Three strikes and you're out! New York is rocking the boat again on climate lawsuits — is Watt angry?

from the depth of energy

Mandy Risko

Frank Sinatra said that if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere. Well, when it's repeatedly made clear that you just cannot Is it successful in New York? This question is one that the climate litigation movement is grappling with today.

The nationally coordinated climate litigation movement suffered another demoralizing defeat — and a poignant moment of deja vu — as New York City's lawsuit against U.S. energy producers was dismissed yesterday (for the second time). The New York State Supreme Court ruling firmly rejects the city’s claims that the companies misled the public about their products and sustainability commitments.

The failure marks the third blow in New York City and New York state's attempts to “bring down” U.S. energy companies.

Recall that the national movement kicked off in the state in 2015, when former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman met with Greenpeace and the Rockefeller Family Foundation, later Researchers fed him a novel climate lawsuit that had been concocted by academic activists in La Jolla, California, a few years earlier. In 2019, the state's case was dismissed after being billed as the “climate trial of the century,” with the verdict labeling the claims “exaggerated.”

New York City filed its own climate lawsuit against the industry in 2018, but it was dismissed in 2021. Refile A month later, a new lawsuit reshaped their “means-to-end” fight, focusing the charges on alleged violations of consumer protections.

Today, the case joins the shadow of past failed New York lawsuits, with the state Supreme Court recognizing that it was an apparent “repurposing” of dismissed charges. Ten years later, and three lawsuits later, New York has nothing to show for a decade of hard work other than an 0-3 record.

Judge: Plaintiff can't have it both ways, does everyone know

Judge Anar Rathod Patel, appointed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, ruled that the city’s argument was insufficient to prove that the oil company may have harmed its oil and gas products. Deceiving the public about the extent of climate impacts.

While the City wants to hold these companies “responsible” for failing to put warning labels on gasoline pumps, Judge Patel held that such disclosures are unnecessary because the City itself recognizes that New York City consumers are Climate-conscious consumers:

“The city can't have the best of both worlds On the one hand, it is claimed that consumers are aware of the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change and are commercially sensitive to it; on the other hand, these consumers were deceived by defendants' failure to disclose that their fossil fuel products emitted emissions that cause climate change. greenhouse gases. (emphasis added)

The greenwashing claim does not meet the requirements and the plaintiff quoted it out of context.

Judge Patel also dismissed the plaintiffs' far-fetched greenwashing claims, saying the city had not convincingly proven the company made false statements when selling energy to New York City consumers:

“Second, the City did not sufficiently prove that Defendants’ alleged greenwashing campaign, involving claims about clean and alternative energy sources, was “relevant to the sale” of consumer products (i.e., fossil fuel products) in New York City as required.

Interestingly, the judge appropriately noted that many of the company statements cited by the plaintiff were taken out of context, and when she actually visited the company's website to read them, they did not appear to be “deceptive” in any sense:

“[C]Some of the alleged statements were distorted statements taken out of context. Plaintiffs do not — and cannot — allege that each statement would mislead a reasonable consumer when viewed “in context on the product label or in the advertisement as a whole.””. (emphasis added)

So, to summarize: it turns out that the “scammers” were not energy companies in the first place. Instead, the City is trying to deceive the legal system by taking quotes out of context to name and shame U.S. energy companies. While unfortunate, this activity is not surprising given that the city's law firm, Sher Edling, is currently under congressional investigation for dark money financing and questionable ties to radical academics.

Bottom line: New York has now experienced three major turnovers. Will they try again for a fourth climate lawsuit? We said it was time to head back to the lounge.

Relevant