You might recall our posts on litigation by states, counties, and cities blaming a host of calamities, real and imagined, past and future, on Big Oil. The producers tried their best to remove the cases to federal court. In a two-sentence ruling, the United States Supreme Court refused to consider defendants’ Hail-Mary to have the cases remain in federal court. This was the City of Baltimore case but it is expected to affect all climate litigation in which the plaintiffs assert only state law claims. The jurisdictional mud-wrestling is over and it’s back to the state courts for resolution.
In the future, you can follow climate litigation at this site: U. S. Climate Change Litigation sponsored by Columbia Law School and Arnold and Porter.
In the meantime, the breathless MSM celebrated the decision, likening these cases to the Big Tobacco litigation from years back.
Is the push to electrify the world at the expense of oil and gas achievable and if so, at what cost? Is government moving dangerously fast? Let’s hear from those who know more about the subject than I:
Daniel Markind in Forbes focuses the legal and financial challenges faced by New York State’s natural gas ban (60% of New York’s energy comes from fossil fuels). It’s probably pre-empted by federal law anyway.
The Wall Street Journal observes that the government doesn’t have to actually implement regulations that are destructive to the economy, the threat itself drains the life out of investment in whatever the government is targeting.
According to E.J. Antoni in the Daily Signal, Biden’s Push for electric vehicles is expensive and unrealistic.
What the push will do to economy it will also do to the birds.
Finally, a two-fer: over-regulation and offshore wind turbines in the Northeast could endanger your Friday fishsticks say some Maine fishermen.
Misguided ideology is a two-way superhighway. Here in Texas, the wind capital of the free world, our erstwhile laissez-faire Legislature loads the deck against alternative energy, says Texas Monthly.