Trending
Residents of California are suffering under some of the highest energy prices in America. So why then are some of the Golden State’s elected officials trying to make things even worse?
In September of last year, Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a climate change lawsuit against energy producers with this objective appearing to be an express goal. At a discussion regarding the litigation in April, he said that one purpose of the lawsuit was to make oil and gas “more expensive” as a way to disincentivize the use of these energy sources and impose “billions of dollars” in costs that these companies will “have to share with their shareholders.”
Taken on its face, this statement reveals a narrow-minded indifference to the struggles of his constituents at best and willful disregard for the public welfare at worst. Such a callous attitude not only threatens to increase gas prices by at least 62 cents per gallon, according to one calculation, but also jeopardizes the more than 1 million jobs and $217 billion in GDP that the oil and gas industry supports in California.
Dig a little deeper and things get even more concerning.
While some of these climate change lawsuits were originally tried in federal court, particularly by the Cities of San Francisco and Oakland, there has been a push over the last several years to shift legal action over to state court. This shift has not been driven by any new revelation about proper jurisdiction, but more by the fact that time and again federal judges have tossed these cases out on their merits, finding that this matter is not an issue for the judiciary to decide.
A July 31st filing in the case alleges that Attorney General Bonta acknowledged the reality that bringing his suit in federal court would be “close to being outcome determinative” and that he filed a new action “as soon as [he] knew that [he] could bring [his] case in state court.” Such a revelation would seem to suggest that this tactic is a politically motivated lawsuit and that the Attorney General does not have any real interest in letting the rule of law guide his actions.
By effectively engaging in forum-shopping it appears that a calculated move was taken with the hope of gaining home court advantage. But unfortunately for the Attorney General, the merits of the case are faulty, and the fact remains that state laws cannot apply to the claims that this lawsuit advances.
The various allegations of deception, for example, simply do not pass the smell test. The Attorney General claims that the defendants in this case deceived the public “about climate change,” but the charge falls flat when one considers the tens of thousands of scientific papers that have been published on the matter, which support their position on climate change. In addition, information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that “California is the largest consumer of jet fuel and second-largest consumer of motor gasoline among the 50 states.” It’s hard to allege “deception” when the state has willingly consumed these energy products more than anywhere else.
With regard to the charges of public nuisance and damage to natural resources, California is suing over activity that took place beyond the state’s borders and as such, state laws are incapable of applying to the Attorney General’s claims. Also, due to the global nature of the emissions that purportedly cause climate change, it is impossible to prove a causal relation between an energy company’s production and climate change impacts in a specific area.
In light of these facts, Attorney General Bonta should abandon this misguided and potentially harmful endeavor. Not only does it threaten to exacerbate California’s already burdensome energy costs, but it also risks circumventing proper legal channels in a sinister pursuit of a predetermined outcome that could set a dangerous precedent. It’s crucial that public officials instead focus on balanced solutions that pragmatically address climate challenges.
John Doolittle is an attorney who previously represented California in the House of Representatives. He served on the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as the Vice Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
Residents of California are suffering under some of the highest energy prices in America. So why then are some of the Golden State’s elected officials trying to make things even worse?
In September of last year, Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a climate change lawsuit against energy producers with this objective appearing to be an express goal. At a discussion regarding the litigation in April, he said that one purpose of the lawsuit was to make oil and gas “more expensive” as a way to disincentivize the use of these energy sources and impose “billions of dollars” in costs that these companies will “have to share with their shareholders.”
Taken on its face, this statement reveals a narrow-minded indifference to the struggles of his constituents at best and willful disregard for the public welfare at worst. Such a callous attitude not only threatens to increase gas prices by at least 62 cents per gallon, according to one calculation, but also jeopardizes the more than 1 million jobs and $217 billion in GDP that the oil and gas industry supports in California.
Dig a little deeper and things get even more concerning.
While some of these climate change lawsuits were originally tried in federal court, particularly by the Cities of San Francisco and Oakland, there has been a push over the last several years to shift legal action over to state court. This shift has not been driven by any new revelation about proper jurisdiction, but more by the fact that time and again federal judges have tossed these cases out on their merits, finding that this matter is not an issue for the judiciary to decide.
A July 31st filing in the case alleges that Attorney General Bonta acknowledged the reality that bringing his suit in federal court would be “close to being outcome determinative” and that he filed a new action “as soon as [he] knew that [he] could bring [his] case in state court.” Such a revelation would seem to suggest that this tactic is a politically motivated lawsuit and that the Attorney General does not have any real interest in letting the rule of law guide his actions.
By effectively engaging in forum-shopping it appears that a calculated move was taken with the hope of gaining home court advantage. But unfortunately for the Attorney General, the merits of the case are faulty, and the fact remains that state laws cannot apply to the claims that this lawsuit advances.
The various allegations of deception, for example, simply do not pass the smell test. The Attorney General claims that the defendants in this case deceived the public “about climate change,” but the charge falls flat when one considers the tens of thousands of scientific papers that have been published on the matter, which support their position on climate change. In addition, information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that “California is the largest consumer of jet fuel and second-largest consumer of motor gasoline among the 50 states.” It’s hard to allege “deception” when the state has willingly consumed these energy products more than anywhere else.
With regard to the charges of public nuisance and damage to natural resources, California is suing over activity that took place beyond the state’s borders and as such, state laws are incapable of applying to the Attorney General’s claims. Also, due to the global nature of the emissions that purportedly cause climate change, it is impossible to prove a causal relation between an energy company’s production and climate change impacts in a specific area.
In light of these facts, Attorney General Bonta should abandon this misguided and potentially harmful endeavor. Not only does it threaten to exacerbate California’s already burdensome energy costs, but it also risks circumventing proper legal channels in a sinister pursuit of a predetermined outcome that could set a dangerous precedent. It’s crucial that public officials instead focus on balanced solutions that pragmatically address climate challenges.
John Doolittle is an attorney who previously represented California in the House of Representatives. He served on the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as the Vice Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using ‘Content here, content here’, making it look like readable English. Many desktop publishing packages and web page editors now use Lorem Ipsum as their default model text, and a search for ‘lorem ipsum’ will uncover many web sites still in their infancy.
It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using ‘Content here, content here’, making it look like readable English. Many desktop publishing packages and web page editors now use Lorem Ipsum as their default model text, and a search for ‘lorem ipsum’ will uncover many web sites still in their infancy.
The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using ‘Content here, content here’, making
The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using ‘Content here, content here’, making it look like readable English. Many desktop publishing packages and web page editors now use Lorem Ipsum as their default model text, and a search for ‘lorem ipsum’ will uncover many web sites still in their infancy.
The information provided by California News Bird is for general informational purposes only. While we strive to ensure that the content we publish is accurate, current, and reliable, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or availability of the information, products, or services contained on our website.
