Most US Voters Agree: Make Big Oil Pay for Climate Damage

Spread the love

Original article by BRETT WILKINS at Common Dreams shared under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Two-thirds of U.S. voters surveyed by Data for Progress support making fossil fuel companies pay for the damage their products cause to the climate.  (Photo: rmitsch/Getty Images)

“Voters resoundingly endorse fossil fuel companies contributing their fair share to address a crisis they helped manufacture and still refuse to help fix,” said one campaigner.

As yet another United Nations Climate Change Conference winds down without a meaningful agreement on phasing out fossil fuels, polling released Tuesday by Data for Progress revealed strong bipartisan support among U.S. voters for legislation forcing oil and gas companies to pay for their role in fueling the planetary emergency.

The survey of 1,279 U.S. voters, conducted November 3-6, found that around two-thirds of all likely voters support such legislation, a +40-point net margin. Among Democrats, support for the proposed bill is 88%, while 61% of Independent and 46% of Republicans either strongly or somewhat back the proposal.

“In a resounding call for accountability, two-thirds of the American people support legislation demanding industry titans like Exxon and Shell shoulder their fair share of the climate damages inflicted by fossil fuels.”

Asked if they were more or less likely to support elected officials who prioritize making Big Oil pay for its climate pollution, 64% of overall respondents, 89% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents answered “more likely.” Republicans were the only group whose members were less likely to back officials who would make oil and gas companies pay for their pollution.

“In a resounding call for accountability, two-thirds of the American people support legislation demanding industry titans like Exxon and Shell shoulder their fair share of the climate damages inflicted by fossil fuels,” Fossil Free Media communications director Cassidy DiPaola said in a statement.

“With COP spotlighting the towering price tag of climate change, voters resoundingly endorse fossil fuel companies contributing their fair share to address a crisis they helped manufacture and still refuse to help fix,” she added, referencing the U.N. summit.

The poll follows the September launch of the “Make Polluters Pay” campaign, a public relations blitz meant to drum up public support for suing fossil fuel corporations—which knew that their products caused climate change decades before publicly saying so.

That month, California joined dozens of states and municipalities that have targeted fossil fuel giants in court,suing five fossil fuel giants—ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron—over their decadeslong effort to deceive the public about their products’ role in fueling global heating.

The new survey’s findings also came as so-called “loss and damage”—the harm caused by anthropogenic climate change—features prominently at COP28. However, climate campaigners were once again disappointed as the United States and other top polluters failed to make meaningful contributions to the fund.

The rich nations most responsible for the climate catastrophe pledged just $700 million between them, the equivalent of under 0.2% of the irreversible losses Global South countries suffer each year during the worsening planetary crisis. The United States pledged a paltry $17.5 million.

“Every year, we travel across oceans to come to these negotiations and we continue to get only drops of ambition,” Drue Slatter, a Fijian climate campaigner attending COP28, wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday by Common Dreams.

“Facing the catastrophic effects of extreme weather at home and watching the slow progress of the negotiations, it was hard not to be pessimistic before we even arrived at COP28,” Slatter added. “But the point is that we can’t afford not to be here, we can’t afford to stop fighting because what’s at stake is our very survival.”

Original article by BRETT WILKINS at Common Dreams shared under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue ReadingMost US Voters Agree: Make Big Oil Pay for Climate Damage

In Another Blow to Big Oil, US Supreme Court Rejects Effort to Kill Climate Suits

Spread the love

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

14.11.22_XR Docs_City of London Mags_Helena Smith_7224
14.11.22_XR Docs_City of London Mags_Helena Smith_7224

“The Supreme Court’s decision brings the people of Delaware and Hoboken one step closer to putting these polluters on trial and making them pay for their climate deception.”

On the heels of similar decisions last month, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered “another win for climate accountability,” rejecting fossil fuel corporations’ attempt to quash lawsuits filed by the city of Hoboken, New Jersey, and the state of Delaware.

Both filed in September 2020, the suits from Hoboken and Delaware—like those filed by dozens of other municipalities and states—take aim at companies including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell for fueling the climate emergency. The fossil fuel industry has repeatedly tried to evade accountability by shifting such cases from state to federal court.

“We appreciate and agree with the court’s order denying the fossil fuel companies’ petition, which aligns with dozens of decisions in federal courts here in Delaware and across the country,” said Democratic Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings in response to Monday’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision means that both of these cases will now move forward in state court.

Jennings on Monday cited an opinion piece she wrote for Delaware Online with Shawn Garvin, secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, back when they launched the legal effort in 2020:

As we stated at the time of filing this case almost three years ago: “It didn’t have to be this way. The fossil fuel industry knew for decades that their products would lead to climate change with potentially ‘severe’ and even ‘catastrophic’ consequences—their words, not ours. But they didn’t clean up their practices or warn anyone to minimize the peril they were creating. Instead, they spent decades deliberately and systematically deceiving the nation about what they knew would happen if they carried on with business as usual.”

Building on revelations from the past decade that have bolstered climate liability lawsuits, peer-reviewed research published in January shows that ExxonMobil accurately predicted global heating decades ago, while documents released in early April make clear that Shell knew about the impact of fossil fuels even earlier than previously thought.

“Imagine how far along we might be in the transition to a low-carbon economy today if not for their deception,” Jennings said. “That’s why we filed our lawsuit, and today’s order moves Delawareans one step closer to the justice and economic relief that we deserve.”

For Hoboken and Delaware, the high court denied fossil fuel companies’ challenge to decision last year from a panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which wrote in part that “our federal system trusts state courts to hear most cases—even big, important ones that raise federal defenses. Plaintiffs choose which claims to file, in which court, and under which law. Defendants may prefer federal court, but they may not remove their cases to federal court unless federal laws let them. Here, they do not.”

Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles noted Monday that “Big Oil companies keep fighting to avoid trials in state courts, where they will be forced to defend their record of climate lies and destruction in front of juries, but federal courts at every level keep rejecting their efforts.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision brings the people of Delaware and Hoboken one step closer to putting these polluters on trial and making them pay for their climate deception,” Wiles added. “Fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the damages they knowingly caused.”

After the high court’s April decisions—which involved cases brought by the state of Rhode Island as well as municipalities across California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Maryland—Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media said, “This should open the floodgates for more lawsuits that could make polluters pay!”

There were no noted dissensions on Monday. However, like last month, Justice Samuel Alito, who owns stock in some fossil fuel companies, did not participate in the decision about these two cases—but Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose father spent nearly three decades as an attorney for Shell, did.

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue ReadingIn Another Blow to Big Oil, US Supreme Court Rejects Effort to Kill Climate Suits

Shell slammed over eye-watering profits amidst cost of living crisis

Spread the love

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/05/shell-slammed-over-eye-watering-profits-amidst-cost-of-living-crisis/

“One of the corporate scandals of our times”

Earlier this week, BP announced it had secured £4 billion in profits in the first three months of 2023. Today, another fossil fuel giant has confirmed its staggering profits. Shell made record breaking profits of £7.6 billion in the first quarter of the year.

The news has been met with outrage from trade unions who have slammed the government for not taking action on energy firm profiteering in the middle of a cost of living crisis partially driven by high energy bills.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: “These sky-high profits beg the question – will the government ever have the backbone to tax the energy giants properly? While families across Britain have struggled to heat their homes, Shell have enjoyed a record cash bonanza.

“Our energy market is fundamentally broken. Struggling households shouldn’t be lining the pockets of shareholders and fat cat CEOs. We could all have lower bills if government taxed excessive profits, introduced a social tariff and created public ownership of new clean power. It’s time to end the energy racket.”

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/05/shell-slammed-over-eye-watering-profits-amidst-cost-of-living-crisis/

Continue ReadingShell slammed over eye-watering profits amidst cost of living crisis

Greenpeace ends oil rig occupation as Shell launches legal action to sue group

Spread the love
Greenpeace activists in inflatable boats approaching Shell platform Image: Alice Russell / Greenpeace

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/greenpeace-ends-oil-rig-occupation-as-shell-launches-legal-action-to-sue-group

ENVIRONMENT activists ended their occupation of a 34,000-tonne oil rig today as it arrived in Norway.

But multibillion-pound energy corporation Shell is suing campaign group Greenpeace for more than £100,000 in compensation for costs incurred by the operation, including extra security.

Six activists began their occupation north of the Canary Islands as it was being towed to Haugesund in south-west Norway.

The occupiers boarded the rig from sea-going dinghies in a daring raid on January 31.

In a final stand at 10.30am at Haugesund today, the occupiers climbed the platform’s 125-metre flare boom and waved a banner saying “Stop drilling. Start paying.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/greenpeace-ends-oil-rig-occupation-as-shell-launches-legal-action-to-sue-group

Continue ReadingGreenpeace ends oil rig occupation as Shell launches legal action to sue group

Institutional investors back Shell board lawsuit over climate risk

Spread the love
Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.
Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/institutional-investors-back-shell-board-lawsuit-over-climate-risk-2023-02-09/

LONDON, Feb 9 (Reuters) – A group of European institutional investors is backing a novel London lawsuit against energy giant Shell’s (SHEL.L) board over alleged climate mismanagement in a case that could have far-reaching implications for how companies tackle emissions.

British pension funds London CIV and Nest, Swedish pension fund AP3, French asset manager Sanso IS, Degroof Petercam Asset Management in Belgium and Denmark’s Danske Bank Asset Management and Danica Pension and AP Pension are among those to have written letters supporting the claim.

The investor group has around 450 billion pounds ($543 billion) in assets under management collectively, and owns about 12 million of Shell’s 7 billion shares.

London CIV said its Shell stake was a “primary hotspot of risk and exposure within our portfolio”.

“We hope the whole energy industry sits up and takes notice,” added Mark Fawcett, Nest’s chief investment officer.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/institutional-investors-back-shell-board-lawsuit-over-climate-risk-2023-02-09/

Continue ReadingInstitutional investors back Shell board lawsuit over climate risk