This could be the next big strategy for suing over climate change

Two California coastal counties and one beach-side city touched off a possible new legal front in the climate change battle this week, suing dozens of major oil, coal, and other fossil fuel companies for the damages they say they will incur due to rising seas.

A Delta plane lands as a U.S. Airways plane
 waits to take off at San Francisco airport. 

The three cases, which target firms such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, assert that the fossil fuel producers are collectively responsible for about 20 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions between 1965 and 2015. They claim that industry “knew or should have known” decades ago about the threat of climate change, and want companies to pay the costs of communities forced to adapt to rising seas.

“We’re already living the impact of sea level rise,” said Marin County Supervisor Kate Sears. She said a county vulnerability study found hundreds of county businesses and other assets could be at risk in coming years.

Read The Washington Post story - “This could be the next big strategy for suing over climate change.”

Why Environmentalists Are So Worried About Trump's Supreme Court Pick

Neil Gorsuch was named Tuesday night as
 Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

For environmentalists worried about future Supreme Court decisions on climate change, the biggest difference between Donald Trump's nominee to the court and Barack Obama's boils down to one word, Chevron.

Neil Gorsuch, chosen by Trump to fill the vacancy of Antonin Scalia, is seen as a steadfast foe of the Chevron standard. That principle says courts should defer to federal regulatory agencies when the regulators are carrying out laws that are ambiguous. In contrast to Gorsuch, Merrick Garland, nominated last year by Obama but stymied by Senate Republicans, adhered closely to the standard.

Chevron is one of the pillars of modern regulatory law, and it matters greatly to climate change activists because it has provided the Environmental Protection Agency considerable leeway in using the Clean Air Act to control carbon dioxide pollution.

Read The Inside Climate News story - “Why Environmentalists Are So Worried About Trump's Supreme Court Pick.”

BP ditches plans to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight

BP said the decision not to go ahead with
its plans to drill for oil in the Great
Australian Bight was purely commercial.

BP has decided not to go ahead with its controversial plans to drill for oil in the commonwealth marine reserve in the Great Australian Bight.

It had boasted that the Great Australian Bight had the potential to be as big an oil field as the Gulf of Mexico, where there are now more than 4,000 oil rigs.

Karoon, which just announced its plans to explore for oil last week, said the bight held “the world’s last underexplored Cretaceous basins”.

The move comes despite the company already investing millions in the venture, with a state-of-the-art oil rig being prepared in Singapore.

It is unclear where that leaves other companies with exploration licences in the region, including Chevron, Santos and Karoon.

Read The Guardian story - “BP ditches plans to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight.”

Oil, coal, cement and mining sued as greenhouse gas emissions violate human rights

Typhoon Haiyan, known locally as Yolanda,
struck in 2013 and was one of the 
most powerful storms ever recorded.

The world’s largest oil, coal, cement and mining companies have been given 45 days to respond to a complaint that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Philippines.

In a potential landmark legal case, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR), a constitutional body with the power to investigate human rights violations, has sent 47 “carbon majors” including Shell, BP, Chevron, BHP Billiton and Anglo American, a 60-page document accusing them of breaching people’s fundamental rights to “life, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and to self-determination”.

The move is the first step in what is expected to be an official investigation of the companies by the CHR, and the first of its kind in the world to be launched by a government body.

Read John Vidal’s story inThe Guardian - “World's largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case.”

CEOs just want climate certainity for Christmas

A

ll business wants for Christmas is a global carbon price, a long term climate goal and regular UN reviews to ensure all countries are pulling their weight.

That’s the assessment of Peter Bakker, formerly CEO of TNT Netherlands, now running the Geneva-based World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

The 200-strong body represents some of the world’s top banking, energy and manufacturing businesses, counting Kellogg’s, L’Oreal, Infosys, Chevron, BP and Shell as members.

It’s a loose coalition, but one that carries clout, given the trillions of dollars members have to invest.

Bakker told Climate Home he is relatively “neutral” over current plans for a global climate deal, set to be signed off 12 days before Santa starts dropping off presents.

Read the Climate Home story - “CEOs to the rescue: Can business save the world from climate change?”