Timeline, Smoking Guns, Additional Articles
Puerto Rico, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oakland/San Francisco,
Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil for Climate Deaths
David Arkush, Donald Braman
Given the extreme lethality of the conduct and the awareness of the catastrophic
risk on the part of fossil fuel companies, should they be charged with
homicide? Could they be convicted? In answering these questions, this
Article makes several contributions to our understanding of criminal law
and the role it could play in combating crimes committed at a massive
scale. It describes the doctrinal and social predicates of homicide prosecutions
where corporate conduct endangers much or all of the public.
New climate paper calls for charging big US oil firms with homicide.
B. Kahn (The Guardian)
This article explores a new way of holding big oil companies accountable
for climate change: trying them for homicide.
New York Considers First-in-the-Nation Bill to Charge Fossil Fuel Companies
for Climate Change Destruction
M. Simoes (City Limits)
New York’s ‘Climate Change Super Fund’ bill would require
the most prolific oil and gas producers to pay $3 billion dollars a year
for the next 25 years for their share of total greenhouse gas emissions.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), the largest U.S. trade association
for the oil and natural gas industry, sent a statement to New York State
legislators saying its members “strongly oppose this bill”
and called for it to be removed from the state’s final budget.
Senate poised to revive probe of Big Oil climate claims.
C.Hiar (E&E News)
As the new position atop the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s,
is continuing to investigate Big Oil’s alleged efforts to mislead
the public about the causes and consequences of global warming.
Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections.
G. Supran, N. Oreskes, S. Rahmstorf
This report shows that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s
and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully.
Using established statistical techniques, the authors found that 63 to
83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were
accurate in predicting subsequent global warming.
CO2, Four, Six, Eight, How Do We Abate? Climate Change and Public Nuisance Law
A paper my David Rose, a 2023 J.D. Candidate at the University of Oregon
School of Law, that provides background on nuisance law and how the courts
distinguish between damages and the equitable remedy of abatement.
Jurisdiction delays lawsuits against Big Oil: the Biden administration can help
Delta Merner, Ph.D., is the lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate
Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists Nationwide. In this paper,
he discussed how fssil fuel companies are using deliberate delay tactics
to keep cases out of state courts and what the administration should and
could do about it.
Liability for Public Deception: Linking Fossil Fuel Disinformation to Climate Damages
J. Wetz, B. Franta
The authors examine how tort plaintiffs can establish a causal nexus between
public deception and damages, drawing from past litigation, particularly
claims filed against manufacturers for misleading the public about the
risks of tobacco, lead paint, and opioids. Their key finding is that courts
may infer public reliance on false and misleading statements using multiple
lines of evidence, including information about the scope and magnitude
of the deceptive communications, defendants’ internal assessments
of the efficacy of their disinformation campaigns, acknowledgements of
intended reliance made by defendants, expert testimony on the effects
of disinformation, public polling data, and more.
Research Priorities for Climate Litigation
B. Franta, D. Merner, J. Wentz, et al
This article characterizes key research gaps and opportunities for scientists
across disciplines to do work that informs the rapidly growing number
of climate lawsuits cases worldwide. It focuses on research that can be
used to establish government and corporate responsibility for GHG emissions
and climate change-related damages.
Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative
F. Otto, et al
In this article, the authors step back from a case-specific analysis in
this article and identify the social context in which law and science
operate and intersect. They assert that without a general understanding
of the urgency of climate change and the scientifically proven fact that
climate change impacts the present, and that it is possible to attribute
individual losses to human-caused climate change, the fate and future
of climate litigation focusing on losses and damages will continue to
encounter major obstacles in courts.
Tortious claims and climate change: Where are we now?
A. Chaize, I. Thain, J. Medlong
This is an examination at the 2022 judgement of the Court of Appeal of
New Zealand in Smith v Fonterra in which the court considered whether
to strike out a cause of action based on a novel tortious duty of care
to “cease contributing to damage to the climate system.”
Oil & Gas Lobbying, 2022
This article lists the amount of money Big Oil and Gas companies spent
on lobbying in 2022.
Climate Change and the Clean Air Act of 1970. Part 1: The Scientific Basis.
N. Oreskes, et al
This Article reviews this history and its role in the passage of the Clean
Air Act of 1970.
Climate change attribution and legal contexts: evidence and the role of
E. Lloyd, T. Shepherd
The study of this article finds that while climate change is recognized
as a significant threat to the industry, innovation efforts are hindered
by various barriers such as lack of financial resources, limited knowledge
and skills, and a lack of industry-wide collaboration. The article concludes
by recommending the need for a collaborative approach to climate change
adaptation in the industry, as well as increased support from government
and research organizations to overcome the barriers to innovation.
Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation
F. Otto, et al
In this paper the authors discuss the challenges to scientifically demonstrating
causation to climate change and the role of climate-science in past litigation
and the evidence needed.
The Law and Science of Climate Change Attribution
M. Burger, J. Wentz, R. Horton
This Article describes how climate change detection and attribution science
is now and may in the future be used in policymaking and litigation. We
focus primarily on litigation, as this is one key context in which attribution
science is influencing the legal discourse on “responsibility”
for climate change.
Attributable damage liability in a non-linear climate
F. Otto, L. Harrington
The authors examine current research efforts linking the observed impacts
of climate-related events to human influences.
12 State Amicus Brief. Exxon Mobile Corp v Attorney General of New York, et.
Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Opposition
to Defendants’ Renewed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint Exxon Mobile’s brief in support of Motion for Leave.
Exxon Mobile Brief. State of New York v Exxon Mobil
Exxon Mobil’s Opposition to the Attorney General’s Motion to Quash.
Scientists, Legal Scholars Brief State Prosecutors on Fossil Fuel Companies’
Peter Frumhoff speaks out on the evidence and argument for fossil industry
climate accountability in public forums across the US.
The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers
N. Oreskes, R. Heede, P. Frumhoff
Responsibility for climate change lies at the heart of societal debate
over actions to address it. But climate responsibilities can be attributed
in other ways as well. In this article, the authors explore the conceptual
territory of responsibility.
The Climate Deception Dossiers
K. Mulvey, S. Shulman
In 1015, U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who was chair of the U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, had famously and repeatedly
called climate change “a hoax.” The hoax was the decades’
long campaign by a handful of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies-such
as Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Peabody Energy-to deceive
the American public by distorting the realities and risks of climate change,
sometimes acting directly and sometimes acting indirectly through trade
associations and front groups. This report presents seven “deception
dossiers”-collections containing some 85 internal company and trade
association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come
to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests.
Climate Change and the Law
Chapter 17: Climate change in the courts: jurisdiction and common law litigation
Lewis & Clark Law School
(with and excerpt by M. Woods)
This book comprehensively assesses the law and science of climate change,
as well as the policy choices for responding to this global problem. Chapter
17 includes a section includes an excerpt from a law review article by
Professor Mary Wood, who has argued for an expansion of the public trust
doctrine to encompass climate change.
Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control
M. Johnson House. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
This is a summary of the workshop on Climate Accountability, Public Opinion,
and Legal Strategies.
The Conundrum of Climate Change Causation: Using Market Share Liability
to Satisfy the Identification Requirement in Native Village of Kivalina
v. Exxonmobil Co.
S. Lawson (Fordham Environmental Law Review)
Drafted by 2012 J.D. Candidate Samantha Lawson of Fordham University School
of Law, this article paper focuses on civil lawsuits filed by local governments,
environmental groups, private parties, and states claiming that greenhouse
gas emissions are actionable at common law.
Climate change, causation, and delayed harm
E. Biber ("Climate Change, Causation, and Delayed Harm," Hofstra
Law Review: Vol. 37: Iss. 4, Article 4)
Memo: Fossil Fuel Climate Change Claims
Memo: Defenses Asserted in Climate Change Cases