Energy companies win dismissal of Baltimore's climate change case
By Nate Raymond
July 11 (Reuters) -A Maryland judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore seeking to hold energy giants such as Exxon MobilXOM.N, BPBP.L and ChevronCVX.N responsible for climate change, saying the case went beyond the limits of state law by trying to address the effects of gas emissions globally.
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown's decision marked the first time that a state court judge has dismissed one of the myriad of lawsuits nationally by state or local governments accusing the companies of concealing from the public the dangers of using their fossil fuel products.
The lawsuit accused the companies of engaging in a sophisticated campaign to deceive the public about the dangers of their fossil-fuel products, which contribute to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change.
"There is no question that global warming and climate change are wreaking havoc on our environment," Brown wrote.
But the judge said Congress never intended for lawsuits about global pollution to be handled by individual states, and that the city's 2018 lawsuit raised questions concerning out-of-state emissions that were beyond the reach of Maryland law.
For years, the energy companies had fought to avoid litigating Baltimore's lawsuit in state court, where it was first filed, even taking the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, before federal courts sent the case back to state court.
But Brown said only federal law can govern claims over such emissions. She called Baltimore's contention that it was suing under state law only over allegedly deceptive fossil fuel marketing "a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door."
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, in a statement said the ruling "recognizes that climate policy cannot be advanced by the unconstitutional application of state law to regulate global emissions."
Sara Gross, the chief of the affirmative litigation division in the Baltimore City Department of Law, in a statement said the city disagreed with the ruling and planned to appeal.
State courts are often seen as more advantageous for plaintiffs than federal court. State court judges in other parts of the country including Hawaii, Massachusetts and Colorado have allowed similar cases to move forward.
Some cases, though, have been dismissed by federal courts, including one by New York City in a 2021 ruling whose rationale Brown followed in dismissing Baltimore's case.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a bid by oil companies to scuttle a similar lawsuit by Honolulu.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Diane Craft
Activos relacionados
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
