WEBVTT
00:00:00.560 --> 00:00:03.520
BBHD, the frequency.
00:00:08.480 --> 00:00:10.720
Who should pay for climate change?
00:00:10.960 --> 00:00:19.039
That's the question we're exploring today, as the frequency takes you inside a Supreme Court case that started right here in Boulder County.
00:00:19.280 --> 00:00:21.120
Happy Friday, frequency listeners.
00:00:21.199 --> 00:00:22.320
I'm Jay Castle.
00:00:22.559 --> 00:00:27.679
Today's story is on Funcore Energy versus the County Commissioners of Boulder County.
00:00:27.839 --> 00:00:30.640
Docket number 25-170.
00:00:31.120 --> 00:00:34.320
The case is much bigger than its title suggests.
00:00:34.719 --> 00:00:42.960
The City of Boulder and Boulder and San Miguel counties are suing ExxonMobil and two Suncor entities for harms caused by climate change.
00:00:43.200 --> 00:00:46.320
The case was first filed in April 2018.
00:00:46.719 --> 00:00:51.840
And ever since, the two sides have been fighting about which court should get to take it off.
00:00:52.079 --> 00:00:56.960
Last May, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the case could proceed in state court.
00:00:57.439 --> 00:00:59.759
The oil companies then appealed to the U.S.
00:00:59.920 --> 00:01:06.079
Supreme Court, arguing federal law shields them from local harms and local laws.
00:01:06.319 --> 00:01:11.840
The Supreme Court decided to review Colorado's ruling in its first case of the new term.
00:01:12.319 --> 00:01:14.879
Oral arguments begin October 5th.
00:01:15.120 --> 00:01:17.439
It's a case with huge implications.
00:01:17.599 --> 00:01:22.640
So I turned to an expert to help me and you make sense of things.
00:01:24.400 --> 00:01:31.040
My name is Chris Winter, and I'm an environmental lawyer, and I work at the University of Colorado Law School.
00:01:31.200 --> 00:01:40.319
So I serve as the executive director of a research institute there that focuses on natural resources law and policy, and it's called the Getus Wilkinson Center.
00:01:41.439 --> 00:01:41.760
Great.
00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:48.640
So we're here today to talk about the Suncor Boulder County case, which the Supreme Court is set to hear on October 5th.
00:01:48.799 --> 00:01:51.040
This was filed way back in 2018.
00:01:51.280 --> 00:01:54.719
Do you want to give a recap of how we got where we are today?
00:01:54.879 --> 00:01:58.159
I can also do this myself, but I didn't know if you had your own.
00:01:58.239 --> 00:02:00.000
Like this is what I want to say.
00:02:00.319 --> 00:02:07.760
Yeah, I've been following this case for quite a while, and it's had a very circuitous route through the court system.
00:02:08.159 --> 00:02:13.039
So this is a pretty big deal that the Supreme Court will be taking up this case in October.
00:02:13.439 --> 00:02:27.360
I think it's easiest to start by talking about what the city and county of Boulder are trying to accomplish with this case, and that might help to lay a foundation to understand why it's at the Supreme Court right now and how it got there.
00:02:27.599 --> 00:02:44.639
But the city and county of Boulder filed a case in Colorado state court originally, and they're trying to recover damages for the costs associated with responding to climate change here locally in our community.
00:02:44.719 --> 00:02:58.800
And so those costs are associated with heat waves, droughts, floods, and those kinds of effects that are connected to climate change are imposing real costs on local jurisdictions like the city and county of Boulder.
00:02:59.039 --> 00:03:06.319
So the city and county filed a state law claim against Suncor and some other major oil producers.
00:03:06.639 --> 00:03:21.199
And the claims are basically tort claims saying, oh, the oil companies were deceptive in their marketing and failed to warn the consumers intentionally, failed to warn the consumers about the risks of producing and marketing and selling fossil fuels.
00:03:21.439 --> 00:03:28.639
And because of that, the oil companies are liable to the city and county for the costs of responding to climate change.
00:03:28.800 --> 00:03:34.000
So it was a state-based tort law claim filed in state court.
00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:39.039
And the oil industry claims oh, this is preempted by federal law.
00:03:39.199 --> 00:03:50.400
And so that's kind of how we've ended up at the Supreme Court, the federal Supreme Court, because it's this struggle, this art-wrestling debate over whether this is a federal issue or a state issue.
00:03:51.039 --> 00:03:52.960
When you say tort law, what does that mean?
00:03:53.120 --> 00:03:53.599
Yeah.
00:03:53.919 --> 00:03:56.000
So tort law is like state common law.
00:03:56.080 --> 00:04:10.319
And so basically the principles of a tort law claim are some person or entity had a duty or responsibility to act in a certain way in order to prevent some kind of harm that might be caused to another party.
00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:20.720
And so, for instance, if you're driving down the street in your car, you have a duty under state law not to drive recklessly or not to intentionally run into somebody.
00:04:20.959 --> 00:04:25.600
And so that's like a common law duty that you have to behave like a reasonable person.
00:04:25.759 --> 00:04:42.800
And so that's a theory that the oil industry had a common law responsibility, duty to the people and to the county and to the city to act as a reasonable person, to be honest in how they are talking about the risks associated with their business activities.
00:04:42.959 --> 00:04:48.639
And these are the same kinds of theories that are applied to many, many other businesses, all other businesses.
00:04:48.800 --> 00:04:50.879
They have to be honest with us.
00:04:51.040 --> 00:04:52.480
They can't be deceptive.
00:04:52.720 --> 00:04:58.560
They have a duty to act reasonably and to prevent unreasonable harm to all of us.
00:05:00.480 --> 00:05:07.600
This is not the only lawsuit in the country to be filed trying to recoup some damages from oil and gas companies.
00:05:07.839 --> 00:05:10.879
Why is this the one that is going to the Supreme Court?
00:05:10.959 --> 00:05:13.199
Is it just the first one to be appealed there?
00:05:13.279 --> 00:05:18.000
Or is there something interesting about the case itself that the Supreme Court would agree to hear this?
00:05:19.040 --> 00:05:22.079
Well, this is one of the earliest cases around the country.
00:05:22.160 --> 00:05:34.399
And you're correct in that many other jurisdictions, other counties, municipalities, some tribes, have filed similar kinds of cases against the oil industry in different state courts around the country.
00:05:34.560 --> 00:05:37.279
So there's a whole number of these cases.
00:05:37.439 --> 00:05:42.560
And courts around the country have been struggling with the same kinds of questions that are at issue in this case.
00:05:42.800 --> 00:05:47.600
This is one of the first cases that was filed to kind of test out these legal theories.
00:05:47.680 --> 00:05:50.079
And that's one reason that it's going to be the first one.
00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:52.480
And the Supreme Court has taken up.
00:05:52.639 --> 00:05:58.160
I think one of the other reasons is just because it made its way through the state court, and then there's a state Supreme Court opinion on this.
00:05:58.240 --> 00:06:02.240
And so that's contributing also to the unique setting for this case.
00:06:03.759 --> 00:06:09.759
To your point about other courts struggling with this question, what are the legal arguments that we've seen so far?
00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:15.360
And so it's really important to understand that this case has not gone to trial.
00:06:15.600 --> 00:06:25.839
So there's been no determination by the courts on whether the fossil fuel companies were deceptive, whether the damages are actually connected to what the fossil fuel industry did.
00:06:26.079 --> 00:06:28.480
All of the issues right now are preliminary.
00:06:28.560 --> 00:06:36.879
They're essentially jurisdictional or questions of which law applies, is it federal law or state law, which court should hear the case?
00:06:37.040 --> 00:06:39.680
Is it the federal court system or the state court system?
00:06:39.920 --> 00:06:56.879
And so these are preliminary questions that the Supreme Court's going to be taking up as to whether this should really be a state court case or whether federal law has somehow preempted the state law that the city and county of Boulder are alleging governs this case.
00:06:57.040 --> 00:06:59.040
So these are preliminary jurisdictional questions.
00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:07.279
And we can talk about that a little bit, but at the outset, it's just really important to understand we're at a very early stage in this case, even though it was filed in 2018.
00:07:07.439 --> 00:07:13.120
There's been no determination on the marriage, there's been no discovery process, there's been no trial.
00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:18.480
So these are very, very preliminary jurisdictional questions, essentially.
00:07:20.079 --> 00:07:25.680
As a local government reporter for more than a decade, I know how slow things move, even at the local level.
00:07:25.759 --> 00:07:27.839
So this is nothing.
00:07:28.560 --> 00:07:32.879
Yeah, the gears of justice sometimes grind very slowly.
00:07:32.959 --> 00:07:34.879
And this is one of those cases.
00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:42.959
And that's partially because it's so complicated and there's this difficult and complex relationship between state and federal questions.
00:07:43.040 --> 00:07:45.680
And it's also because this is a novel legal theory.
00:07:47.279 --> 00:07:50.319
Can you talk a little bit maybe about the novel legal theory there?
00:07:50.800 --> 00:07:51.120
Yeah.
00:07:51.439 --> 00:08:08.560
This theory that the city and county of Boulder have brought to the courts basically says, well, there's these oil companies, they're multinational companies, and their conduct or behavior, their tortious conduct or behavior, their wrongful conduct happens internationally.
00:08:08.639 --> 00:08:18.319
It happens outside the state boundaries of Colorado, it happens wherever they're doing business, but the harms of that conduct occur inside the state.
00:08:18.560 --> 00:08:28.000
In other words, the city and county of Boulder are seeking to recover damages for the harms that have happened here in our local community, but the conduct happens all over the world, basically.
00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:42.480
And so that's creating this question of whether this is something that state law can really deal with, or is this something that federal law should be have the kind of the exclusive role or authority over?
00:08:42.639 --> 00:08:51.039
So is this a state law or federal case because the tortuous conduct is internationally or certainly nationally, and but the harms are here in Colorado.
00:08:51.279 --> 00:08:54.879
So the city of Boulder are basically like, look, this is common.
00:08:55.120 --> 00:09:03.840
So we often have state tort law claims that are based on conduct that happens all over the country or all over the world.
00:09:04.159 --> 00:09:05.600
And so that's normal.
00:09:05.759 --> 00:09:19.200
And so you might think of something like tobacco litigation or seat belts, which was one of the type of litigation that proceeded before tobacco litigation, or litigation over the marketing of opiates.
00:09:19.679 --> 00:09:27.440
In a modern society, an economy like we have now, there's all kinds of business activity that happens all over the country.
00:09:27.679 --> 00:09:32.960
And state courts are able to deal with the effects of that inside state boundaries.
00:09:33.120 --> 00:09:38.240
And so that's a fairly normal now type of legal relief to seek.
00:09:38.480 --> 00:09:41.200
But the oil industry is saying, oh, but this is climate change.
00:09:41.279 --> 00:09:43.200
So this is even more difficult.
00:09:43.440 --> 00:09:52.559
And because climate change is a global phenomenon, we really shouldn't be asking or allowing state courts to have a role in figuring this out.
00:09:53.039 --> 00:10:02.159
We've seen a lot of this recently in Colorado with the opioid crisis and the meta lawsuit that Colorado set to get$615 million from.
00:10:02.320 --> 00:10:06.399
So it seems like there's a good bit of case law on that particular side.
00:10:06.559 --> 00:10:11.840
What case law might the court rely on, I guess, in considering the whole case?
00:10:11.919 --> 00:10:18.799
And but specifically, I'm curious about what's the case law on the other side of like environmental issues don't count somehow.
00:10:19.120 --> 00:10:42.320
I think a lot of scholars and folks who are not directly engaged on behalf of one party or another here think that the substantive arguments that the fossil fuel industry are making are weak in that there really isn't a lot of precedent that supports their position that the state court should be prohibited from having a role in this question.
00:10:42.559 --> 00:11:00.080
The fossil fuel industry is hoping that a very conservative Supreme Court maybe strikes out on a new path or establishes some new precedent or stretches some previous precedent and pulls it into this kind of new area of climate change, state tort litigation.
00:11:00.320 --> 00:11:07.440
We can talk about that a little bit more, but there really isn't super strong precedent that the oil industry is bringing to this case.
00:11:07.600 --> 00:11:17.039
But they're making some constitutional arguments on this bigger picture of what the structure should be between the federal and state governments.
00:11:17.200 --> 00:11:24.559
But a lot of us don't believe they have strong precedent or even strong language in the constitution to support those arguments.
00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:28.480
What do we have from this court?
00:11:28.639 --> 00:11:33.919
What rulings do we have in these areas or touching these areas that might suggest where they might go?
00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:39.759
And I don't know whether that's rulings on federal versus state or rulings on federal environmental law, things like that.
00:11:39.919 --> 00:11:43.440
What do we know from what they've done that might suggest what they might do here?
00:11:44.320 --> 00:11:52.720
It's very hard to say, actually, because this case is so early on in its life history.
00:11:52.879 --> 00:11:59.360
So again, remember I mentioned that there's been no ruling on demerit, there's been no trial, there's no been no final determination.
00:11:59.519 --> 00:12:03.039
So this is what's called an interlocutory appeal.
00:12:03.279 --> 00:12:07.039
And basically the oil industry is saying, well, the case isn't over yet.
00:12:07.120 --> 00:12:15.279
This is just a preliminary ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, and yet we still want the Supreme Court to intervene now, before there's even been a trial.
00:12:15.519 --> 00:12:18.720
All the Colorado Supreme Court said is we're not going to dismiss the case.
00:12:18.799 --> 00:12:23.519
It goes back to the lower courts, and there might be other procedural arguments, or there might be a trial.
00:12:23.679 --> 00:12:36.799
So it's very unusual actually for the Supreme Court of the United States to step into a state court dispute before there's been a trial or determination on the merits or a final judgment.
00:12:36.960 --> 00:12:46.399
And the Supreme Court has kind of been very cautious about overstepping those limitations on its role with respect to state litigation.
00:12:46.639 --> 00:13:11.840
And so I think that there is actually a decent chance that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are concerned or at least interested in what precedent this might set if the Supreme Court kind of goes beyond what it's thought of as its traditional role with respect to state litigation in this case by stepping in early as compared to stepping in after a final judgment's been issued.
00:13:12.080 --> 00:13:31.039
So that's a really important preliminary question that I think when we listen to the argument in October, I think we're going to hear the justices on the Supreme Court ask a lot of questions about whether this is the right time for the Supreme Court to be taking up this question of state versus federal law.
00:13:31.200 --> 00:13:44.879
So that's the first thing I would say is that I think that's a really important question that maybe doesn't necessarily cleanly fall on ideological or conservative versus progressive lines of thinking in the Supreme Court.
00:13:47.360 --> 00:13:48.879
Well, then why did they take it at all?
00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:50.080
They don't have to hear it, right?
00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:52.240
Like they did, they were not compelled to.
00:13:52.720 --> 00:13:56.399
That's a really good question is why did they take this case at all?
00:13:56.480 --> 00:13:57.919
It was discretionary, right?
00:13:58.000 --> 00:14:03.279
They could have looked at the petition for Serge Ferrari filed by the oil industry and said, no, this is too early.
00:14:03.519 --> 00:14:09.120
And I think that's a question that many of us who've been watching this case have struggled with.
00:14:09.440 --> 00:14:12.480
Why did the Supreme Court take this case now?
00:14:12.799 --> 00:14:21.600
And I don't think there's a clear answer to that because the Supreme Court doesn't explain why it took the case when it grants the motion, the petition for search Ferrari.
00:14:21.679 --> 00:14:23.679
It just says petition granted.
00:14:23.919 --> 00:14:39.440
So we're not sure, but what the Supreme Court did say is that we want the parties to address standing, which is this question of whether the oil industry has actually been harmed by the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
00:14:39.600 --> 00:14:44.000
So the Supreme Court explicitly asked the parties to address this question.
00:14:44.320 --> 00:14:50.960
And so we know that the Supreme Court is at least thinking about it, but we don't know why they granted the petition.
00:14:51.200 --> 00:15:02.799
And it's likely connected to the fact that this is such a significant issue and that the consequences of the case are potentially so sweeping.
00:15:03.200 --> 00:15:12.399
So I think it's that kind of like weighty significance of this potential litigation that certainly was in the court's mind when it granted the petition for Sir Ferrari.
00:15:13.519 --> 00:15:17.919
What are the arguments surrounding whether or not the oil and gas companies have been harmed?
00:15:18.080 --> 00:15:22.879
Is it like they may be harmed eventually, or do they have to prove like have been harmed right now?
00:15:23.200 --> 00:15:43.039
So typically, a party that goes to the Supreme Court and says, hey, we want you to take up our case, they have to show under the Constitution of the United States, Article III, that there's a case in controversy, meaning they have actually been concretely harmed by the decision of the lower court that they want the Supreme Court to review.
00:15:43.279 --> 00:15:50.559
So that's the constitutional minimum in order to march into federal court and ask a federal judge or the Supreme Court to take up your case.
00:15:50.799 --> 00:15:53.279
Now, here that's very speculative, right?
00:15:53.360 --> 00:15:57.120
Because the Supreme Court of Colorado didn't actually issue a final judgment.
00:15:57.200 --> 00:16:00.159
There's no impositional liability, no damages have been awarded.
00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:05.679
All the Supreme Court of Colorado said is yes, you have to respond to this lawsuit.
00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:17.519
And normally having to respond to a lawsuit is not enough in terms of an injury to get a higher court to step in because that would create chaos across the system.
00:16:17.679 --> 00:16:18.480
It'd be very difficult.
00:16:18.559 --> 00:16:23.360
There'd always be this ping-ponging of cases up and down from trial courts to appellate courts.
00:16:23.600 --> 00:16:34.240
And so that is the argument here that the city and county of Boulder made is there is no injury to the oil and gas industry simply by having to defend this lawsuit.
00:16:34.399 --> 00:16:36.799
That's the way our system works.
00:16:37.039 --> 00:16:44.720
And so when we listen to the argument, I'm quite certain that's going to be one of the first things that comes up is what is the harm to the industry?
00:16:44.879 --> 00:16:47.759
And it can't just be that they have to defend this lawsuit.
00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:48.399
That's not enough.
00:16:48.480 --> 00:16:56.480
There's got to be some other type of cognizable harm or injury to the party that asks the Supreme Court to take this case up.
00:16:56.639 --> 00:17:06.799
And I think that question is why the Supreme Court explicitly instructed the parties to brief or to present this issue of standing to the court as a part of these proceedings.
00:17:08.559 --> 00:17:13.279
I'd like to address some of the media coverage and public perception around this case.
00:17:13.519 --> 00:17:16.799
I think it's widely believed that this is a precedent-setting case.
00:17:16.880 --> 00:17:22.400
And I believe that it is, but I don't think it necessarily might be the precedent that people might think it is.
00:17:22.559 --> 00:17:29.039
So could you speak to that, like the possible outcomes and what that would actually, like what precedent they would actually set?
00:17:29.599 --> 00:17:30.720
Yeah, it's a great question.
00:17:30.799 --> 00:17:32.400
And there's a lot of confusion around this.
00:17:32.480 --> 00:17:43.039
So first of all, I think it's important to remember what the city and county and Boulder are actually asking for in terms of relief in this case.
00:17:43.279 --> 00:17:53.839
And so they've asked for damages from the oil industry that would compensate the local jurisdictions for the cost of having to respond to climate change.
00:17:54.000 --> 00:17:55.440
So it's a damages case.
00:17:55.519 --> 00:18:05.920
So they're saying, hey, we're having to spend more money in order to address the impacts and effects of climate change, heat waves, droughts, fires, floods, those kinds of things.
00:18:06.240 --> 00:18:14.720
But in this case, they are not asking a court to control the emissions, greenhouse gas emissions into the future.
00:18:14.880 --> 00:18:21.200
They're not saying, hey, we want the court to order the oil and gas industry to stop producing fossil fuels.
00:18:21.440 --> 00:18:29.119
This case isn't about a court ordering anybody, auto manufacturers, utilities, power plants.
00:18:29.519 --> 00:18:35.599
No request that the court order any of those entities to stop burning fossil fuels or emitting greenhouse gases.
00:18:35.759 --> 00:18:43.119
So this is just all about damages for the costs that are associated with the effects of climate change.
00:18:43.359 --> 00:18:50.400
So there's no forward-looking relief related to whether or not entities can continue to burn or emit greenhouse gases.
00:18:50.559 --> 00:18:52.480
So that's really important to understand.
00:18:52.559 --> 00:19:06.559
This is not a case that attempts to take the place of the Clean Air Act, Federal Clean Air Act, as an example, to kind of step in and say, oh, now state courts are going to do what the Clean Air Act should have been doing or what Congress should have been doing with respect to emissions.
00:19:06.720 --> 00:19:10.480
So I think that's the first and perhaps the most important thing to understand.
00:19:12.720 --> 00:19:15.680
Anything else that might be important there?
00:19:16.079 --> 00:19:23.599
I will say that the costs of responding to climate change are incredibly important.
00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:38.400
And how we as a community, as an economy, as a nation, as the state of Colorado are going to struggle with those costs moving forward, I mean, that's incredibly important for all of us, especially here in our local community.
00:19:38.640 --> 00:19:42.000
And so if that all just falls on our shoulders, right?
00:19:42.160 --> 00:19:50.880
If the citizens of Boulder and Boulder County, if it's all on us to deal with the effects of climate change, that is a huge lift.
00:19:50.960 --> 00:20:01.039
And meanwhile, the oil companies have been making billions and billions and billions of dollars of profit from producing, marketing, and selling fossil fuels.
00:20:01.279 --> 00:20:16.400
So that issue of the cost of adaptation is incredibly important for the future of our local community here, for the West in general, and for the future of how we navigate our way through this new reality that we find ourselves in.
00:20:17.279 --> 00:20:21.440
So that ultimate objective of recovering the cost is incredibly important.
00:20:21.599 --> 00:20:28.640
But the other thing that I think the oil industry is afraid of is an actual trial.
00:20:29.039 --> 00:20:48.559
So they don't want to go, for instance, through the discovery process where the city and county of Boulder could send them a request for documents that says, give us every document you have related to your activities that attempted to undermine climate science over the last 50 years.
00:20:48.799 --> 00:21:02.480
They don't want to have to respond to a discovery request that says, tell us whether you had a strategy in place to prevent the federal government and to convince the public that they shouldn't worry about the threats of climate change.
00:21:02.640 --> 00:21:09.200
So they don't want to have to answer for their activities, the production, the marketing, the selling of fossil fuel.
00:21:09.359 --> 00:21:20.400
They don't want to have to respond to these allegations that there was an intentionally deceptive strategy in place to prevent the public from knowing about how severe these threats were.
00:21:20.559 --> 00:21:36.480
So they don't even want to have to go through the discovery and trial process because they know that once they have to go down that road, that starts them down the same kind of road that they found themselves on with respect to tobacco and other kinds of very significant pieces of litigation in the past.
00:21:37.519 --> 00:21:44.400
And I would say there's already ample evidence of fossil fuel companies knowing the risk, downplaying them, attacking climate science.
00:21:44.480 --> 00:21:47.279
Like that's already out, regardless of what happens in this case.
00:21:47.599 --> 00:21:51.119
And imagine listeners would be unaware of that, but just in case they are.
00:21:51.680 --> 00:21:59.759
It's already out there, but it's much different than having it out there versus having somebody in the oil and gas industry having to sit down for a deposition.
00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:15.680
Under oath and testifying about that, and then having that testimony repeated in court in front of a judge under oath for the entire world to see, and then for there to be a judgment from a court about whether that's intentionally deceptive and what that means legally.
00:22:15.839 --> 00:22:29.039
So, yes, that information is out there, but it's the presentation of that information in a court of law and a judgment as to whether that's unlawful, that terrifies the oil industry.
00:22:31.759 --> 00:22:46.400
Since we're talking of being afraid, as a complete layperson and not entirely a legal dummy, but for all intents and purposes for sure, I think it's easy to look at this case and have not a lot of hope, particularly because of this court, not because of the case itself.
00:22:46.640 --> 00:22:48.640
Is that a fair position to take?
00:22:48.960 --> 00:22:54.960
Or is there some information I don't know as a layperson and legal dummy that might give some more hope?
00:22:55.680 --> 00:23:08.559
I think it's entirely fair to feel frustrated with the current Supreme Court and to be concerned about the direction that the court is leading the country right now.
00:23:08.799 --> 00:23:18.240
I think that frustration, that fear is shared by so many people across the country when we see things like the reversal of Roe v.
00:23:18.400 --> 00:23:24.960
Wade, which was settled precedent for so long, many of the other cases that have come down from the court recently.
00:23:25.039 --> 00:23:32.960
It just feels like, in some ways, that the court has lost touch with how we all feel as members of the public.
00:23:33.119 --> 00:23:37.359
So I share that frustration as somebody who watches the court pretty closely.
00:23:37.599 --> 00:23:41.599
And I think that it's entirely reasonable to feel that way.
00:23:41.839 --> 00:23:58.480
Now, I'm not totally hopeless, though, because I feel like this case is on a very firm footing, that it is aligned with how other courts, state courts around the country, have tried to rein in wrongful corporate behavior in the past.
00:23:58.880 --> 00:24:09.440
Because some of these questions about standing and injury and jurisdiction and the timing of when the federal court should step in, I feel like those are all very difficult and complex issues.
00:24:09.599 --> 00:24:14.400
So I think it's very much an open question as to what the Supreme Court does with this case in October.
00:24:14.640 --> 00:24:27.200
But I will say this I think the effects of climate change and whether we're making progress on climate change, meaningful progress, is a much more difficult issue.
00:24:27.440 --> 00:24:50.799
And this case is only one small part of that much larger and more significant question, which is are we actually doing what we need to do to prevent the most severe effects of climate change from really threatening not only what we have come to love about Colorado, but what our children and grandchildren are going to experience here.
00:24:51.119 --> 00:24:53.359
So I think that's a much more difficult question.
00:24:53.519 --> 00:25:13.039
And I think it's incumbent on all of us who care about that question to continue to put pressure on lawmakers at both the federal and state level to really step up and take this on in a much more meaningful and urgent way than we have in the past.
00:25:13.279 --> 00:25:23.839
That bigger and more important issue isn't going to be taken up by the court in this case, but I think is something that we all have a role in hopefully addressing.
00:25:25.759 --> 00:25:29.920
I have a little more hope because of the other big lawsuits that have come down.
00:25:30.000 --> 00:25:34.000
Like I mentioned, the opioid crisis and we haven't gotten the money from Meta yet.
00:25:34.079 --> 00:25:46.000
I watched the opioid crisis money disbursement, and it allows local governments to pay for things that they couldn't otherwise to not only handle the damage, but like retrofitting of buildings and expanding public transit.
00:25:46.160 --> 00:25:51.359
There's so much we could do that could create a future in which we do reduce emissions.
00:25:51.599 --> 00:25:56.480
Cities have been asked to do so much more than they can quite possibly handle.
00:25:56.640 --> 00:25:58.400
So yeah, it's totally true.
00:25:58.559 --> 00:26:05.359
And the one thing that I'd say about this suit is that it's really strategic and that it's targeting the producers of fossil fuel.
00:26:05.519 --> 00:26:10.799
It's targeting the people who are supplying fossil fuels into the system.
00:26:11.359 --> 00:26:20.480
And right now, most of our other legal strategies are instead focusing on the demand for burning fossil fuel, right?
00:26:20.640 --> 00:26:31.519
So, like renewable portfolio standards are attempting to decrease the demand for fossil fuels by transitioning the electric grid towards renewables.
00:26:31.839 --> 00:26:40.160
Fuel efficiency standards are attempting to decrease the demand for fossil fuels by making cars more efficient, by reducing tailpipe emissions.
00:26:40.400 --> 00:26:56.559
Our housing policies, our transportation policies, all of those other things target the demand side of the equation, but we're not really doing much to try to force the suppliers to internalize the otherwise externalized costs of their business activities.
00:26:56.720 --> 00:27:08.079
And we've never come up with a good system for saying, oh, we need to actually directly regulate how much fossil fuel we're producing in order to address this climate crisis.
00:27:08.319 --> 00:27:20.640
So it is strategic, this case, in that it is really targeting the supply side of the equation when it comes to climate change, where all our other tools right now are really focused on the demand side.
00:27:20.799 --> 00:27:34.480
And we really need to be focused more moving forward, I think, on this question of how do we regulate how much fossil fuel we produce, not just how we deincentivize the consumption of fossil fuels.
00:27:34.559 --> 00:27:47.680
Because if we keep producing fossil fuels around the world without regard to the effects on climate change, it's going to make the whole demand side of the equation much less effective at the end of the day.
00:27:48.960 --> 00:27:50.880
What else should I be asking you that I'm not?
00:27:50.960 --> 00:27:58.880
And I know this case is massive and complex, but again, keeping in mind our audience, which is general folks who might not even know this lawsuit isn't ending.
00:27:59.599 --> 00:28:10.960
When this case goes to Supreme Court, both sides file briefs, and then there's a whole bunch of amicus briefs or Friends of the Court briefs that also get filed with the court, trying to convince the court to support one party or the other.
00:28:11.119 --> 00:28:17.279
And it's interesting to read through those and try to understand who's aligning with which party in this case.
00:28:17.519 --> 00:28:32.160
Many of the states, including Colorado, the state attorney general Phil Weiser, led an effort by the state of Colorado to align with several other states around the country who feel similarly, to file an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief in support of the city and county here.
00:28:32.480 --> 00:28:39.279
Our attorney general, the state of Colorado, and the state as a whole has stepped up in support of what the city and county are trying to do.
00:28:39.359 --> 00:28:43.440
And then there was a really interesting amicus brief that was filed by some ranchers on the western slope.
00:28:43.599 --> 00:28:44.880
And they are saying, you know what?
00:28:44.960 --> 00:28:46.799
Yeah, we're dealing with this too.
00:28:46.960 --> 00:28:48.799
And we live in rural Colorado.
00:28:48.880 --> 00:28:50.079
We're connected to the land.
00:28:50.160 --> 00:28:58.079
We see the effects every single day on how climate change is affecting our water supplies, is affecting the local economy, is affecting wildfire risk.
00:28:58.240 --> 00:29:01.920
And we also support what the city and county are trying to do.
00:29:02.160 --> 00:29:04.640
They're trying to hold the fossil fuel companies accountable.
00:29:04.720 --> 00:29:06.000
And we want that too.
00:29:06.319 --> 00:29:10.400
Let's not forget about San Miguel County, because they are part of this suit also.
00:29:10.559 --> 00:29:16.319
And that's really important to note is that it's not just Boulder, it's also San Miguel County.
00:29:16.400 --> 00:29:21.440
The folks on the Western Slope feel this threat also every single day.
00:29:22.960 --> 00:29:25.759
How much influence do amicus briefs have?
00:29:25.839 --> 00:29:30.640
And obviously, you can't speak to this particular court and their personal motivations and all of that.
00:29:30.799 --> 00:29:35.839
But what do we know about amicus briefs and their role generally in cases?
00:29:36.160 --> 00:29:37.759
Yeah, they're really important.
00:29:37.839 --> 00:29:50.960
And I think the importance of any individual amicus brief depends a lot on the case, depends on the skills and the strategic vision of the lawyers and parties who are crafting those briefs.
00:29:51.119 --> 00:30:08.000
But in general, they're very important, which is why there is so much attention paid to them and why there's so much work that goes on behind the scenes by Supreme Court litigants to align all of these parties to figure out what they're going to say to coordinate those efforts.
00:30:08.160 --> 00:30:13.279
Sometimes you'll see the Supreme Court citing to the amicus briefs that were filed in their opinions.
00:30:13.359 --> 00:30:18.400
And that's just a good indication that, yes, the Supreme Court takes these things very seriously.
00:30:18.559 --> 00:30:26.160
And a lot of folks have studied how the Supreme Court cites to and uses amicus briefs and how it has done that over the course of its history.
00:30:26.319 --> 00:30:40.240
And in general, they're really important and they do, at the end of the day, influence, can influence the outcome and the reasoning of the Supreme Court, but it really depends on how well it's done and the specifics of each individual case.
00:30:42.240 --> 00:30:46.000
Anything else we should touch on before we sign off here?
00:30:46.640 --> 00:30:57.519
It's important to recognize when we're talking about climate change, these costs that the city and county are talking about, the effects of climate change, they aren't felt equally by everybody.
00:30:57.759 --> 00:31:01.839
The effects fall most heavily on those who are most vulnerable.
00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:07.440
And that's often low-income people, people of color, people in rural communities.
00:31:07.680 --> 00:31:30.880
And so I think it's really important for us to recognize that it's important for a city government, a county government to be stepping up in this way, because those government entities, I think, are situated or at least reasonably well situated to think through how to protect those who are most vulnerable from the effects of climate change.
00:31:30.960 --> 00:31:52.720
And so that's one of the reasons I think it's so important for local jurisdictions to be taking this kind of action and for the state of Colorado to be supporting them through this amicus brief, is because if it's not those government entities, then I don't know who is going to step up and serve as that guardian for the most vulnerable people who are going to be experiencing the worst effects of climate change on the front lines.
00:31:52.960 --> 00:32:03.759
There's also nobody really speaking for the children, the youth who are affected by this, the next generations, our children and grandchildren who are going to be dealing with the most severe effects of climate change.
00:32:03.920 --> 00:32:15.039
And again, I think that's why it's really important for our governmental entities to be thinking through their responsibilities to the young people and to future generations, because otherwise, who else is going to do that?
00:00:00.560 --> 00:00:03.520
BBHD, the frequency.
00:00:08.480 --> 00:00:10.720
Who should pay for climate change?
00:00:10.960 --> 00:00:19.039
That's the question we're exploring today, as the frequency takes you inside a Supreme Court case that started right here in Boulder County.
00:00:19.280 --> 00:00:21.120
Happy Friday, frequency listeners.
00:00:21.199 --> 00:00:22.320
I'm Jay Castle.
00:00:22.559 --> 00:00:27.679
Today's story is on Funcore Energy versus the County Commissioners of Boulder County.
00:00:27.839 --> 00:00:30.640
Docket number 25-170.
00:00:31.120 --> 00:00:34.320
The case is much bigger than its title suggests.
00:00:34.719 --> 00:00:42.960
The City of Boulder and Boulder and San Miguel counties are suing ExxonMobil and two Suncor entities for harms caused by climate change.
00:00:43.200 --> 00:00:46.320
The case was first filed in April 2018.
00:00:46.719 --> 00:00:51.840
And ever since, the two sides have been fighting about which court should get to take it off.
00:00:52.079 --> 00:00:56.960
Last May, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the case could proceed in state court.
00:00:57.439 --> 00:00:59.759
The oil companies then appealed to the U.S.
00:00:59.920 --> 00:01:06.079
Supreme Court, arguing federal law shields them from local harms and local laws.
00:01:06.319 --> 00:01:11.840
The Supreme Court decided to review Colorado's ruling in its first case of the new term.
00:01:12.319 --> 00:01:14.879
Oral arguments begin October 5th.
00:01:15.120 --> 00:01:17.439
It's a case with huge implications.
00:01:17.599 --> 00:01:22.640
So I turned to an expert to help me and you make sense of things.
00:01:24.400 --> 00:01:31.040
My name is Chris Winter, and I'm an environmental lawyer, and I work at the University of Colorado Law School.
00:01:31.200 --> 00:01:40.319
So I serve as the executive director of a research institute there that focuses on natural resources law and policy, and it's called the Getus Wilkinson Center.
00:01:41.439 --> 00:01:41.760
Great.
00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:48.640
So we're here today to talk about the Suncor Boulder County case, which the Supreme Court is set to hear on October 5th.
00:01:48.799 --> 00:01:51.040
This was filed way back in 2018.
00:01:51.280 --> 00:01:54.719
Do you want to give a recap of how we got where we are today?
00:01:54.879 --> 00:01:58.159
I can also do this myself, but I didn't know if you had your own.
00:01:58.239 --> 00:02:00.000
Like this is what I want to say.
00:02:00.319 --> 00:02:07.760
Yeah, I've been following this case for quite a while, and it's had a very circuitous route through the court system.
00:02:08.159 --> 00:02:13.039
So this is a pretty big deal that the Supreme Court will be taking up this case in October.
00:02:13.439 --> 00:02:27.360
I think it's easiest to start by talking about what the city and county of Boulder are trying to accomplish with this case, and that might help to lay a foundation to understand why it's at the Supreme Court right now and how it got there.
00:02:27.599 --> 00:02:44.639
But the city and county of Boulder filed a case in Colorado state court originally, and they're trying to recover damages for the costs associated with responding to climate change here locally in our community.
00:02:44.719 --> 00:02:58.800
And so those costs are associated with heat waves, droughts, floods, and those kinds of effects that are connected to climate change are imposing real costs on local jurisdictions like the city and county of Boulder.
00:02:59.039 --> 00:03:06.319
So the city and county filed a state law claim against Suncor and some other major oil producers.
00:03:06.639 --> 00:03:21.199
And the claims are basically tort claims saying, oh, the oil companies were deceptive in their marketing and failed to warn the consumers intentionally, failed to warn the consumers about the risks of producing and marketing and selling fossil fuels.
00:03:21.439 --> 00:03:28.639
And because of that, the oil companies are liable to the city and county for the costs of responding to climate change.
00:03:28.800 --> 00:03:34.000
So it was a state-based tort law claim filed in state court.
00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:39.039
And the oil industry claims oh, this is preempted by federal law.
00:03:39.199 --> 00:03:50.400
And so that's kind of how we've ended up at the Supreme Court, the federal Supreme Court, because it's this struggle, this art-wrestling debate over whether this is a federal issue or a state issue.
00:03:51.039 --> 00:03:52.960
When you say tort law, what does that mean?
00:03:53.120 --> 00:03:53.599
Yeah.
00:03:53.919 --> 00:03:56.000
So tort law is like state common law.
00:03:56.080 --> 00:04:10.319
And so basically the principles of a tort law claim are some person or entity had a duty or responsibility to act in a certain way in order to prevent some kind of harm that might be caused to another party.
00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:20.720
And so, for instance, if you're driving down the street in your car, you have a duty under state law not to drive recklessly or not to intentionally run into somebody.
00:04:20.959 --> 00:04:25.600
And so that's like a common law duty that you have to behave like a reasonable person.
00:04:25.759 --> 00:04:42.800
And so that's a theory that the oil industry had a common law responsibility, duty to the people and to the county and to the city to act as a reasonable person, to be honest in how they are talking about the risks associated with their business activities.
00:04:42.959 --> 00:04:48.639
And these are the same kinds of theories that are applied to many, many other businesses, all other businesses.
00:04:48.800 --> 00:04:50.879
They have to be honest with us.
00:04:51.040 --> 00:04:52.480
They can't be deceptive.
00:04:52.720 --> 00:04:58.560
They have a duty to act reasonably and to prevent unreasonable harm to all of us.
00:05:00.480 --> 00:05:07.600
This is not the only lawsuit in the country to be filed trying to recoup some damages from oil and gas companies.
00:05:07.839 --> 00:05:10.879
Why is this the one that is going to the Supreme Court?
00:05:10.959 --> 00:05:13.199
Is it just the first one to be appealed there?
00:05:13.279 --> 00:05:18.000
Or is there something interesting about the case itself that the Supreme Court would agree to hear this?
00:05:19.040 --> 00:05:22.079
Well, this is one of the earliest cases around the country.
00:05:22.160 --> 00:05:34.399
And you're correct in that many other jurisdictions, other counties, municipalities, some tribes, have filed similar kinds of cases against the oil industry in different state courts around the country.
00:05:34.560 --> 00:05:37.279
So there's a whole number of these cases.
00:05:37.439 --> 00:05:42.560
And courts around the country have been struggling with the same kinds of questions that are at issue in this case.
00:05:42.800 --> 00:05:47.600
This is one of the first cases that was filed to kind of test out these legal theories.
00:05:47.680 --> 00:05:50.079
And that's one reason that it's going to be the first one.
00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:52.480
And the Supreme Court has taken up.
00:05:52.639 --> 00:05:58.160
I think one of the other reasons is just because it made its way through the state court, and then there's a state Supreme Court opinion on this.
00:05:58.240 --> 00:06:02.240
And so that's contributing also to the unique setting for this case.
00:06:03.759 --> 00:06:09.759
To your point about other courts struggling with this question, what are the legal arguments that we've seen so far?
00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:15.360
And so it's really important to understand that this case has not gone to trial.
00:06:15.600 --> 00:06:25.839
So there's been no determination by the courts on whether the fossil fuel companies were deceptive, whether the damages are actually connected to what the fossil fuel industry did.
00:06:26.079 --> 00:06:28.480
All of the issues right now are preliminary.
00:06:28.560 --> 00:06:36.879
They're essentially jurisdictional or questions of which law applies, is it federal law or state law, which court should hear the case?
00:06:37.040 --> 00:06:39.680
Is it the federal court system or the state court system?
00:06:39.920 --> 00:06:56.879
And so these are preliminary questions that the Supreme Court's going to be taking up as to whether this should really be a state court case or whether federal law has somehow preempted the state law that the city and county of Boulder are alleging governs this case.
00:06:57.040 --> 00:06:59.040
So these are preliminary jurisdictional questions.
00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:07.279
And we can talk about that a little bit, but at the outset, it's just really important to understand we're at a very early stage in this case, even though it was filed in 2018.
00:07:07.439 --> 00:07:13.120
There's been no determination on the marriage, there's been no discovery process, there's been no trial.
00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:18.480
So these are very, very preliminary jurisdictional questions, essentially.
00:07:20.079 --> 00:07:25.680
As a local government reporter for more than a decade, I know how slow things move, even at the local level.
00:07:25.759 --> 00:07:27.839
So this is nothing.
00:07:28.560 --> 00:07:32.879
Yeah, the gears of justice sometimes grind very slowly.
00:07:32.959 --> 00:07:34.879
And this is one of those cases.
00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:42.959
And that's partially because it's so complicated and there's this difficult and complex relationship between state and federal questions.
00:07:43.040 --> 00:07:45.680
And it's also because this is a novel legal theory.
00:07:47.279 --> 00:07:50.319
Can you talk a little bit maybe about the novel legal theory there?
00:07:50.800 --> 00:07:51.120
Yeah.
00:07:51.439 --> 00:08:08.560
This theory that the city and county of Boulder have brought to the courts basically says, well, there's these oil companies, they're multinational companies, and their conduct or behavior, their tortious conduct or behavior, their wrongful conduct happens internationally.
00:08:08.639 --> 00:08:18.319
It happens outside the state boundaries of Colorado, it happens wherever they're doing business, but the harms of that conduct occur inside the state.
00:08:18.560 --> 00:08:28.000
In other words, the city and county of Boulder are seeking to recover damages for the harms that have happened here in our local community, but the conduct happens all over the world, basically.
00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:42.480
And so that's creating this question of whether this is something that state law can really deal with, or is this something that federal law should be have the kind of the exclusive role or authority over?
00:08:42.639 --> 00:08:51.039
So is this a state law or federal case because the tortuous conduct is internationally or certainly nationally, and but the harms are here in Colorado.
00:08:51.279 --> 00:08:54.879
So the city of Boulder are basically like, look, this is common.
00:08:55.120 --> 00:09:03.840
So we often have state tort law claims that are based on conduct that happens all over the country or all over the world.
00:09:04.159 --> 00:09:05.600
And so that's normal.
00:09:05.759 --> 00:09:19.200
And so you might think of something like tobacco litigation or seat belts, which was one of the type of litigation that proceeded before tobacco litigation, or litigation over the marketing of opiates.
00:09:19.679 --> 00:09:27.440
In a modern society, an economy like we have now, there's all kinds of business activity that happens all over the country.
00:09:27.679 --> 00:09:32.960
And state courts are able to deal with the effects of that inside state boundaries.
00:09:33.120 --> 00:09:38.240
And so that's a fairly normal now type of legal relief to seek.
00:09:38.480 --> 00:09:41.200
But the oil industry is saying, oh, but this is climate change.
00:09:41.279 --> 00:09:43.200
So this is even more difficult.
00:09:43.440 --> 00:09:52.559
And because climate change is a global phenomenon, we really shouldn't be asking or allowing state courts to have a role in figuring this out.
00:09:53.039 --> 00:10:02.159
We've seen a lot of this recently in Colorado with the opioid crisis and the meta lawsuit that Colorado set to get$615 million from.
00:10:02.320 --> 00:10:06.399
So it seems like there's a good bit of case law on that particular side.
00:10:06.559 --> 00:10:11.840
What case law might the court rely on, I guess, in considering the whole case?
00:10:11.919 --> 00:10:18.799
And but specifically, I'm curious about what's the case law on the other side of like environmental issues don't count somehow.
00:10:19.120 --> 00:10:42.320
I think a lot of scholars and folks who are not directly engaged on behalf of one party or another here think that the substantive arguments that the fossil fuel industry are making are weak in that there really isn't a lot of precedent that supports their position that the state court should be prohibited from having a role in this question.
00:10:42.559 --> 00:11:00.080
The fossil fuel industry is hoping that a very conservative Supreme Court maybe strikes out on a new path or establishes some new precedent or stretches some previous precedent and pulls it into this kind of new area of climate change, state tort litigation.
00:11:00.320 --> 00:11:07.440
We can talk about that a little bit more, but there really isn't super strong precedent that the oil industry is bringing to this case.
00:11:07.600 --> 00:11:17.039
But they're making some constitutional arguments on this bigger picture of what the structure should be between the federal and state governments.
00:11:17.200 --> 00:11:24.559
But a lot of us don't believe they have strong precedent or even strong language in the constitution to support those arguments.
00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:28.480
What do we have from this court?
00:11:28.639 --> 00:11:33.919
What rulings do we have in these areas or touching these areas that might suggest where they might go?
00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:39.759
And I don't know whether that's rulings on federal versus state or rulings on federal environmental law, things like that.
00:11:39.919 --> 00:11:43.440
What do we know from what they've done that might suggest what they might do here?
00:11:44.320 --> 00:11:52.720
It's very hard to say, actually, because this case is so early on in its life history.
00:11:52.879 --> 00:11:59.360
So again, remember I mentioned that there's been no ruling on demerit, there's been no trial, there's no been no final determination.
00:11:59.519 --> 00:12:03.039
So this is what's called an interlocutory appeal.
00:12:03.279 --> 00:12:07.039
And basically the oil industry is saying, well, the case isn't over yet.
00:12:07.120 --> 00:12:15.279
This is just a preliminary ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, and yet we still want the Supreme Court to intervene now, before there's even been a trial.
00:12:15.519 --> 00:12:18.720
All the Colorado Supreme Court said is we're not going to dismiss the case.
00:12:18.799 --> 00:12:23.519
It goes back to the lower courts, and there might be other procedural arguments, or there might be a trial.
00:12:23.679 --> 00:12:36.799
So it's very unusual actually for the Supreme Court of the United States to step into a state court dispute before there's been a trial or determination on the merits or a final judgment.
00:12:36.960 --> 00:12:46.399
And the Supreme Court has kind of been very cautious about overstepping those limitations on its role with respect to state litigation.
00:12:46.639 --> 00:13:11.840
And so I think that there is actually a decent chance that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are concerned or at least interested in what precedent this might set if the Supreme Court kind of goes beyond what it's thought of as its traditional role with respect to state litigation in this case by stepping in early as compared to stepping in after a final judgment's been issued.
00:13:12.080 --> 00:13:31.039
So that's a really important preliminary question that I think when we listen to the argument in October, I think we're going to hear the justices on the Supreme Court ask a lot of questions about whether this is the right time for the Supreme Court to be taking up this question of state versus federal law.
00:13:31.200 --> 00:13:44.879
So that's the first thing I would say is that I think that's a really important question that maybe doesn't necessarily cleanly fall on ideological or conservative versus progressive lines of thinking in the Supreme Court.
00:13:47.360 --> 00:13:48.879
Well, then why did they take it at all?
00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:50.080
They don't have to hear it, right?
00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:52.240
Like they did, they were not compelled to.
00:13:52.720 --> 00:13:56.399
That's a really good question is why did they take this case at all?
00:13:56.480 --> 00:13:57.919
It was discretionary, right?
00:13:58.000 --> 00:14:03.279
They could have looked at the petition for Serge Ferrari filed by the oil industry and said, no, this is too early.
00:14:03.519 --> 00:14:09.120
And I think that's a question that many of us who've been watching this case have struggled with.
00:14:09.440 --> 00:14:12.480
Why did the Supreme Court take this case now?
00:14:12.799 --> 00:14:21.600
And I don't think there's a clear answer to that because the Supreme Court doesn't explain why it took the case when it grants the motion, the petition for search Ferrari.
00:14:21.679 --> 00:14:23.679
It just says petition granted.
00:14:23.919 --> 00:14:39.440
So we're not sure, but what the Supreme Court did say is that we want the parties to address standing, which is this question of whether the oil industry has actually been harmed by the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
00:14:39.600 --> 00:14:44.000
So the Supreme Court explicitly asked the parties to address this question.
00:14:44.320 --> 00:14:50.960
And so we know that the Supreme Court is at least thinking about it, but we don't know why they granted the petition.
00:14:51.200 --> 00:15:02.799
And it's likely connected to the fact that this is such a significant issue and that the consequences of the case are potentially so sweeping.
00:15:03.200 --> 00:15:12.399
So I think it's that kind of like weighty significance of this potential litigation that certainly was in the court's mind when it granted the petition for Sir Ferrari.
00:15:13.519 --> 00:15:17.919
What are the arguments surrounding whether or not the oil and gas companies have been harmed?
00:15:18.080 --> 00:15:22.879
Is it like they may be harmed eventually, or do they have to prove like have been harmed right now?
00:15:23.200 --> 00:15:43.039
So typically, a party that goes to the Supreme Court and says, hey, we want you to take up our case, they have to show under the Constitution of the United States, Article III, that there's a case in controversy, meaning they have actually been concretely harmed by the decision of the lower court that they want the Supreme Court to review.
00:15:43.279 --> 00:15:50.559
So that's the constitutional minimum in order to march into federal court and ask a federal judge or the Supreme Court to take up your case.
00:15:50.799 --> 00:15:53.279
Now, here that's very speculative, right?
00:15:53.360 --> 00:15:57.120
Because the Supreme Court of Colorado didn't actually issue a final judgment.
00:15:57.200 --> 00:16:00.159
There's no impositional liability, no damages have been awarded.
00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:05.679
All the Supreme Court of Colorado said is yes, you have to respond to this lawsuit.
00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:17.519
And normally having to respond to a lawsuit is not enough in terms of an injury to get a higher court to step in because that would create chaos across the system.
00:16:17.679 --> 00:16:18.480
It'd be very difficult.
00:16:18.559 --> 00:16:23.360
There'd always be this ping-ponging of cases up and down from trial courts to appellate courts.
00:16:23.600 --> 00:16:34.240
And so that is the argument here that the city and county of Boulder made is there is no injury to the oil and gas industry simply by having to defend this lawsuit.
00:16:34.399 --> 00:16:36.799
That's the way our system works.
00:16:37.039 --> 00:16:44.720
And so when we listen to the argument, I'm quite certain that's going to be one of the first things that comes up is what is the harm to the industry?
00:16:44.879 --> 00:16:47.759
And it can't just be that they have to defend this lawsuit.
00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:48.399
That's not enough.
00:16:48.480 --> 00:16:56.480
There's got to be some other type of cognizable harm or injury to the party that asks the Supreme Court to take this case up.
00:16:56.639 --> 00:17:06.799
And I think that question is why the Supreme Court explicitly instructed the parties to brief or to present this issue of standing to the court as a part of these proceedings.
00:17:08.559 --> 00:17:13.279
I'd like to address some of the media coverage and public perception around this case.
00:17:13.519 --> 00:17:16.799
I think it's widely believed that this is a precedent-setting case.
00:17:16.880 --> 00:17:22.400
And I believe that it is, but I don't think it necessarily might be the precedent that people might think it is.
00:17:22.559 --> 00:17:29.039
So could you speak to that, like the possible outcomes and what that would actually, like what precedent they would actually set?
00:17:29.599 --> 00:17:30.720
Yeah, it's a great question.
00:17:30.799 --> 00:17:32.400
And there's a lot of confusion around this.
00:17:32.480 --> 00:17:43.039
So first of all, I think it's important to remember what the city and county and Boulder are actually asking for in terms of relief in this case.
00:17:43.279 --> 00:17:53.839
And so they've asked for damages from the oil industry that would compensate the local jurisdictions for the cost of having to respond to climate change.
00:17:54.000 --> 00:17:55.440
So it's a damages case.
00:17:55.519 --> 00:18:05.920
So they're saying, hey, we're having to spend more money in order to address the impacts and effects of climate change, heat waves, droughts, fires, floods, those kinds of things.
00:18:06.240 --> 00:18:14.720
But in this case, they are not asking a court to control the emissions, greenhouse gas emissions into the future.
00:18:14.880 --> 00:18:21.200
They're not saying, hey, we want the court to order the oil and gas industry to stop producing fossil fuels.
00:18:21.440 --> 00:18:29.119
This case isn't about a court ordering anybody, auto manufacturers, utilities, power plants.
00:18:29.519 --> 00:18:35.599
No request that the court order any of those entities to stop burning fossil fuels or emitting greenhouse gases.
00:18:35.759 --> 00:18:43.119
So this is just all about damages for the costs that are associated with the effects of climate change.
00:18:43.359 --> 00:18:50.400
So there's no forward-looking relief related to whether or not entities can continue to burn or emit greenhouse gases.
00:18:50.559 --> 00:18:52.480
So that's really important to understand.
00:18:52.559 --> 00:19:06.559
This is not a case that attempts to take the place of the Clean Air Act, Federal Clean Air Act, as an example, to kind of step in and say, oh, now state courts are going to do what the Clean Air Act should have been doing or what Congress should have been doing with respect to emissions.
00:19:06.720 --> 00:19:10.480
So I think that's the first and perhaps the most important thing to understand.
00:19:12.720 --> 00:19:15.680
Anything else that might be important there?
00:19:16.079 --> 00:19:23.599
I will say that the costs of responding to climate change are incredibly important.
00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:38.400
And how we as a community, as an economy, as a nation, as the state of Colorado are going to struggle with those costs moving forward, I mean, that's incredibly important for all of us, especially here in our local community.
00:19:38.640 --> 00:19:42.000
And so if that all just falls on our shoulders, right?
00:19:42.160 --> 00:19:50.880
If the citizens of Boulder and Boulder County, if it's all on us to deal with the effects of climate change, that is a huge lift.
00:19:50.960 --> 00:20:01.039
And meanwhile, the oil companies have been making billions and billions and billions of dollars of profit from producing, marketing, and selling fossil fuels.
00:20:01.279 --> 00:20:16.400
So that issue of the cost of adaptation is incredibly important for the future of our local community here, for the West in general, and for the future of how we navigate our way through this new reality that we find ourselves in.
00:20:17.279 --> 00:20:21.440
So that ultimate objective of recovering the cost is incredibly important.
00:20:21.599 --> 00:20:28.640
But the other thing that I think the oil industry is afraid of is an actual trial.
00:20:29.039 --> 00:20:48.559
So they don't want to go, for instance, through the discovery process where the city and county of Boulder could send them a request for documents that says, give us every document you have related to your activities that attempted to undermine climate science over the last 50 years.
00:20:48.799 --> 00:21:02.480
They don't want to have to respond to a discovery request that says, tell us whether you had a strategy in place to prevent the federal government and to convince the public that they shouldn't worry about the threats of climate change.
00:21:02.640 --> 00:21:09.200
So they don't want to have to answer for their activities, the production, the marketing, the selling of fossil fuel.
00:21:09.359 --> 00:21:20.400
They don't want to have to respond to these allegations that there was an intentionally deceptive strategy in place to prevent the public from knowing about how severe these threats were.
00:21:20.559 --> 00:21:36.480
So they don't even want to have to go through the discovery and trial process because they know that once they have to go down that road, that starts them down the same kind of road that they found themselves on with respect to tobacco and other kinds of very significant pieces of litigation in the past.
00:21:37.519 --> 00:21:44.400
And I would say there's already ample evidence of fossil fuel companies knowing the risk, downplaying them, attacking climate science.
00:21:44.480 --> 00:21:47.279
Like that's already out, regardless of what happens in this case.
00:21:47.599 --> 00:21:51.119
And imagine listeners would be unaware of that, but just in case they are.
00:21:51.680 --> 00:21:59.759
It's already out there, but it's much different than having it out there versus having somebody in the oil and gas industry having to sit down for a deposition.
00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:15.680
Under oath and testifying about that, and then having that testimony repeated in court in front of a judge under oath for the entire world to see, and then for there to be a judgment from a court about whether that's intentionally deceptive and what that means legally.
00:22:15.839 --> 00:22:29.039
So, yes, that information is out there, but it's the presentation of that information in a court of law and a judgment as to whether that's unlawful, that terrifies the oil industry.
00:22:31.759 --> 00:22:46.400
Since we're talking of being afraid, as a complete layperson and not entirely a legal dummy, but for all intents and purposes for sure, I think it's easy to look at this case and have not a lot of hope, particularly because of this court, not because of the case itself.
00:22:46.640 --> 00:22:48.640
Is that a fair position to take?
00:22:48.960 --> 00:22:54.960
Or is there some information I don't know as a layperson and legal dummy that might give some more hope?
00:22:55.680 --> 00:23:08.559
I think it's entirely fair to feel frustrated with the current Supreme Court and to be concerned about the direction that the court is leading the country right now.
00:23:08.799 --> 00:23:18.240
I think that frustration, that fear is shared by so many people across the country when we see things like the reversal of Roe v.
00:23:18.400 --> 00:23:24.960
Wade, which was settled precedent for so long, many of the other cases that have come down from the court recently.
00:23:25.039 --> 00:23:32.960
It just feels like, in some ways, that the court has lost touch with how we all feel as members of the public.
00:23:33.119 --> 00:23:37.359
So I share that frustration as somebody who watches the court pretty closely.
00:23:37.599 --> 00:23:41.599
And I think that it's entirely reasonable to feel that way.
00:23:41.839 --> 00:23:58.480
Now, I'm not totally hopeless, though, because I feel like this case is on a very firm footing, that it is aligned with how other courts, state courts around the country, have tried to rein in wrongful corporate behavior in the past.
00:23:58.880 --> 00:24:09.440
Because some of these questions about standing and injury and jurisdiction and the timing of when the federal court should step in, I feel like those are all very difficult and complex issues.
00:24:09.599 --> 00:24:14.400
So I think it's very much an open question as to what the Supreme Court does with this case in October.
00:24:14.640 --> 00:24:27.200
But I will say this I think the effects of climate change and whether we're making progress on climate change, meaningful progress, is a much more difficult issue.
00:24:27.440 --> 00:24:50.799
And this case is only one small part of that much larger and more significant question, which is are we actually doing what we need to do to prevent the most severe effects of climate change from really threatening not only what we have come to love about Colorado, but what our children and grandchildren are going to experience here.
00:24:51.119 --> 00:24:53.359
So I think that's a much more difficult question.
00:24:53.519 --> 00:25:13.039
And I think it's incumbent on all of us who care about that question to continue to put pressure on lawmakers at both the federal and state level to really step up and take this on in a much more meaningful and urgent way than we have in the past.
00:25:13.279 --> 00:25:23.839
That bigger and more important issue isn't going to be taken up by the court in this case, but I think is something that we all have a role in hopefully addressing.
00:25:25.759 --> 00:25:29.920
I have a little more hope because of the other big lawsuits that have come down.
00:25:30.000 --> 00:25:34.000
Like I mentioned, the opioid crisis and we haven't gotten the money from Meta yet.
00:25:34.079 --> 00:25:46.000
I watched the opioid crisis money disbursement, and it allows local governments to pay for things that they couldn't otherwise to not only handle the damage, but like retrofitting of buildings and expanding public transit.
00:25:46.160 --> 00:25:51.359
There's so much we could do that could create a future in which we do reduce emissions.
00:25:51.599 --> 00:25:56.480
Cities have been asked to do so much more than they can quite possibly handle.
00:25:56.640 --> 00:25:58.400
So yeah, it's totally true.
00:25:58.559 --> 00:26:05.359
And the one thing that I'd say about this suit is that it's really strategic and that it's targeting the producers of fossil fuel.
00:26:05.519 --> 00:26:10.799
It's targeting the people who are supplying fossil fuels into the system.
00:26:11.359 --> 00:26:20.480
And right now, most of our other legal strategies are instead focusing on the demand for burning fossil fuel, right?
00:26:20.640 --> 00:26:31.519
So, like renewable portfolio standards are attempting to decrease the demand for fossil fuels by transitioning the electric grid towards renewables.
00:26:31.839 --> 00:26:40.160
Fuel efficiency standards are attempting to decrease the demand for fossil fuels by making cars more efficient, by reducing tailpipe emissions.
00:26:40.400 --> 00:26:56.559
Our housing policies, our transportation policies, all of those other things target the demand side of the equation, but we're not really doing much to try to force the suppliers to internalize the otherwise externalized costs of their business activities.
00:26:56.720 --> 00:27:08.079
And we've never come up with a good system for saying, oh, we need to actually directly regulate how much fossil fuel we're producing in order to address this climate crisis.
00:27:08.319 --> 00:27:20.640
So it is strategic, this case, in that it is really targeting the supply side of the equation when it comes to climate change, where all our other tools right now are really focused on the demand side.
00:27:20.799 --> 00:27:34.480
And we really need to be focused more moving forward, I think, on this question of how do we regulate how much fossil fuel we produce, not just how we deincentivize the consumption of fossil fuels.
00:27:34.559 --> 00:27:47.680
Because if we keep producing fossil fuels around the world without regard to the effects on climate change, it's going to make the whole demand side of the equation much less effective at the end of the day.
00:27:48.960 --> 00:27:50.880
What else should I be asking you that I'm not?
00:27:50.960 --> 00:27:58.880
And I know this case is massive and complex, but again, keeping in mind our audience, which is general folks who might not even know this lawsuit isn't ending.
00:27:59.599 --> 00:28:10.960
When this case goes to Supreme Court, both sides file briefs, and then there's a whole bunch of amicus briefs or Friends of the Court briefs that also get filed with the court, trying to convince the court to support one party or the other.
00:28:11.119 --> 00:28:17.279
And it's interesting to read through those and try to understand who's aligning with which party in this case.
00:28:17.519 --> 00:28:32.160
Many of the states, including Colorado, the state attorney general Phil Weiser, led an effort by the state of Colorado to align with several other states around the country who feel similarly, to file an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief in support of the city and county here.
00:28:32.480 --> 00:28:39.279
Our attorney general, the state of Colorado, and the state as a whole has stepped up in support of what the city and county are trying to do.
00:28:39.359 --> 00:28:43.440
And then there was a really interesting amicus brief that was filed by some ranchers on the western slope.
00:28:43.599 --> 00:28:44.880
And they are saying, you know what?
00:28:44.960 --> 00:28:46.799
Yeah, we're dealing with this too.
00:28:46.960 --> 00:28:48.799
And we live in rural Colorado.
00:28:48.880 --> 00:28:50.079
We're connected to the land.
00:28:50.160 --> 00:28:58.079
We see the effects every single day on how climate change is affecting our water supplies, is affecting the local economy, is affecting wildfire risk.
00:28:58.240 --> 00:29:01.920
And we also support what the city and county are trying to do.
00:29:02.160 --> 00:29:04.640
They're trying to hold the fossil fuel companies accountable.
00:29:04.720 --> 00:29:06.000
And we want that too.
00:29:06.319 --> 00:29:10.400
Let's not forget about San Miguel County, because they are part of this suit also.
00:29:10.559 --> 00:29:16.319
And that's really important to note is that it's not just Boulder, it's also San Miguel County.
00:29:16.400 --> 00:29:21.440
The folks on the Western Slope feel this threat also every single day.
00:29:22.960 --> 00:29:25.759
How much influence do amicus briefs have?
00:29:25.839 --> 00:29:30.640
And obviously, you can't speak to this particular court and their personal motivations and all of that.
00:29:30.799 --> 00:29:35.839
But what do we know about amicus briefs and their role generally in cases?
00:29:36.160 --> 00:29:37.759
Yeah, they're really important.
00:29:37.839 --> 00:29:50.960
And I think the importance of any individual amicus brief depends a lot on the case, depends on the skills and the strategic vision of the lawyers and parties who are crafting those briefs.
00:29:51.119 --> 00:30:08.000
But in general, they're very important, which is why there is so much attention paid to them and why there's so much work that goes on behind the scenes by Supreme Court litigants to align all of these parties to figure out what they're going to say to coordinate those efforts.
00:30:08.160 --> 00:30:13.279
Sometimes you'll see the Supreme Court citing to the amicus briefs that were filed in their opinions.
00:30:13.359 --> 00:30:18.400
And that's just a good indication that, yes, the Supreme Court takes these things very seriously.
00:30:18.559 --> 00:30:26.160
And a lot of folks have studied how the Supreme Court cites to and uses amicus briefs and how it has done that over the course of its history.
00:30:26.319 --> 00:30:40.240
And in general, they're really important and they do, at the end of the day, influence, can influence the outcome and the reasoning of the Supreme Court, but it really depends on how well it's done and the specifics of each individual case.
00:30:42.240 --> 00:30:46.000
Anything else we should touch on before we sign off here?
00:30:46.640 --> 00:30:57.519
It's important to recognize when we're talking about climate change, these costs that the city and county are talking about, the effects of climate change, they aren't felt equally by everybody.
00:30:57.759 --> 00:31:01.839
The effects fall most heavily on those who are most vulnerable.
00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:07.440
And that's often low-income people, people of color, people in rural communities.
00:31:07.680 --> 00:31:30.880
And so I think it's really important for us to recognize that it's important for a city government, a county government to be stepping up in this way, because those government entities, I think, are situated or at least reasonably well situated to think through how to protect those who are most vulnerable from the effects of climate change.
00:31:30.960 --> 00:31:52.720
And so that's one of the reasons I think it's so important for local jurisdictions to be taking this kind of action and for the state of Colorado to be supporting them through this amicus brief, is because if it's not those government entities, then I don't know who is going to step up and serve as that guardian for the most vulnerable people who are going to be experiencing the worst effects of climate change on the front lines.
00:31:52.960 --> 00:32:03.759
There's also nobody really speaking for the children, the youth who are affected by this, the next generations, our children and grandchildren who are going to be dealing with the most severe effects of climate change.
00:32:03.920 --> 00:32:15.039
And again, I think that's why it's really important for our governmental entities to be thinking through their responsibilities to the young people and to future generations, because otherwise, who else is going to do that?
