In recent years, an unfortunate narrative has taken hold among some local officials that energy producers should be held liable for the global challenge of climate change. This narrative, while convenient to those looking to cast blame on a single industry, is at odds with the reality that energy manufacturers are a key part of any effective solution. Indeed, manufacturers across the board not only have acknowledged the need to tackle climate change but have backed up their words with actions, embracing innovative policies to reduce their environmental footprint.
Despite those efforts, they find themselves in court: over a dozen states, cities, and counties have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel producers, seeking to extract money to cover the impacts of climate change. After two years of bouncing around federal and state courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to weigh in. On Jan. 19, the Justices will hear oral arguments in their review of an appeals court decision remanding Baltimore’s lawsuit against energy producers to state court.
While the issue before the court is narrowly focused on whether the case must be heard in state or federal court, nevertheless, it holds critical importance for the overall future of the remaining lawsuits. That’s because the cities and states that have filed cases are doing so in state courts in an attempted “end-run” around a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored the pivotal ruling for a unanimous court, writing that regulating emissions is the domain of the Environmental Protection Agency, not of courtrooms.
As the Wall Street Journal editorialized this past fall, allowing the energy firms to move these lawsuits to federal courts “would effectively cause the cases to combust” because of this precedent. That would be a good thing.
Ultimately, these lawsuits should be dismissed. Instead of wasting time and resources in court, state and local officials should push the federal government to pursue balanced energy policies that protect communities from climate change while keeping energy affordable and accessible for everyone. And to do this effectively, energy manufacturers should have a seat at the table, not on the other side of the courtroom in a long-drawn-out legal battle. I share my fellow Democrats’ environmental concerns and the need to take action. But lawsuits are not the answer to the problem at hand.
In the first place, as the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project wrote in a lengthy report, the climate litigation is “riddled with inconsistencies.” On the one hand, proponents claim publicly that the lawsuits are designed to change the fossil fuel industry and lower emissions. Yet, in court, the report reveals their lawyers “argue these cases are not meant to change the industry or regulate emissions at all.”
Most importantly, the lawsuits are simply unwarranted given the environmental progress that manufacturers have made, all while contributing to the economy and providing us with products we rely on daily.
The energy industry’s development of natural gas has been especially productive for reducing emissions and providing a critical backstop for renewables. Ambassador Richard Kauzlarich, co-director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy at George Mason University, pointed out that “renewables need natural gas for backup—or ‘load-following’—providing the rapid backup and reliability that those intermittent sources require and electricity consumers demand.”
In keeping with this trend, many energy manufacturers have demonstrated a commitment to reducing emissions. ExxonMobil, for example, recently announced plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions 15% to 20% by 2025, compared to 2016 levels, while also significantly reducing methane intensity and flaring intensity.
Other major energy manufacturers, including Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, are also pursuing clean energy solutions, investing billions of dollars, and pledging large reductions in emissions.
Praising this collective action, and by extension, energy manufacturers, may prove difficult for some, but there is no denying the positive results. At the end of the day, all of society bears some responsibility for contributing to climate change, and we all should be working together to develop meaningful solutions. Meanwhile, it’s time for this legal blame game to end.
Charles Stenholm represented West Texas in Congress as a Democrat from 1979-2005.
