Earlier today, the Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder's seven-year-old climate lawsuit to bend forward, even as the broader climate law-abiding movement faces an increasing number of bipartisan opposition nationwide. [emphasis, links added]
While courts across the country are abandoning similar lawsuits, Boulder's case now relies on life, thanks to a Colorado Superior Court ruling.
But even with this procedural step, the path forward is uncertain, and the plaintiffs are now facing additional grinding and meaningless lawsuits that do not help address climate change.
Crucially, the decision did not address whether Boulder’s claim was valid. These issues are still available for the trial court to evaluate, and the plaintiffs face an uphill battle.
Colorado's decision stands out against the backdrop of recent firings in New Jersey, New York City, Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel counties.
Strong objection
The decision of the Colorado Supreme Court judge to make Boulder's case move forward in the trial court was not unified.
In objection, two court judges The potential impact on most people's decisions on federal authority on interstate and global emissions has attracted attention.
Justices Carlos Samour and Brian Boatright favored the dismissal of all Boulder's claims.
Their powerful objections written by Justice Summer reveal the dangers of keeping the lawsuit going:
“Boulder is not his own republic; it is part of Colorado and is part of the United States. So, Although it has the right to be environmentally conscious, it has absolutely no right to file a claim It not only has accidental impact on foreign affairs. ”
The two judges also highlighted the destructive implications of most people's possible decisions on future caseseffectively leading to “regulatory chaos”:
“Because there is Many other local governments in the United States are doing what Boulder does (There are no doubt other people who follow suit in the case) and as multiple out-of-state courts have now reached the conclusions I have in most colleagues in this case, in this case I fear we will go to the regulatory chaos. ”
Justice Samel, citing Fleetwood Mac, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to raise the question to avoid this confusion of “patchwork of inconsistent local standards”:
“Borrowed from old hits by Fleetwood Mac Our message today to Boulder and other Colorado municipalities is that “you can regulate interstate and international air pollution in your own way.” This is not right in our indivisible country. I'm cautiously disagreeing. ”
Litigation is about “system changes”
In court, the plaintiffs proved that their case was simply seeking to recover costs from activities that allegedly harmed the environment.
This is enough to convince most judges that they rejected the company's claim that Boulder's case was “an attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.”
But time and time again, outside court, Colorado plaintiffs revealed their true intentions were Reshape energy mixing and eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
Since energy was previously covered, City officials publicly argued that the lawsuit actually means advancing “basic system changes”, not due to the alleged compensation for climate change damages.
The memorandum of the memorandum of the memorandum for the memorandum of the memorandum, which makes the real goal clear: The 2021 study session makes the real goal clear:
“Bolder has also been a national leader in exploring the legal system to drive greater system-level change. Both through its active involvement in Dosushi efforts (such as the Cleaning Capacity Program Plaintiff Group), or with Bolder and San Miguel counties against Exson America County and Suncor, with Exson America Royal Family and San Miguel counties” Boulder shows that there are many different leveraged cities that can capture more fundamental system changes.transparent
In this case, “basic system changes” obviously mean “increasing the price of fossil fuels”.
The plaintiff’s lawyers became clearer in 2020, telling reporters that one goal of Boulder’s lawsuit is to raise the price of fossil fuels to reduce consumption:
“Whether it is to reduce harmful activities or/or increase the price of products that cause these harmful effects Finally priced. ” (Added emphasis)
Bottom line: Boulder’s lawsuit is part of a broader climate law-abiding strategy that is working to survive bipartisan opposition. As Justice Samour warned, Let municipalities invite regulatory chaos in their own way and undermine federal authority to address global challenges such as climate change.
The U.S. Supreme Court should pay attention to Justice Samel’s appeal and bring clarity to the issue.
Top photo of Markus Spiske
More in the Eid climate
