Honolulu's lawsuit against fossil fuel companies leads climate change legal fight
In 2020, Hawaii 's capital city sued major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron, arguing they knew for nearly half a century that fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes the climate. The companies have also profited from the consumption of oil, coal and natural gas while deceiving the public about the role of their products in causing a global climate crisis, the lawsuit says.
Honolulu's lawsuit blames the companies for the sea level rise around the island of Oahu's world-famous coastline. It also warns that hurricanes, heatwaves and other extreme weather will be more frequent, along with ocean warming that will reduce fish stocks and kill coral reefs that tourists love to snorkel over.
The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Attorneys and media representatives for most of the companies didn't immediately respond to emails and phone messages from The Associated Press seeking comment on the lawsuit.
ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 representatives sent emails saying they don't comment on pending litigation.
A hearing is scheduled in state court on Tuesday for a defense motion that argues the lawsuit should be dismissed because the state's two-year statute of limitations expired. Honolulu's claims are based on allegations that have been publicly known for decades, the defense motion for summary judgment says.
'The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has long been part of public discussion and ongoing scientific research and debate for many decades,' a Shell spokesperson said in an email. 'There is a vast public record of media articles, scientific journals and government reports for well over 50 years that make this clear. The suggestion that the plaintiffs were somehow unaware of climate change is simply not credible.'
While the case is still far from trial, it's much closer than some 30 similar lawsuits nationwide brought by other states, cities and counties. Lawyer arguments and the judge's questions on Tuesday will give a sense of how both sides will present their cases, said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
'The first trial in any of these cases will be very significant," he said. 'It will get a large amount of nationwide or even global attention because the oil companies have not yet had to take the stand and defend themselves in a trial.'
Honolulu's lawsuit has reached this hearing stage, partly because the Hawaii Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss it, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take it on.
Meanwhile, a similar lawsuit by Maui County, where a massive wildfire nearly two years ago burned down most of Lahaina and killed 102 people, is on hold.
The state of Hawaii has also filed a similar suit, despite the U.S. Department of Justice in May suing Hawaii and Michigan over their plans for legal action against fossil fuel companies, claiming their climate actions conflict with federal authority and President Donald Trump's energy dominance agenda.
Hawaii's attorney general's office filed a motion last week seeking to stop the Department of Justice's federal lawsuit: 'Allowing this case to proceed would give the United States license to wield the federal courts as a weapon against any litigation between nonfederal parties that an incumbent presidential administration dislikes."
Honolulu's lawsuit has drawn the attention of Naomi Oreskes, a prominent Harvard University science history professor, who submitted a declaration in a motion opposing the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Oreskes drew parallels between the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. 'The fossil fuel industry and its allies and surrogates created an organized campaign to foster and sustain doubt about anthropogenic global warming and prevent meaningful action," she wrote. "They did this by influencing consumers and the general public.'
Soon before a lawsuit by a group of youths against Hawaii's transportation department was scheduled to go to trial, both sides settled the case last year, agreeing on an ambitious requirement to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions across all transportation modes no later than 2045.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University for trademark infringement
Outerwear retailer Columbia Sportswear has sued Columbia University over alleged trademark infringement and a breach of contract, saying that the university's merchandise looks too similar to its own offerings and can confuse shoppers. In a lawsuit filed on 23 July in federal court in Oregon, Columbia Sportswear, whose roots date back to 1938, alleges that the Ivy League university in New York City intentionally violated an agreement the parties signed on 13 June 2023. That agreement dictated how the university could use the word 'Columbia' on its own apparel and accessories. As part of the pact, the university could feature 'Columbia' on its merchandise provided that the name included a recognizable school insignia or its mascot, the word 'university', the name of the academic department, or the founding year of the university – 1754 – or a combination. Columbia Sportswear clothing is sold at more than 800 retail locations including more than 150 of its branded stores, as well as its website and third-party marketplaces. But Columbia Sportswear alleges the university breached the agreement a little more than a year later, with the company based in Portland, Oregon, noticing several garments without any of the school logos being sold at the Columbia University online store. Many of the garments feature a bright blue color that is 'confusingly similar' to the blue color that has long been associated with Columbia Sportswear, the suit alleged. The lawsuit offered photos of some of the Columbia University items that say only 'Columbia'. 'The likelihood of deception, confusion, and mistake engendered by the university's misappropriation and misuse of the Columbia name is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill symbolized by Columbia Sportswear's registered mark Columbia and the reputation for quality it embodies,' the lawsuit alleged. The lawsuit comes at a time when Columbia University has been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support. Columbia University recently reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay more than $220m to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. Under the agreement, the Ivy League school will pay a $200m over three years, the university said. Columbia Sportswear aims to stop all sales of clothing that violate the agreement, recall any products already sold and donate any remaining merchandise to charity. Columbia Sportswear is also seeking three times the amount of actual damages determined by a jury. Neither Columbia Sportswear nor Columbia University could be immediately reached for comment.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University for trademark infringement
Outerwear retailer Columbia Sportswear has sued Columbia University over alleged trademark infringement and a breach of contract, saying that the university's merchandise looks too similar to its own offerings and can confuse shoppers. In a lawsuit filed on 23 July in federal court in Oregon, Columbia Sportswear, whose roots date back to 1938, alleges that the Ivy League university in New York City intentionally violated an agreement the parties signed on 13 June 2023. That agreement dictated how the university could use the word 'Columbia' on its own apparel and accessories. As part of the pact, the university could feature 'Columbia' on its merchandise provided that the name included a recognizable school insignia or its mascot, the word 'university', the name of the academic department, or the founding year of the university – 1754 – or a combination. Columbia Sportswear clothing is sold at more than 800 retail locations including more than 150 of its branded stores, as well as its website and third-party marketplaces. But Columbia Sportswear alleges the university breached the agreement a little more than a year later, with the company based in Portland, Oregon, noticing several garments without any of the school logos being sold at the Columbia University online store. Many of the garments feature a bright blue color that is 'confusingly similar' to the blue color that has long been associated with Columbia Sportswear, the suit alleged. The lawsuit offered photos of some of the Columbia University items that say only 'Columbia'. 'The likelihood of deception, confusion, and mistake engendered by the university's misappropriation and misuse of the Columbia name is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill symbolized by Columbia Sportswear's registered mark Columbia and the reputation for quality it embodies,' the lawsuit alleged. The lawsuit comes at a time when Columbia University has been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support. Columbia University recently reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay more than $220m to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. Under the agreement, the Ivy League school will pay a $200m over three years, the university said. Columbia Sportswear aims to stop all sales of clothing that violate the agreement, recall any products already sold and donate any remaining merchandise to charity. Columbia Sportswear is also seeking three times the amount of actual damages determined by a jury. Neither Columbia Sportswear nor Columbia University could be immediately reached for comment.
The Independent
13 hours ago
- The Independent
A day in the life, in photos, of one family's search for food in Gaza
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
