Foreign Publication Close Reading — California’s Crackdown on Carbon Emissions

The Economist | California Cracks Down on Carbon Full Article Introduction Just days before the annual event in New York City kicked off, California dropped two major bombs on carbon-intensive enterprises. The most prominent was a lawsuit—led by Democrats—against five major oil companies: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell, accusing them of misrepresenting the environmental impact caused by their operations. Additionally, two newly enacted laws require companies to disclose climate-related information—not only seen as a turning point in U.S. law, but also expected to influence the future of multinational corporations worldwide. Close Reading of Selected Passage P1: The two approaches—legal and legislative—were hailed by climate campaigners as tipping points in American law. The lawsuit against “big oil” aims to make the defendants pay for the alleged environmental damage suffered in California as a result of the use of their products. The firms reasserted their commitment to decarbonization and said that the courts were not the right place to tackle such a momentous problem. It is the latest and most significant of dozens of court cases filed by states and cities against fossil-fuel producers in recent years. Those lawsuits proceed slowly and, as yet, no firm has lost. But in April the Supreme Court dealt a blow to oil producers by rejecting their efforts to move such cases from state to federal courts.

Why Is 2023 Considered a Watershed Year for Climate Litigation?

At the first public climate hearing this March, a group of Swiss senior women known as the ‘Senior Women for Climate Protection’ will argue that they are especially vulnerable to the climate crisis because their health is threatened by heatwaves. They will present their arguments before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights—the chamber reserved for the most serious cases—and will be supported by two prominent British lawyers, Jessica Simor and Mark Watts. Although this case originates in Europe, it will undoubtedly send ripples across the globe. Kelly Matheson, Deputy Director for Global Climate Litigation at Our Children’s Trust, stated that the decision by the Court’s 17 judges will “have profound implications for courts worldwide, as their findings will inform and influence rulings in other jurisdictions.” Following a series of successful similar cases in Europe, activists at the national level will urge judges to issue climate orders against the governments of Italy, Belgium, and France. Sarah Mead, Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network, emphasized that these cases are critical because favorable outcomes can strengthen governmental accountability—particularly in OECD countries, which bear substantial historical responsibility and possess greater capacity for emissions reduction. They also help “narrow the global emissions gap and further mobilize citizens toward more robust climate action.” International-level initiatives are also underway. Earlier this year, the United Nations will vote on an important resolution concerning human rights and climate change. If adopted, the International Court of Justice will be required to issue advisory opinions on what obligations states hold under international law to protect present and future generations from the adverse impacts of climate change. This effort is spearheaded by the vulnerable island nation of Vanuatu and has drawn responses and support from governments around the world. It is not only governments that stand on the front line—climate litigation targeting the private sector will continue to rise. In the United States, the question of which court will handle the growing number of lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry may finally be resolved. Companies have persistently sought to shift these cases to federal courts, where they believe they stand a better chance of winning—but judges have repeatedly rejected such motions. The Supreme Court has been asked to intervene; if it takes up the case next year, it may finally settle the matter. Richard Wiles, Executive Director of the Center for Climate Integrity, noted that should the Supreme Court uphold federal judges’ rulings, one of the last procedural barriers would be removed—allowing cases to finally address the core substantive issues: whether fossil fuel companies’ conduct was reasonable, and what responsibilities they must bear. Meanwhile, Australian climate activists are anxiously awaiting the ruling on Woodside’s $16-billion Scarborough natural gas project—following their recent victories in December, when billionaire Clive Palmer’s plan to build a massive thermal coal mine and Santos’ $4.7-billion Barossa offshore gas project were both defeated—both projects having raised concerns over greenhouse gas emissions threatening the Great Barrier Reef. At the same time, Brazilian courts will hear a case against the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES) and its investment arm. Brazil’s non-governmental organization, the Human Rights Connection, seeks a court order compelling BNDES to adopt a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan to guide its investment decisions. This marks the world’s first such case targeting a national development bank—and could significantly influence broader climate finance practices globally.

US Supreme Court Weighs Bid by Oil Companies to Avoid Climate Lawsuit

19 hours ago

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments from ExxonMobil and Suncor to block a Colorado climate damage lawsuit. A decision could affect nearly 60 similar cases filed by state and local governments against fossil fuel firms.

reuters

2025-11-18

ExxonMobil to Close UK Cracker

2026-01-30

ExxonMobil chemical earnings slide amid shrinking margins

2026-02-10

ExxonMobil Shuts Down Scottish Cracker Unit Early

2026-03-09

ExxonMobil Exports US Gasoline to Australia for First Time

2026-04-16

Exxon withdraws offer to sell two initial Golden Pass LNG cargoes, sources say