Whats’ the over/under that far-left judges in the People’s Republik Of Maryland rules against the climate cult?
Maryland Judges Weigh Whether Cities Can Sue Over Climate Change
The Maryland Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on an issue facing judges nationwide: Whether or not local communities can sue oil companies over their role in climate change.
The leaders of Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County sued some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies in 2018 and 2021, alleging a decades-long disinformation campaign to mislead the public about what causes global warming. The companies’ deception, they argued, encouraged the burning of oil and gas, which unleashed more of the greenhouse gases that are dangerously warming the world and causing damage in Maryland including storms, extreme heat and sea-level rise.
The lawsuits are part of a batch of some three dozen similar cases brought by local governments since 2017 against energy companies, trade groups and utilities in state courts. Both sides have notched wins and losses in early action, but none of the cases have made it to trial yet.
Many legal experts expect the Supreme Court to eventually review the thorny questions at the heart of the cases.
In Maryland, lower courts dismissed the suits. Now the plaintiffs are asking the state’s highest judges to reverse those decisions.
There have already been several rulings, such as this one, where justices have said “nope, states cannot do this”, hence, cities would not have that authority. But, if they want to try, the fossil fuels companies should stop selling their products to those governments, and should note in court that if fossil fuels are so bad then why do the cities use so much? Baltimore very much depends on being a rail and ship port. Yup, fossil fuels. The number of vehicles made in the US and Canada that come through Baltimore is amazing.
Victor Sher, the lead lawyer for the governments, asked the judges to consider similar cases in Hawaii and Colorado. In those states, the top courts have decided the cases could go to trial, overruling the oil industry’s contention that federal law should apply, not state law. He also disputed the defendants’ arguments that the lawsuits seek to regulate worldwide emissions, a task far outside the abilities of state laws.
And some have won. Hawaii would be a 3rd world country without fossil fuels. It would revert back to the 1700s, and most residents would leave. Colorado depends on tourists coming in to do things like ski. Travel with fossil fuels.
The seven justices pressed Mr. Sher for details on what the plaintiffs were seeking. If they alleged that the oil companies failed to warn communities about climate change, for example, what would the solution be?
“They would have to warn consumers, their customers, that the products that they are using are substantial causes of climate change,” he said.
So, what do they really want? They aren’t really saying.
What do they want? It’s simple: they want money!
Of course, if the plaintiffs win, the oil companies will have to fork over more money, which they will pass on to the consumers of their products. It is, in effect, a tax increase on the public, but a tax collected by the oil companies rather than a tax that they have to directly raise, and possibly incur the wrath of the voters.