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? [emphasis, links added]
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.
This failure marks New York City and New York State seek to “bring down” a third strike against U.S. energy companies.
Think back, 2015 national campaign kicks off in state When former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman met with Greenpeace and the Rockefeller Family Foundation, the latter filled him in on novel climate lawsuits concocted years ago by academic activists in La Jolla, California.
The state's case was dismissed in 2019 after being billed as the “climate trial of the century.” The decision labeled these claims “hyperbolic”.
New York City filed a climate lawsuit against the industry in 2018, but it was dismissed in 2021.
not afraid, City Refile New lawsuit a month laterits reform from means to ends has been reorganized. Replacement claims, focusing on alleged violations of consumer protection.
Today, the case joins the shadow of past failed New York lawsuits that The state Supreme Court acknowledged that this was an apparent “repurposing” of a dismissed charge.
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: The city's argument does not sufficiently prove that oil companies may have deceived the public about the climate impacts of their oil and gas products.
While the city wanted to hold the companies “responsible” for failing to put warning labels on petrol pumps, Judge Patel held that such disclosure was not necessary because The city itself acknowledges 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 rejected the plaintiffs’ far-fetched claims of greenwashing, stating The City did not convincingly prove that 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 went to the company 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.
quite, New York City is trying to deceive the legal system by naming and shaming U.S. energy companies out of context.
While unfortunate, this activity is not surprising given that the city's law firm, Sher Edling, is currently under congressional investigation. 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.
Top image via Wikimedia Commons/Beyond My Ken
Read more EID climate information
