California vs. Big Oil: Judge Orders Plaintiffs To Find Benefits Of Fossil Fuels

The case may be nearing an end if the judge wants plaintiffs to find benefits that counter their argument.

By Irina Slav

Judge William Alsup who is hearing a case brought by San Francisco and Oakland against five Big Oil companies, has given the plaintiffs and Chevron a homework assignment that suggests the end of the case may be near. The two municipalities and Chevron must evaluate the positive effects oil dependency has had on the U.S. economy.

“We needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present. Yes, that’s causing global warming. But against that negative, we need to weigh-in the larger benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels. It’s been a huge, huge benefit,” Judge Alsup from the U.S. District Court in San Francisco said.

Suing Big Oil for climate change is turning into the latest big thing. A UN survey from last year found there are nearly 900 suits focusing on climate change across 25 countries. The latest in the United States was former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threatening to sue Big Oil for “first-degree murder”.

The San Francisco and Oakland suits were filed last September, and Reuters at the time quoted San Francisco officials as saying that the five oil companies “knowingly and recklessly created an ongoing public nuisance that is causing harm now and in the future risks catastrophic harm to human life and property.”

Full story at oilprice.com 

Advertisements

132 thoughts on “California vs. Big Oil: Judge Orders Plaintiffs To Find Benefits Of Fossil Fuels

    • Seeing we just celebrated Memorial Day, it seems appropriate to remember something that is often forgotten these days – In the early days of WW2, Rommel had invaded North Africa and trade routes to the middle east were closed down. The Allies rode to victory in WW2 on a flood of American oil production. No oil, and Germany wins the war.

      • The shipping route through the Med was closed to the Brits already in the summer of 1940, when France had been defeated and Italy had joined the German side. Oil could of course have been transported all round Africa from the Arabian Gulf -most supplies to the allied armed forces in North Africa were sent this way until the summer of 1943- but it was time-saving to use north American and Caribbean supplies of oil.

      • I think that is a little too simplified and a little too US centric. Frankly it would have made absolutely no difference. Even the Germans regarded Africa as a sideshow. What brought about the defeat of Germany occured on the Eastern Front.

      • Presumably.

        http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0277ah.pdf

        Crude Petroleum and Shale Oil production (in million tonnes) by country and/or region in 1939 was as follows:

        United States:        171.053
        USSR:                  29.53
        Europe (except USSR):   7.929
        Asia (except USSR):    28.745
        
        From this British Borneo, Burma &. Netherlands Indies
        (later Indonesia) was occupied by Japan in 1941,
        so Asia effectively produced 18.683 million tonnes for the allies.
        
        World:                284.8
        
        That is, in 1939 60% of world production came from the US.
        The British Empire could not get enough oil to wage war effectively,
        even around Africa, with no help from the US.
        
    • Can the big D’s make up their mind; suing big oil and then complaining that Trump has caused gas prices to rise.

    • The earth will die like all orbs. One thing for sure though is wont die from fossil fuels. If a million volcanoes could not do it we are unable to do it.

  1. Yes – fossil fuels have provided a huge economic benefit (that can possibly used to offset the “damages”)

    That being said, it is probably an incorrect legal standard.

      • I am not disputing that fossil fuels have brought huge economic benefits – Human progress was very slow and methodical until the start of the industrial revolution, then living standards began to skyrocket coinciding with the introduction of fossil fuels.

        that being said, It is still an incorrect legal standard –

        Though it makes it hard to argue that FF is killing the planet when life expectancies have gone for 40 -50 years to nearly 80 years.

      • This is off topic but I would like to ask if any readers of this fine site can direst me to a report or study that positively links co2 to any adverse affects to our climate. Thanks. Wm. Matlack

    • IANAL

      In a lawsuit the courts consider all kinds of things. An example is the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages. In other words, the defendant isn’t liable for damages caused by the plaintiff’s own stupidity or negligence.

      Given that the alleged CAGW is rather slow, there is plenty of time to take action to avoid its effects.

      • It seems strange that the plaintiffs are not now mitigating by stopping using fossil fuels if they are so sure they are causing such harm.

        I am at a loss as to how the judge doesn’t just ask them if they are continuing to use fossil fuels, and when they all say yes, just dismiss it.

    • He hasn’t said it is any kind of “legal standard”. It is simply evidence against the proposition of the plaintiffs. To be weighed and considered against the subjective evidence presented against “big oil”.
      I would point out that the suggested replacements for fossil fuel power couldn’t even be built without those same fossil fuels, and that plastics and other chemicals made from fossil fuels are additional benefits that would be very difficult and expensive or even, in some cases, impossible to produce without oil and gas.

      • Yeah, besides what you mentioned, in addition to food (planting, harvesting, processing, fertilizers, transportation), transportation in general, heating, cooling of buildings, treatment, and transportation of clean water, electricity, refrigeration and energy for all kinds of things, including recreation, defense of the homeland, disposal of wastes, lubrication of all machines, asphalt for roofs and roads, production of concrete for building and manufacture of building materials and lumber, being the basic building blocks of medicines, what good are fossil fuels?

  2. “Arnold Schwarzenegger threatening to sue Big Oil for ‘first-degree murder'”

    We already knew Ahnuld ain’t a lawyer.

    As for finding arguments for the other side, good lawyers are supposed to be able to do that. I could do it when I worked for the state legislature, and I could do it when I worked for a large international law firm, and I’m not even a lawyer.

    • RE: “We already knew Ahnuld ain’t a lawyer.”

      Years ago during his movie career the governator appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson to plug his latest film, which he did so enthusiastically (using the word “great” several times) that Johnny quiped, “I see the steroids didn’t affect your ego” to a huge laugh from the audience. Well it seems Johnny may have been wrong. The steroids apparently bloated his ego and shrank his intelligence significantly.

    • “We already knew Ahnuld ain’t a lawyer.”

      We already know he ain’t an actor either.

  3. “The two municipalities and Chevron must evaluate the positive effects oil dependency has had on the U.S. economy.”

    Listing the virtues of global warming would be virtually impossible for “Climatists”, because their beliefs are as firmly rooted as in any religion (“Climatism”).

    It would be like asking a Baptist to list the virtues of Satan.

    • The judge isn’t requiring each plaintiff to write an essay or some such. That’s why they have attorneys (or more likely, the paralegals) to do the grunt work.

    • I’m wondering what the odds are that the plaintiffs will come back with a claim that there are no benefits.

      • Zero chance. If you use something, you do so because it has a benefit.

        The benefits are at least the consumption of fossil fuels multiplied by what people paid to consume them. Over the last 100 years or so, that’s a pretty big number.

      • They wouldn’t dare. The judge would then be free to ban the sale and distribution of the product within the districts so claiming and they can’t let that happen.

  4. good…I like this judge
    It’s stupid and frivolous anyway….he might as well teach them a lesson

    • Hobo Moons Cartoons

      I would like to see at least a proposed end to fossil fuel dependency with a greater focus on renewable energy.

      Nice goal. I too hope for a heaven on earth.
      Now, in the real world of real energy needs and real friction and real electrical resistance and real copper and real sunlight (for up 6 hours per day average) at 16-23% efficiency and a real cost to make, install and maintain solar and windmills for 16-24% efficiency factor over a year, how are you going to actually “do” that little Utopia of a Cartoon World allowing Hobo’s to get 100% employment at $15.00 per hour?

      • I would like to see at least a proposal for a Unicorn that farts rainbows and craps skittles.

    • Why would we want to replace cheap reliable energy with energy that is expensive and unreliable?

      • C’mon Mark! You can slave at manual labour for 14-16 hours a day and die young. You’ll be hungry but you’ll be Green! After a few billion have starved off there will be more food for whoever’s left, you’ll just have to harvest it with stone tools. Like the good ole days!

    • The cheapest way to end fossil fuel dependency and focus on renewable energy is to reinstate slave labor.

    • Why Mobo? Are you willing to have the same cost/benefit analysis done on renewables as is done on fossil fuels? I mean a really comprehensive analysis considering all costs and all benefits across all spectrums of society?

      Well I have some news for you! That analysis has already been done and fossil fuels come out as far superior to renewables. Such an analysis is too complicated for any one person or group to accomplish, but it is precisely the function of a free market to make such an analysis automatically.

      Generally speaking, the more free the market is, the better the analysis. Now, the energy market hasn’t been all that free for quite some time. Interventions in favor of of renewables have been continuously forced upon the market for the past 20 years from all different angels (legislative, regulative and especially public relations)! Despite that, the market is still loudly and clearly exclaiming that fossil fuels are a much bigger positive for society than renewables. Its not even remotely close!

      97% of all people on the planet agree! We want our fossil fuels!

      Despite this overwhelming consensus, there are still those deniers that believe renewables are better for society and insist that the vast majority are wrong. I don’t know, Mobo. It seems like you are just begging to be demonized for your refusal to go along with the majority!

      • Sorry, Hobo. I must have woke up on the wrong side of the dominance-hierarchy this morning.

      • This is a very good point! The market is an effective arbiter of the utility of any product. I would certainly invoke this as it can be a very concise and powerful point. Almost impossible to refute.

      • I think you meant ‘angles’, not ‘angels’ in your note above. I certainly wouldn’t class legislative, regulatory or PR outfits as ‘angels’!

        [T’would all depend on whether they are acute angels, obtuse angels, or obverse obscure angels, wood it knot? .mod]

    • Developing the electric storage devices needed to make “renewable energy” practical would be a very good thing, but they do not exist outside fiction. The notion that if the devices are mandated, they will be invented is pure fantasy.

    • Hobo: What’s stopping you? You can file an amicus brief proposing an end to ff dependency and focus on renewables. It’s not what the Judge asked, but your use of computer/printer/paper and a car to drive to the clerk’s office will nicely answer his question re: benefits (that you seem to take for granted as you daydream about renewables, with no focus at all).

    • Hobo

      “I would like to see at least a proposed end to fossil fuel dependency with a greater focus on renewable energy.”

      Why? Until you can give a legitimate reason why or you can establish a way to do it without sacrifice why would anyone want to do this, just to make you feel good inside for solving an imaginary problem or do you actually want to be a hobo?

    • Please define “renewable energy” and also tell us the alleged benefits of “renewable energy”.

  5. This should be in Court Records. B.C.’s nine-page statement of claim alleges the intent of Alberta’s bill is to hurt to the province.

    “A significant disruption in the supply of gasoline, diesel, and crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia would cause British Columbia irreparable harm,” the document asserts. “In addition to economic harm, a sudden disruption in supply could injure human health and safety in remote communities.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/bc-files-legal-challenge-to-alberta-law/ar-AAxEIED

  6. The judge needs to make a ruling. To save the planet. That the fossil fuel company’s cease selling their harmful product in California.You’d probably get a new government in California post haste……..After the riots subsided.
    Of course he won’t but it would highlight the insanity of the case.

    • No, no, no … it would never happen that way. Instead, a State Board of fossil fuel useage and equalization would be created to … m a n a g e … use and distribution of dangerous fossil fuels. The politbureau elites would receive ALL the fossil fuels they desire because they are “essential” in the war against global warming. Then come the minor State Bureaucrats, they would receive generous fossil fuel allowances … then the average Californian … their fossil fuel allocation would be SEVERELY restricted and limited. Punishingly limited and restricted.

    • We have made amazing progress over the last few years and yet that fact goes unnoticed. The reduction in absolute poverty is almost miraculous and yet you do not hear about it.

    • One should also note that many of the deaths from famine in the last century, the 20th, were the direct result of famines caused, accidentally or deliberately, by totalitarian Communist governments, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

  7. The one part that bothers me about this is the judge stating “… Yes, that’s causing global warming. …”.

    How does the judge know that this is true?

    • Essentially the judge is bound, since both sides accepted that the use of fossil fuels causes global warming.

      The fossil fuel industry ought not to have made that concession.

  8. It looks like California governor, Jerry Brown has benefitted from oil:

    In 1974, Jerry Brown ran for governor. Executives from Pertamina, the Indonesian oil company, gave him $70,000 — $350,000 in 2017 dollars.[7]

    Gov. Brown’s sister, Kathleen Brown acknowledged that her father gave her a “living trust” that originated from money earned by her father selling Indonesian oil in California, but Gov. Brown has never said either way whether he inherited his family’s oil wealth.[7]

    Whatever the case, shortly after he won, Brown started taking actions to defend his family’s oil monopoly in California.

    Brown appointed his former campaign manager, Tom Quinn, to be Director of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), who immediately changed an air pollution regulation in order to scuttle an oil refinery being built by Chevron, which would have introduced Alaskan oil into the California market, and competed directly with the Brown family’s oil business.[7]

    At the very same time, another top Brown political aide-turned appointee, Richard Maullin, chairman of the California Energy Commission (CEC) began pressuring the state’s utilities to burn more oil rather than shift to nuclear energy.[7]

    http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/11/jerry-browns-secret-war-on-clean-energy

    • Subsidizing Jerry Brown’s candidacy is an actual example of harm done by the fossil fuel industry.

    • According to a credible source, the Brown famiky owns property that pays them oil royalties.

  9. Well one big benefit, your honor, is a lot less horse shit.

  10. Every meal I cook is achieved by the combustion of natural gas -fossil fuel
    My refrigerator keeps my fresh vegetables cold so I don’t have to eat salted pork every meal – fossil fuels
    I survive each FREEZING winter because of natural gas firing my heater – fossil fuel
    I purchase groceries by loading up my big ass SUV with abundant food – thanks fossil fuels!
    My titanium and PLASTIC hip joint allow me to walk and work – thanks fossil fuels!
    I flip a switch to turn on a light, instead of burning whale blubber for illumination
    My internet and phone providers have giant server farms powered by electricity – fossil fuels
    I didn’t have to take a COLD shower this morning, fossil fuels heated my water – thanks!
    The wife and I took a beautiful drive, top-down, on a beautiful Memorial Day weekend, with complete independence and freedom of movement, on our own time – fossil fuels the whole way.

  11. “WE needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present. Yes, that’s causing global warming. But against that negative, WE need to weigh-in the larger benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels. It’s been a huge, huge benefit,” Judge Alsup from the U.S. District Court in San Francisco said.

    “WE” is the key to this. The oil companies aren’t responsible for creating CO2. They are in the mining business. They mine, refine, and deliver products created directly from one of Earth’s natural resources. It is the “WE” that create the CO2, not the oil companies. Shouldn’t Oakland and San Francisco be going after all those that burn the product for individual or societal benefit? It is the routine individual, governmental, and societal decisions to use the product that are the “problem”, if there is one, and the cities and attorneys should be suing their citizens, themselves, and every entity that allows them to live as they do. That would go over big time, but is exactly where this judge should place any “blame”.

    • I would like the state of CA Air Resources Board to immediately cease and desist using ANY fossil fuels in their operations. No power, no lights, no computers, no phones, no paper. Nothing that isn’t directly produced by their solar panels. No products of any industry not fully powered by “solar or wind”.

  12. It played a major role in building out the California economy without the use of a significant rail system or inland waterways. The trucking fleet of the nation was largely tied to the California economy as an external supply chain and it saved the west coast from foreign aggression in WWII.

  13. It’s a pity that this happens in high summer. It would be much more effective if the plaintiffs were sent to Alaska in mid winter to contemplate the question.

  14. The Judge knows what he is doing, standard legality :
    Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.
    Mr Mueller is infamous for deleting such evidence.

  15. All new homes in California must now be equipped with 200 ft tall windmills, a small nuclear reactor, inefficient rooftop solar PV, and an overpriced battery system by order of the kangaroo court and the elected activists. Remember to pay your carbon tax on your way out.

      • The nuclear reactor only appears to be small because of its distance away. It is actually quite large at 1.4 million kilometres but because it is 150 million km. away it can be used even without any shielding.

  16. Benefits of fossil fuels.

    1. Without fossil fuels, it seems likely we wouldn’t have the resources to pay lawyers to file lawsuits like this one.

    It might be hilarious to see what the plaintiffs come up with.

  17. Judge Alsup “… Yes, that’s causing global warming. …”
    While the judge appears to be impartial, as he should be, I think he is in error in this part of his statement.

  18. Don’t get any hopes up for this judge. That he would even hear this ludicrous nonsense says a lot of bad things about his judgement.

  19. And fossil fuels allowed California to growth without the use of colonial networks like Europe.

    • That’s serious nonsense. Europe grew by becoming more productive – that’s what growth is.I certainly can’t sell to my colonies unless I am producing more than I used to, because otherwise domestic demand goes unsatisfied.

  20. There’s a lot of ammo out there that can help these companies in this fight. For example, a very recent study by James Hansen and others mentions the following:

    Global warming in the past 50 years has raised global temperature (Fig. 1) well above the prior range in the Holocene (the current interglacial period, approximately the past 11,700 years) to the level of the Eemian period (130,000 to 115,000 years ago), when sea level was 6-9 meters (20-30 feet) higher than today.
    http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/07/18/young-peoples-burden-requirement-of-negative-co2-emissions/

    What this excerpt says is that the earth was as warm as it is today (assuming today’s measurements are accurate) 115K years ago while not pointing out that CO2 levels back there were we’ll below the safe level of 350 ppm. In fact, CO2 levels 115k years ago (per the graphs I’ve seen) was around 280 ppm.

    So how the eff can people conclude that the warming today is from fossil fuels when the same warming that occurred 115K years ago occurred with earth’s ‘control knob’ set a little cooler?

  21. The judge should tell the plaintiffs that he will hear the case if they give up their fossil fueled cars and everything that is made from fossil fuels. The cities should agree to cut oil and gas to their cities before the case is heard.

  22. Judge Alsup should order San Francisco and Oakland to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in their cities.

    • or simply grant injunctive relief against future damage by disallowing the importation or use of any fossil fuel derived products within their jurisdictions. (They should be glad I am not on the bench or I would do that on their first filing!)

  23. It’s just so ridiculous, I don’t know why I keep reading follow-up posts to this farce-of-an-excuse-for-a-“lawsuit” story. I have a masochistic side, I guess.

    … “knowingly and recklessly created an ongoing public nuisance that is causing harm now and in the future risks catastrophic harm to human life and property.”

    Yeah, right, … without any complicity whatsoever by anybody who actually USEED fossil fuel, including, of course, those bringing the “lawsuit”.

  24. “Take away the energy-distribution networks and the industrial machinery from America, Russia and all the world’s industrialized countries, and within six months more than 2 Billion swiftly and painfully deteriorating people will starve to death”
    Circa 1960 – R. Buckminster Fuller

    • As the world’s human population is roughly double what it was in the 60s and a greater proportion are supported by the industrial-energy complex then it will be 4 billion starving within 6 months.

  25. If the report is correct, it said, (the Judge said):

    We needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present. Yes, that’s causing global warming.

    Can that really be true? Would a judge in a case deciding on ‘Oil’ vs AGW really have said such a thing – that compromises that which he is ‘deliberating’ on?

    • I’ll add my here as it’s relative.

      “It’s been a huge, huge benefit,” Judge Alsup from the U.S. District Court in San Francisco said.

      Is the judge qualified to make this statement?
      I thought his job was to judge the legal merit of the case and find guilt or not? How can he go making statements in court that would prejudice the case at hand. It does sound very odd.

      • Its because it does not prejudice the case at hand. He is asking whether any benefits are relevant, legally. Whether they exist or not and how big they are is not the issue. The issue is whether he is obliged to consider them.

        Its a very interesting point, and the replies will merit careful reading. This is one of a number of clues that the case is not going to turn on whether ‘the science’ is settled.

    • And yet, democrat-nominated, democrat-fund-raising, democrat-liberal-socialist-illegal-alien sponsoring Supreme Court “justices” Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Kagan who regularly promote liberal-socialist-illegal alien rallies and speaking engagements on current politics and future court cases. But “they” are considered fair and balanced and unbiased by the democrat-socialists in the media. These three reliable votes for whatever the latest anti-freedom, anti-constitution cases is desired – regardless of what the law actually says. They will invent new laws when what they want is not written. It is those only those Justices who are conservative who are “biased”, racist, and right-wing extremists, right?

  26. No problem. The plaintiffs and their lawyers should just drive down to their local grocery store and get some of that coffee and those doughnuts that magically appear on the shelves and then kick back in their air conditioned offices and determine that there are no benefits.

  27. Judge Alsup – “We needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present. Yes, that’s causing global warming.”

    It’s causing how much of the GW since 1959, Judge Alsup? Let’s also put a number on that, first. Of the “1.1C” that we’re speaking of, we know that the first 1/2 of that was naturally occurring, with the ‘consensus’ since then

  28. The San Francisco and Oakland suits were filed last September, and Reuters at the time quoted San Francisco officials as saying that the five oil companies “knowingly and recklessly created an ongoing public nuisance that is causing harm now and in the future risks catastrophic harm to human life and property.”

    You could say the same thing about people who run law schools …

  29. “The case may be nearing an end if the judge wants plaintiffs to find benefits…”
    It may be. But the source cited for this report is the Daily Caller, which was also the source for reports two months ago that the case was already dismissed.

    The judge’s order is here. It isn’t an order to “find benefits”. It is an order to submit legal arguments as to whether the court is required to consider benefits.

    “Finally, by MAY 31 AT NOON, the parties shall submit 10-page supplemental briefs on the extent to which adjudication of plaintiffs’ federal common law nuisance claims would require the undersigned judge to consider the utility of defendants’ alleged conduct. There will be no replies. “

    • It isn’t an order to “find benefits”. It is an order to submit legal arguments as to whether the court is required to consider benefits.

      True, but you’d think that, in an order to argue whether or not the court was REQUIRED to consider benefits, possible benefits WOULD have to be delineated and noted. Otherwise, how might one decide whether a requirement to consider any benefits could be determined? If no benefits exist, then there are no arguments to justify why the court might be required to consider them. But if there ARE benefits, then they have to be named, and the nature of those benefits might then weigh in a decision to require the court to consider them.

      John shot his dog. The dog was John’s son’s pet. Was there a benefit to John’s shooting his son’s pet? Well, you have to talk about the what the benefits might be, in order to consider the requirement to consider them. The dog had rabies. Shooting the dog protected John’s son and others. Because we can KNOW the benefits, we can determine whether we need to consider them. In this case, I think we do. Clearly, shooting the dog had a benefit of saving lives that not shooting it to keep it a pet did NOT.

      • “whether or not the court was REQUIRED to consider benefits, possible benefits WOULD have to be delineated and noted”
        No, it’s the other way around. The court can ask for those legal arguments within a week. But factual argument about what the benefits might be is much longer and costlier. And they won’t do that without a decision on whether it is relevant.

      • Nick S., I don’t see how “the other way around” that you suggest is even possible. How does one even KNOW to consider a benefit as relevant unless one KNOWS what the benefit is claimed to be? Discussing whether or not the court is required to consider benefits demands that a list of claimed benefits be examined, in order to KNOW whether they are required to be considered relevant.

        In other words, how can one possibly know the relevance of a benefit, unless one knows the benefit claimed?
        Once the claimed benefits are presented, acknowledging their truth or not becomes the factual basis for considering their relevance.

        Why would claimed benefits be listed and presented without claimed factual basis to justify their even being listed?

  30. Too many people continue to hide from the horrors of the dihydrogen monoxide problem associated with the evil bathtub manufacturing industry.

    When is somebody going to get the lawsuit going for THOSE guys? Do you realize the number of children dying from drowning in their products? — ALL bathtub manufacturers,… plumbers who install them, and cleaning-product companies making substances to maintain (i.e., enable) them should be sued.

    Take a look at some alarming statistics in the following report:
    http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/129419/nonpoolsub2012.pdf

    Call me a a dihydrogen monoxide hoaxer, if you must [(clear throat) … Wikipedia), but I’m acting in the same loving spirit as the carbon dioxide hoaxers, when I point all this out,

    Do I really need to say it? — Think of the children.

    • That stuff is way more dangerous than CO2! Why only a tablespoon causes death when breathed. There was a recent (past 5 years) case of a poor woman who overdosed on the stuff by ingesting it. A scourge I tell you!

      Of course don’t get me started on that dioxide stuff. In pure form that stuff can destroy a house in seconds. People have been gruesomely roasted with that stuff in hospitals. My goodness there are just so many extremely hazardous materials out there completely unregulated. Someone should do something! IT IS FOR THE CHILDREN AFTER ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

      (Do I really need to turn the sarcasm font off now?)

  31. “We needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present.”

    And we still need fossil fuels to get from the present to whenever alternative energy sources can reliably replace fossil fuels for roughly the same price. Until then, it is ridiculous to even talk about ending the use of fossil fuels. The continued existence of civilization depends on them. Of course these idiots didn’t file their lawsuit to end the use of fossil fuels. They are hoping their case becomes the next tobacco settlement and makes them filthy rich. They clearly don’t care that a win in court would increase the cost of energy for everyone. If people realized how much the price of energy affects their personal budgets and their day-to-day lives, they would come out against this lawsuit in droves.

    Increasing the cost of energy not only affects the cost of personal transportation, but also increases costs associated with heating and cooling our homes and work places, and negatively affects the production, transportation, and quality of our food and other goods we buy. Almost everything is affected by higher costs for energy. How many useful idiots out there continue to vote for politicians who brag about plans to make electricity rates necessarily skyrocket? I can’t believe they would support such people so enthusiastically If they truly understood how drastically it would affect their own pocketbooks. For some reason, a whole lot of people just can’t seem to see the obvious until it is too late to prevent it. California liberals seem to be the blindest of them all.

  32. If the San Francisco and Oakland really thought that the use of fossil fuels was bad then they would have long ago made the sale and use of fossil fuels within their city limits illegal but they have not done that.

    Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So the real party responsible for climate change is Mother Nature, so Mother Nature is the responsible party here and it is Mother Nature that should be named in the law suit. Lots of luck trying to collect on a judgement against Mother Nature.

    The possession and use of fossil fuels has always been legal here in California. It is those who make use of goods and services that have involved the use of fossil fuels that have been the ones adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. Rather than just name the oil companies they should name all those in the state of california that make use of any goods or services that involve the use of fossil fuels. In my neighborhood that would include the food we eat, the cloths that we wear, the buildings that we dwell in, and even the surfaces that we walk upon. Before bringing this legal action, The cities of San Francisco should Oakland must outlaw all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. It should also be illegal in these cities for anyone including those in city government to own fossil fuels, to make use of them in any way, and or to own or possess or make use of anything whose creation and or transport has involved the use of fossil fuels..

    • If the San Francisco and Oakland really thought that the use of fossil fuels was bad then they would have long ago made the sale and use of fossil fuels within their city limits illegal but they have not done that.

      No, this is confused. Almost as confused as the suit itself.

      Their stopping would not have reduced their exposure to the effects. So there is no reason why they should have stopped if they thought fossil fuels were leading to global warming.

      • No, you are the confused one.
        If they think fossil fuels are a problem, continuing to use fossil fuels only adds to the problem. “everybody else does it” is no excuse.

    • The real fraud is that the plaintiff cities raise money selling bonds to investors.
      The sale requires legal disclosure of known risks that might impact the city’s finances.
      Not one of the plaintiff cities believe there is enough risk from “climate change” to disclose it as a risk in their bond filing documents.
      In fact the cities and their lawyers might have committed fraud in the bond market in refusing to make this disclosure.

  33. Just because the oil companies produce it doesn’t mean we have to burn it. If you’re worried about global warming just stop using petroleum products.

    • Again, not a coherent reply. Doing that would change nothing. What is needed, if they are right, is for us all collectively to stop. The whole social structure to change. Whether I stop is immaterial.

      • To use your own confused logic: Why should anyone else stop if those cities who think its a problem refuse to stop? They think it’s a problem, then they should lead by example. They don’t, probably because they know it really, really isn’t a problem.

    • If the San Francisco and Oakland really thought that the use of fossil fuels was bad then they would have long ago made the sale and use of fossil fuels within their city limits illegal but they have not done that.

      Again, not a coherent reply. Doing that would change nothing. What is needed, if they are right, is for us all collectively to stop. The whole social structure to change. Whether I stop is immaterial.

      Whether you stop is immaterial to the need for “us all collectively to stop” and everybody change the whole social structure?? How are YOU not a part of “us collectively”? How are YOU not a part of “the whole social structure”? How does one exclude oneself from these categories, yet insist that the categories exist as some organized totality with a physical impetus to change, and ONLY when this massive collective impetus to change initiates do YOU then become a part of it that you were not a part of before?

      Talk about “not coherent” !

      • There is NOT a collective mind operating with a collective will on any issue. Somebody or some portion of the collective MUST start to set an example. You know this, of course, but you are allowing your passion to cloud your logic.

  34. Fossil fuel use made possible the world’s largest market and professional member count for bar-certified attorneys in the U.S.

  35. Surely the defence lawyers have asked pltfs lawyers if the Oak and SFran are dependent on on FF. Can they do without and, most germane,
    could they have done without over the past century when all this alledged harm was acruing? Also, is it not true that the o&g industry has singlehandedly reduced CO2 to such extent in the US thst this country leads the world 8n red7ctions. Now there is unequivocal FF benefit even for the climatogens.

  36. If the Plaintiffs answer truthfully, i.e. quote the Encyclopedia Britannia without plagiarism, the Judge can 1) dismiss the case, 2) fine the Plaintiffs for Misuse of Court Proceedings in a frivolous manner and 3) order Plaintiffs to repay court costs and costs to Defendants.

    The cheapest route for the Plaintiffs would be to resend their complaint and just pay the court costs.

    If the Plaintiffs answer falsely, then they would be hit with the full costs as stated and an additional cost for committing perjury and loss of Plaintiffs Attorney’s license to practice Law in the State of California.

    Popcorn ready for popping!

    Ha ha

Comments are closed.