Climate Litigation Insanity: More Theatre Than Science and It Invites Backlash

     I think that modern energy companies, including oil & gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass, etc., companies, those with high Scope 3 emissions or environmental liabilities in the ESG vernacular, should be required to put forth a certain amount of effort in decarbonization. They are expected to do so. I think voluntary actions are better than mandated actions. If a company is lagging on its decarbonization efforts, it can be called out by some mechanism, perhaps even by environmental groups. This does happen and can act as a useful check and balance. Regulations, whether mandated or voluntary, should not give any one company an advantage or a disadvantage, but seek to be balanced in determining regulatory burdens, if it is feasible.

     The daughter of a woman who died in her vehicle in the Pacific Northwest during a heatwave that reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit in June 2021, is suing oil & gas companies for her death. Aside from the fact that there is no way to definitively link those carbon emissions from oil & gas companies to the heat wave in that particular place and time, there is also no evidence that other factors, such as her being in a car, which can get very hot, was not the major factor in her death. Did she have functional air conditioning in the car?

     The lawsuit seems to take the format of previous lawsuits against oil companies: that they knew about global warming and failed to warn the public. This is despite the whole climate change focus that has pervaded media and science over the past few decades. If you watch or read the news, there are many warnings about the potential dangers and impacts of global warming and extreme weather. They are hard to miss.

     The article in The Cool Down notes that a group of climate researchers determined that the Heat Dome that occurred in the Pacific Northwest would have been impossible without global warming. The next thing to determine would be how much of that global warming is attributable to human actions and how much is natural. This has not been adequately determined, despite the UN’s predictions. Then, one would have to determine what percentage of that is due to oil companies and then what percentage is covered by U.S. oil companies. Then, all sorts of weather scenario likelihoods would have to be determined. The end result is likely to be riddled with errors.

“In the past 10 years, roughly three-dozen state and local governments have sued oil and gas companies over the environmental impacts of their products, according to the Times.”

     What about coal companies? Should they be sued as well?  I do sympathize with the woman filing the suit, I mean, she lost her mother, which must be devastating. However, to blame oil companies is not a solution to the problem and invites backlash from others who see it as a ploy to promote the cause of climate activism and to demonize and punish oil companies.  

     OK, But What If a resident of, say, California, dies from heat exhaustion? If the person had no access to an air conditioner or failed to use it due to the high costs of electricity (which in California are due in large part to the high share of solar on the grid), should a lawsuit against a solar power company be allowed in that scenario? Or maybe the person could not get a ride to a place with air conditioning due to high gasoline prices due to state tax policies. Should they be able to sue the government? What about a person who freezes to death? Should their descendants be allowed to sue governments for slowing climate change? Perhaps if there were more global warming, the cold weather event that caused the death would not have occurred. There are examples where a lawsuit would seem to have more merit due to more directly attributable causes. People froze to death in Texas in 2021 due to an inadequately weatherized energy system. Those people have a more direct avenue to sue their regional electricity provider, ERCOT, perhaps along with power plant owners and well owners, due to the loss of natural gas delivery. It is far easier to establish causation in that case than in overheating deaths during heat waves. I am not sure if ERCOT or those in charge of natural gas deliverability were sued, but plaintiffs would have a much better case than climate suit plaintiffs do.

     The article notes that this is the first time a plaintiff has sought to hold the oil and gas companies responsible for the death of a particular individual. Other suits have focused more on change and accountability. These results are political theatre, and while some may have good intentions or strongly believe what they are doing is correct, there are more important issues with nearer-term, better attributable impacts that can be pursued by our legal system. As noted, they also invite backlash from practical people who do not see a need to punish companies for their emissions, especially if they are not doing anything illegal.

 

    

References:

 

Daughter files landmark case against oil companies after devastating personal loss: 'There's no way to comprehend that'. Daniel Gala. The Cool Down. May 29, 2025. Daughter files landmark case against oil companies after devastating personal loss: 'There's no way to comprehend that'