Judge dismisses cities’ global warming case

A federal judge dismissed a case brought against the world’s five largest private oil companies by the Oakland and San Francisco city attorneys in an order that reaffirms the limits of the judiciary.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said he was bound by the separation of powers and that global warming is too international a problem for one district court to decide.

“Although the scope of plaintiffs’ claims is determined by federal law, there are sound reasons why regulation of the worldwide problem of global warming should be determined by our political branches, not by our judiciary,” he wrote in a ruling filed late Monday.

The ruling mirrored the arguments Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. made on behalf of Chevron Corp. at a hearing in May. Boutrous cautioned the judge not to “invade Congress’ territory” by delving into foreign affairs decisions.

Steve W. Berman, a partner with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP who represents the cities, said he disagreed with the ruling and that his clients are examining their options on how to respond to it.

Boutrous wrote in an email that he was very pleased with the ruling.

“Judge Alsup followed a long line of decisions recognizing that climate change is a complex international problem that requires a global solution, not litigation,” he wrote. “Not a single court has allowed these types of claims to proceed.”

Alsup meticulously recounted the history of global warming science stretching back to the 1890s. He wrote that climate change is undeniably happening and both sides of the litigation have acknowledged it, but concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim he had the power to remedy. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al., 17-CV06011 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 20, 2017).

The judge wrote that scientists agree the burning of fossil fuels is one of the most significant contributors to the problem but they have also identified many other causes of global warming.

“Deforestation has been and remains a significant contributor to the rise in carbon dioxide,” he wrote. “Others include volcanoes and wildfires in greater numbers.”

Alsup wrote that the plaintiffs attempted to narrow the issue by focusing on a public nuisance claim, alleging that rising sea levels will damage their cities, but the breadth of the case would still be staggering because the sources of global warming are dispersed worldwide.

“The scope of plaintiffs’ theory is breathtaking,” he wrote. “It would reach the sale of fossil fuels anywhere in the world, including all past and otherwise lawful sales, where the seller knew that the combustion of fossil fuels contributed to the phenomenon of global warming.”

The judge tipped his hand in the May hearing, explaining that he was leaning toward a conclusion that he couldn’t focus solely on the negative aspects of fossil fuels and had to account for the economic good that was caused by the industrial revolution as well. He followed up on that line of thought in his ruling.

“Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal,” he wrote. “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?”