On April 23, the Baltimore Sun published an op-ed lambasting efforts by localities and states to hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for decades of misinformation about the dangers of their products. These hazards to the public’s health, welfare, and safety are now coming home to roost in the form of extreme weather, increased flooding and drought, and other harms that have materialized as a result of climate change.
Notably, the op-ed blames rising fuel costs on the early stages of state and local litigation and infantilizes the state courts by suggesting they lack the “wherewithal to make sense of complex interstate — and indeed — international — issues.” The author argues broadly for the need for federal “shield laws” akin to 2005’s federal provision against civil litigation extended to the gun industry.
I submitted a brief letter to the editor to rebut some of the arguments presented in the op-ed. While the Sun has regrettably elected not to run this response, I have posted it here to share with readers.
A recent op-ed in The Sun (“Lawmakers must end Climate Court Shakedowns”) offered a muddled diagnosis of what is driving the recent spike in fossil fuel costs. After correctly noting that ‘geopolitical turmoil is the main culprit,’ the author takes a gratuitous detour to blame what he describes as ‘out of control litigation.’
This position simply ignores basic principles of cause and effect. Unlike recent price fluctuations tied to the Strait of Hormuz, litigation aimed at holding Big Oil accountable for their deliberate deceptions have not actually led to any damage awards for plaintiffs. Somehow litigation that has not happened yet is moving entire global energy markets.The relatively stable costs of so-called “natural” gas in recent months confirm that international market pressure is what is really driving high prices at the pump. Both face the same risk of litigation, but natural gas is relatively insulated against the supply disruptions caused by the Iran war.
While laying the blame for current fuel costs on state litigation is a specious argument, it does tip the hand of the fossil fuel industry as relates to their playbook in attempting to avoid culpability for decades of deception. According to their self-serving argument, if the states use their constitutional authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents, then things might go badly for the public. Never mind that the damages from industry’s conduct has approached over $20 billion in Maryland thus far, and never mind that the oil industry is continually experiencing windfall profits. The implicit threat from industry is, if you try and hold us accountable, it’s gonna cost you.
It’s already costing us, and year over year, the price tag born by the public as relates to health, infrastructure, and life is going to keep going up.
