Lawsuits Against Big Oil Over Climate Change Are Nonsensical

No one is likely to be surprised about Democratic calls for the DOJ to sue Big Oil for their role in creating and denying climate change. It puts in mind the many commercials encouraging various parties who might be eligible for funds from class action lawsuits that seem to be salivating over the damage people suffered as they encourage them to cash in. It’s largely the Willie Sutton rule: Asked why he robbed banks, he supposedly answered, ‘that’s where the money is.’

But there are a number of oddities in the suit filed by Missy Sims, as described by the New York Times
NYT
(link below), not least of which is her ‘mission from God’ motivation which sounds more like the Blues Brothers’ movie than climate change policy. More important are some of the assertions involved in the suit, including that those named are responsible for “at least 40.01% of all global industrial GHG emissions from 1965-2017” (p. 19 of the suit), with Shell alone responsible for 13%.

Well, not exactly. Shell produces about 2% of the world’s oil and gas but the lawsuit then assigns them responsibility for all of the production from companies that they have joint ventures with. The suit actually says Shell has been responsible for 2.36% of industrial GHG emissions from 1965 to 2017, then adds that the company has joint ventures with Gazprom, which is responsible for 3.19% of industrial GHG emissions during that period, and the National Iranian Oil Corporation, whose share is 2.63%, and so forth. This seems rather like blaming a soft drink company for the obesity caused by all the food sold by the restaurants who carry their products.

It is also questionable that the companies are to be held at fault for “both direct and end use of their products” meaning the emissions that occur when people use oil and gas. In other words, faulting the companies for the actions of their customers, not unheard of but not common either. Bars can be fined for serving an obviously drunk customer, but the steel industry hasn’t been sued for auto accident fatalities to my knowledge.

The use of the term “global industrial GHG emissions” is telling, although the New York Times incorrectly shortens this to “global greenhouse gas emissions,” which inflates their contribution by a factor of four. The EPA says industry accounts for 24% of global GHG emissions, about the same as agriculture and forestry. One presumes there will be no lawsuits against Indonesian farmers who burn off brush every year, for example.

The Democratic Senators urging the Department of Justice to sue Big Oil are also obviously pandering to their constituents who are quite happy to blame the oil industry for the emissions that their SUVs create. Presumably consumers are not to be blamed for their vehicle choice, but the automobile industry hasn’t been sued yet for its efforts to brainwash them into thinking larger vehicles are safer and carry more stuff. Given the negative impact such a suit would have on unionized autoworkers, it seems reasonable to assume that liberal Democrats will not pursue the issue.

Of course, there are many other possible targets, for example, the promotion of dirtier coal was highlighted in the 1977 debate on the Amendments to the Clean Air Act. As one analysis described, “Citing a need to increase use of coal nationally, Metzenbaum and others argued that the first step in that direction was to make use of already underutilized eastern coal.”

Similarly, the Carter Administration misinformed Americans about the scarcity of natural gas in arguing for increased use of coal in power generation, which delayed replacement of high-CO2 coal with low-CO2 methane (figure below).

And the peak in U.S. nuclear power production was partly the responsibility of interest groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists which concluded that “nuclear accidents could cause some 14,400 fatal cancers by the year 2000.” (New York Times 11/18/77) Given that research by Kharecha and Hansen estimated that nuclear power in the U.S. was saving something on the order of 25,000 lives by the year 2000, the irrational opposition to nuclear power arguably cost thousands of lives.

No lawsuit appears likely to target groups opposed to nuclear power, though, at least none promoted by Democratic Senators.

Finally, think of the many clean power projects which even now are being delayed by opposition which often boils down to no more than BANANA, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. While solar farms and long-distance power lines are sometimes opposed for perfectly rational reasons, many opponents are simply like Groucho Marx in “Horsefeathers”, “Whatever it is, I’m against it.” Perhaps former Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren will also refer the legal profession to the Department of Justice for their role in delaying our climate change policies.

Shockingly (saracasm), politicians on both sides of the aisle are spending far more time looking for someone to blame and demonize, whether its Republicans arguing that climate change is a Chinese hoax or Democrats implying that without Big Oil, the world would have enacted expensive climate change policies years ago. Turning again to American philosopher Groucho Marx who said, “Love goes out the door when money comes innuendo.” His take on the current debate would probably be “Rational policy goes out the door when votes come in the window.”

She’s on a Mission From God: Suing Big Oil for Climate Damages – The New York Times (nytimes.com)