Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter is one of 15 attorneys general opposing climate lawsuits filed by California cities against large energy companies such as Exxon Mobil.
They filed a court brief last week opposing the suits, calling the actions by the California municipalities “overreach” in using local nuisance ordinances to find court solutions to global warming.
The other 14 states include: Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Colorado, West Virginia, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.
The Republican attorneys general filed their brief in the District Court for Northern California, arguing the nature of the lawsuit makes it a national policy issue. They contend if the suit moves ahead, it will lead to an “avalanche” of similar lawsuits throughout the U.S. \with conflicting judgments and results in their states.
“… The questions of global climate change and its effects — and the proper balance of regulatory and commercial activity — are political questions not suited for resolution by any court,” the brief argues.
“Indeed, such judicial resolution would trample Congress’s carefully calibrated process of cooperative federalism where states work in tandem with [the Environmental Protection Agency] to administer the federal Clean Air Act,” the brief continued.
While San Francisco and Oakland want Exxon and four other companies to pay for infrastructure improvements to guard against sea-level rise and other claimed effects of climate change, the attorneys general say the costs would be enormous for the companies.
“Plaintiffs are asking the court to order defendants to pay to build sea walls, raise the elevation of low-lying property and buildings, and construct other infrastructure projects necessary to combat the effects of global climate change for the major cities of Oakland and San Francisco,” the brief states.
“Such a remedy could cost several billion dollars and seriously impact defendants’ ability to provide energy to the rest of the country,” the brief added. “In effect, plaintiffs would be imposing limitations on commerce that takes place wholly outside California’s borders.”