformation to cover up the evidence and protect their profits, while our communities pay the price.
Plainly, our right to access the courts is under attack. Local leaders understand the power that comes from being able to access the courts, which is why the National League of Cities—which represents more than 2,700 cities across the country—has a standing commitment to oppose any federal legal shield that would undermine municipalities’ authority to bring affirmative litigation.
These attacks on our right to access the courts cannot stand. Broad legal shields for entire industries would not only threaten local governments’ ability to pursue accountability, but also violate a core value of our justice system. When bad actors lie to the public and cause harm in our communities, the legal system is supposed to serve as a fair venue—where arguments and evidence are considered—but that system is not possible when you take away our ability to present arguments and evidence at all.
Imagine if Big Tobacco or opioid manufacturers had secured legal immunity from Congress—communities decimated by cancer and addiction would never have been able to fund treatment centers and public health campaigns without first filing accountability lawsuits only made possible through access to the justice system.
As city leaders from across the US gather this week to discuss our collective priorities, let’s reaffirm our commitment to protect access to the courts for all our communities and speak with one voice across party lines to ensure that our congressional representatives do the same.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Time to Make Polluters Pay': Study Ties Fossil Fuel Pollution Directly to Deadly Heatwaves
"We're talking about real people who died, real crops that failed, and real communities that suffered, all because of decisions made in corporate boardrooms," said one campaigner.
Sep 11, 2025
A study published Wednesday in the journal Nature establishing "that the influence of climate change on heatwaves has increased, and that all carbon majors, even the smaller ones, contributed substantially to the occurrence of heatwaves," is fueling fresh calls for fossil fuel giants to pay for the deadly impacts of their products.
With previous "attribution studies," scientists have generally looked at single extreme weather events. The new study, led by Sonia Seneviratne, a professor at the Swiss university ETH Zurich, is unique for its systematic approach—but that's not all.
"Past studies have mostly looked at emissions from people and countries. This time, we're focusing on the big carbon emitters," explained lead author Yann Quilcaille, a postdoctoral researcher in Seneviratne's group, in a statement.
"We are now at the point where we recognize the serious consequences of extreme weather events for the world's economies and societies—heat-related deaths, crop failures, and much, much more," he said. "People are concerned about who contributed to these disasters."
The researchers found that climate change made 213 heatwaves from 2000–23 "more likely and more intense, to which each of the 180 carbon majors (fossil fuel and cement producers) substantially contributed." They also found that global warming since 1850-1900 made heatwaves 2000-09 about 20 times more likely, and those 2010-19 more likely.
"Overall, one-quarter of these events were virtually impossible without climate change," the paper states. "The emissions of the carbon majors contribute to half the increase in heatwave intensity since 1850-1900. Depending on the carbon major, their individual contribution is high enough to enable the occurrence of 16-53 heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible in a preindustrial climate."
Anybody surprised? Emissions from 14 fossil fuel giants drove 213 major heatwaves since 2000, making >50 deadly ones 10,000× more likely and adding up to +2.2°C increased intensityAll while knowing the impact of GHG emissionsCorporate negligence =Human costwww.theguardian.com/environment/...
[image or embed]
— Ian Hall (@ianhall.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 12:37 PM
While the study highlights the climate pollution of "14 top carbon majors," including the governments of the former Soviet Union, China (coal and cement), India (coal), and the companies Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, ExxonMobil, Chevron, National Iranian Oil Company, BP, Shell, Pemex, and CHN Energy, Quilcaille said that "the contributions of smaller players also play a significant role."
"These companies and corporations have also primarily pursued their economic interests, even though they have known since the 1980s that burning fossil fuels will lead to global warming," the researcher added.
In a review of the study for Nature, climate scientist Karsten Hausten from Germany's Leipzig University pointed out that "Quilcaille and colleagues' results, as well as the attribution framework that they have developed, provide a tool to continue the legal battle against individual companies and countries."
"This study is a leap forward that could be used to support future climate lawsuits and aid diplomatic negotiations," he wrote. "Finally, it is another reminder that denial and anti-science rhetoric will not make climate liability go away, nor will it reduce the ever-increasing risk to life from heatwaves across our planet."
Hausten was far from alone in recognizing how the new research could contribute to climate cases. Jessica Wentz, senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, pointed to the International Court of Justice's landmark advisory opinion from July that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action against the global crisis.
"Initially, when a plaintiff needs to show that they have standing in a case, they have to allege that they have an injury that is traceable to the defendant's conduct," she told CBC, suggesting the new study will help establish that connection.
"The methodologies that underpin these types of findings can also be used in more fungible ways to look at not only the contributions of the carbon majors, but presumably you could use a similar approach to start looking at government," Wentz said.
Christopher Callahan, a scientist at Indiana University Bloomington who has published research showing that economic damages from rising extreme heat can be tied to companies such as Exxon, said that "this study adds to a growing but still small literature showing it's now possible to draw causal connections between individual emitters and the hazards from climate change."
"There is a wealth of evidence now that major fossil fuel producers were aware of climate change before the rest of the public was and used their power and profit to undermine climate action and discredit climate science," he said, adding that it is "morally appropriate" to hold companies accountable for the emissions of their products.
Callahan also gathered some of the relevant research in a series of posts on Bluesky, noting that on the same day that this new study was published, another team "quantified the thousands of heat-related deaths in Zurich, Switzerland that can be attributed to climate change—and showed that dozens of these deaths are due to the emissions from these individual firms."
"Together, this science—and the broader attribution science that preceded it—are building a clear scientific case for climate accountability," he concluded.
Several US states and municipalities in recent years have launched lawsuits and passed legislation designed to make Big Oil pay for driving the deadly climate emergency—and earlier this year, drawing on an essay in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, an American woman filed the first climate-related wrongful death suit against fossil fuel companies.
In a Wednesday statement to The Guardian about the new study, Cassidy DiPaola, a spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, said that "we can now point to specific heatwaves and say: 'Saudi Aramco did this. ExxonMobil did this.'"
"When their emissions alone are triggering heatwaves that wouldn't have happened otherwise," she added, "we're talking about real people who died, real crops that failed, and real communities that suffered, all because of decisions made in corporate boardrooms."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular