[✔️] April 26, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Rapid heat, Rapid courts, Big Oill Lawsuits, Philosopher Schmachtenberger, power of big oil, Geoengineering, Troll Army of Big Oil

[Richard Pauli]

/*April*//*26, 2023*/

/[ BBC reviews recent science  ] /
*Recent, rapid ocean warming ahead of El Niño alarms scientists*
By Matt McGrath and Mark Poynting
BBC Climate and Science team
A recent, rapid heating of the world's oceans has alarmed scientists 
concerned that it will add to global warming.

This month, the global sea surface hit a new record high temperature. It 
has never warmed this much, this quickly.

Scientists don't fully understand why this has happened.

But they worry that, combined with other weather events, the world's 
temperature could reach a concerning new level by the end of next year...
- -
An important new study, published last week with little fanfare, 
highlights a worrying development.

Over the past 15 years, the Earth has accumulated almost as much heat as 
it did in the previous 45 years, with most of the extra energy going 
into the oceans.

This is having real world consequences - not only did the overall 
temperature of the oceans hit a new record in April this year, in some 
regions the difference from the long term was enormous...
- -
Even this seemingly small average increase has significant real-world 
consequences.

    -- Loss of species: more frequent and intense marine heatwaves lead
    to mass mortality of sea life. This is particularly damaging for
    coral reefs.
    -- More extreme weather: increased heat in the upper ocean surface
    means hurricanes and cyclones can pick up more energy. This means
    they become more intense and longer-lasting.
    -- Sea-level rise: warmer waters take up more space - known as
    thermal expansion - and can greatly accelerate the melting of
    glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica that flow into the oceans.
    This raises global sea levels, increasing risks of coastal flooding.
    --Less ability to absorb CO2: the oceans currently take up about a
    quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Warmer waters have less ability
    to absorb CO2. If the oceans take up less CO2 in future, more would
    accumulate in the atmosphere - further warming the air and oceans.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934


/[ Courts as the new battleground ]/
*‘Like a dam breaking’: experts hail decision to let US climate lawsuits 
advance*
Cities bringing climate litigation against oil majors welcome US supreme 
court’s decision to rebuff appeal to move cases to federal courts
Hilary Beaumont
Tue 25 Apr 2023

The decision, climate experts and advocates said, felt “like a dam 
breaking” after years of legal delays to the growing wave of climate 
lawsuits facing major oil companies.

Without weighing in on the merits of the cases, the supreme court on 
Monday rebuffed an appeal by major oil companies that want to face the 
litigation in federal courts, rather than in state courts, which are 
seen as more favorable to plaintiffs.

ExxonMobil Corp, Suncor Energy Inc and Chevron Corp had asked for the 
change of venue in lawsuits by the state of Rhode Island and 
municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California and Hawaii.

Six years have passed since the first climate cases were filed in the 
US, and courts have not yet heard the merits of the cases as fossil fuel 
companies have succeeded in delaying them. In March, the Biden 
administration had argued that the cases belonged in state court, 
marking a reversal of the position taken by the Trump administration 
when the supreme court last considered the issue.

The Rhode Island attorney general, Peter Neronha, said his state was now 
finally preparing for trial after “nearly half a decade of delay 
tactics” by the industry. A joint statement from the California cities 
of Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Richmond and Marin county said the oil 
companies knew the dangers of fossil fuels but “deceived and failed to 
warn consumers about it even as they carried on pocketing trillions of 
dollars in profits”.

The cases have been compared to tobacco lawsuits in the 1990s that 
resulted in a settlement of more than $200bn and changed how cigarettes 
are advertised and sold in the US.

“It was a really amazing feeling to see that the supreme court was 
ruling in a very logical way by continuing with the unanimous decisions 
that have been made in the previous courts to not [grant petitions for 
review] and to allow these cases to move forward,” said Delta Merner, 
lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation.

“It removes this dam that industry has been building to prevent these 
cases from being heard on their merits,” she said. “We can finally have 
the real conversations about what the industry knew and what their 
actions were despite that knowledge.”

She hopes communities will have the chance to speak in court about the 
climate emergencies they are experiencing as a result of the industry’s 
actions.

As jurisdictional battles have dragged on, climate emergencies have 
added up.
The Colorado case was filed in 2018. In 2021, the state saw the Marshall 
fire, the most destructive wildfire in its history, which killed two 
people, destroyed nearly 1,000 homes and businesses, contaminated 
drinking water and amounted to billions in damages.

“There’s real impacts that are happening now, and that’s why it’s so 
important for these cases to have the opportunity to be heard, and have 
a chance for justice,” Merner said.

The cases allege fossil fuel companies exacerbated climate change by 
concealing and misrepresenting the dangers associated with burning 
fossil fuels. The lawsuits say the companies created a public and 
private nuisance and violated state consumer protection laws by 
producing and selling fossil fuels despite knowing the products would 
cause devastating climate emergencies, including melting ice caps, 
dramatic sea level rise, and extreme precipitation and drought. Local 
governments are seeking damages for the billions of dollars they have 
paid for climate mitigation and adaptation.

The oil companies have denied the allegations.

Financial accountability

“We were all pretty excited. It feels like justice might be possible,” 
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said after 
reading the decision on Monday.

“There’s clearly trillions of dollars of damages in the US alone from 
climate change that has to be dealt with.”

The plaintiffs aren’t suing the companies to put them out of business, 
but the cases could ultimately affect the industry’s bottom line.

If the lawsuits are successful, they could limit the fossil fuel 
industry’s ability to greenwash and lie to consumers, Merner said. 
Rulings against the companies could also reinforce banking industry 
concerns that fossil fuels are a risky investment.

In state court, fossil fuel companies will attempt to have the cases 
dismissed.

The Chevron attorney Theodore Boutrous said in a statement he was 
confident the cases would be dismissed, arguing that climate change 
requires a coordinated federal response, “not a disjointed patchwork” of 
actions from numerous state courts. “These wasteful lawsuits in state 
courts will do nothing to advance global climate solutions, nothing to 
reduce emissions and nothing to address climate-related impacts,” he said.

“I don’t think there’s any reason for that confidence yet,” said Korey 
Silverman-Roati, climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate 
Change Law, in response to Boutrous.

It’s unclear what will happen in state courts, but Silverman-Roati 
pointed to the Hawaii case, in which a state court denied the industry’s 
motion to dismiss.

If plaintiffs clear motions to dismiss, the cases move to discovery. The 
plaintiffs will use the process to try to gather more evidence of what 
the companies knew and when they knew it. Internal company documents 
will probably become public when the trials get under way.

Recent studies have shown that Exxon accurately predicted that its 
products would cause climate change.

Attribution science will play a key role in connecting local climate 
disasters to the industry’s responsibility. “Studies can explain how 
much hotter a heatwave is, or how much greater the intensity of a 
downpour is during a hurricane event due to climate change. And they can 
look to see where those emissions came from, and what percentage of 
those emissions tie into those direct climate impacts,” Merner said.

With each decision in favor of plaintiffs, the cases are snowballing and 
more local governments are filing new cases. “There’s a growing number 
of lawsuits. And I imagine after today, that will continue,” Merner said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/25/experts-hail-decision-us-climate-lawsuits-advance



/[ //"The decision sends a powerful message to fossil fuel companies: 
Evading responsibility will not be tolerated."//]/
*US Supreme Court's Blow to Big Oil 'Should Open the Floodgates for More 
Lawsuits'*
"The high court's decision is a major victory for communities across the 
country that are fighting to hold Big Oil accountable and make them pay 
for the climate damages they knowingly caused," said one advocate.
JESSICA CORBETT
Apr 24, 2023
Campaigners and frontline communities celebrated Monday after the U.S. 
Supreme Court declined to hear five appeals from major fossil fuel 
companies hoping to shift climate liability cases from state to federal 
court, where polluters are more likely to prevail.

"Big Oil companies have been desperate to avoid trials in state courts, 
where they will be forced to defend their climate lies in front of 
juries, and today the Supreme Court declined to bail them out," said 
Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles.

"The high court's decision is a major victory for communities across the 
country that are fighting to hold Big Oil accountable and make them pay 
for the climate damages they knowingly caused," he continued. "Now it's 
time for these polluters to face the evidence of their deception in court."

The new denials come after the nation's highest court handed fossil fuel 
giants a narrow win two years ago. They involve lawsuits brought against 
several companies—including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Suncor, and 
Sunoco—in recent years by the state of Rhode Island as well as 
municipalities across California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Maryland...
- -
"ExxonMobil, Suncor, Chevron, Shell, and other fossil fuel companies 
have known for decades that heat-trapping emissions from their 
operations and the use of their products drive climate change and its 
impacts, but they have continued to deceive the public and obstruct 
meaningful action," she said. "The decision sends a powerful message to 
fossil fuel companies: Evading responsibility will not be tolerated."

Earlier this month, documents exposed that Shell knew about the impact 
of fossil fuels even earlier than previously thought—a revelation that 
came just a few months after a peer-reviewed study showed that 
ExxonMobil accurately predicted global heating decades ago.

"As we become more adept at identifying the specific contributions of 
individual companies to the climate crisis through attribution science," 
said Merner, "we are increasingly able to trace the lines of 
responsibility from the boardrooms of fossil fuel companies to the 
shattered homes and lives of those harmed by climate change."
- -
The Supreme Court next month is still set to decide on a petition 
involving Delaware and Hoboken, New Jersey. Sher Edling highlighted a 
few lines from related the 3rd Circuit opinion: "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."...
- -
"Honolulu taxpayers are ready to hold these defendants accountable for 
their deception and the enormous costs that their conduct is imposing on 
our communities," said Matthew Gonser, who leads the Hawaiian city and 
county's Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency. He 
noted the decision aligns with district and appellate court rulings.

According to the environmental law firm Sher Edling, fossil fuel 
companies' federal removal claims also have been rejected by the appeals 
courts for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th circuits, demonstrating 
agreement among 33 district and appellate judges nominated by five 
former presidents.

The Supreme Court next month is still set to decide on a petition 
involving Delaware and Hoboken, New Jersey. Sher Edling highlighted a 
few lines from related the 3rd Circuit opinion: "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."

Mat Marshall, a spokesperson for Democratic Delaware Attorney General 
Kathy Jennings, welcomed the developments on Monday and said that "the 
question presented to the Supreme Court by defendants in our case is 
identical, so we look forward to the same outcome in a few weeks when 
that petition is considered."
- -
https://www.commondreams.org/news/supreme-court-fossil-fuels-climate



/[ Philosopher of climate change ]/
*Podcast: Why we can still avoid imminent extinction with Daniel 
Schmachtenberger*
Harvest Series
Mar 15, 2023  SIX SENSES KAPLANKAYA
Some of Daniel Schmarchtenberger's friends say you can be 
"Schmachtenberged". It means realising that we are on our way to 
self-destruction as a civilisation, on a global level. This is a topic 
often addressed by the American philosopher and strategist, in a world 
with powerful weapons and technologies and a lack of efficient 
governance. But, as the catastrophic script has already started to be 
written, is there still hope? And how do we start reversing the scenario?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyJJ-mNcmK0



/[ CBS Sat Morning - notice their studio comments ]/
*To mitigate impacts of climate change, some turn to controver(s)ial 
"geoengineering"*
CBS Mornings
Apr 22, 2023  #news #climatechange
As scientists work to blunt the impacts of climate change, a 
controversial method called geoengineering is being considered as a way 
to help cool the planet. Ben Tracy has more.

#news #climatechange

"CBS Saturday Morning" co-hosts Jeff Glor, Michelle Miller and Dana 
Jacobson deliver two hours of original reporting and breaking news, as 
well as profiles of leading figures in culture and the arts. Watch "CBS 
Saturday Morning" at 7 a.m. ET on CBS and 8 a.m. ET on the CBS News app.
- -
Watch CBS News live: https://cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c​
Download the CBS News app: https://cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8​
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3A13OqA
Like "CBS Mornings" on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3tpOx00
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Twitter: https://bit.ly/38QQp8B
Subscribe to our newsletter: https://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T​
Try Paramount+ free: https://bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing at veritone.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmVsat8-Dso



/[ The Power of Big Oil part 3  ]/
*The Power of Big Oil, Part Three: Delay (full documentary) | FRONTLINE*
FRONTLINE PBS | Official
May 3, 2022  #Docuseries #ClimateChange #BigOil
Watch the final episode of “The Power of Big Oil,” a three-part 
FRONTLINE docuseries investigating what scientists, corporations and 
politicians have known about human-caused climate change for decades — 
and the missed opportunities to mitigate the problem.

This journalism is made possible by viewers like you. Support your local 
PBS station here: http://www.pbs.org/donate.

Throughout the first two episodes of “The Power of Big Oil,” FRONTLINE 
went inside the fossil fuel industry’s efforts in the 1980s, 1990s and 
2000s to stall action on climate change by cultivating denial and doubt.

The third and final episode of the series brings the story up to the 
present.

“Delay,” part three of “The Power of Big Oil,” investigates how, even as 
the warnings about climate change grew, the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8UOJqs5F9Q&t=108s



/[ This classic video is worth sharing widely ]/
*The Troll Army of Big Oil | Climate Town*
Climate Town
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOi05zDO4yw



/[The news archive - looking back]/
/*April 26, 1978*/
April 26, 1978: The Supreme Court explicitly gives private-sector 
entities (including polluters) 1st Amendment rights in the First 
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti case.

    First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a
    U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of
    corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court
    held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make
    contributions to ballot initiative campaigns.[1] The ruling came in
    response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations
    in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were
    directly involved.

    In 1976 several corporations, including the First National Bank of
    Boston, were barred from contributing to a Massachusetts referendum
    regarding tax policy and subsequently sued. The case was
    successfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral
    arguments in November 1977. On April 26, 1978, the Court ruled 5-4
    against the Massachusetts law.

    As a result of the ruling, states could no longer impose specific
    regulations on donations from corporations in ballot initiative
    campaigns. While the Bellotti decision did not directly affect
    federal law, it has been cited by other Supreme Court cases such as
    McConnell v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

*Facts of the case*
The National Bank of Boston, along with two other national banks and 
three corporations, wished to spend money to publicize their opposition 
to a ballot initiative that would permit Massachusetts to implement a 
graduated income tax. The Attorney General of Massachusetts informed the 
organizations that he intended to enforce a state statute that 
prohibited such organizations from making contributions to influence the 
outcome of a vote that does not materially affect their assets and 
holdings. The organizations sued and argued that the statute violated 
their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Judicial Court of 
Massachusetts upheld the constitutionality of the statute.

*Question*
Does the First Amendment protect the rights of corporations to attempt 
to influence the outcome of elections in which they have no direct 
monetary interest?

*Conclusion*
Sort:  by seniority by ideology
5–4 DECISION FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON
MAJORITY OPINION BY LEWIS F. POWELL, JR.
Warren E. Burger
William J. Brennan, Jr.
Potter Stewart
Byron R. White
Thurgood Marshall
Harry A. Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William H. Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens

*Yes. *Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the opinion of the 5-4 
majority. The Court held that the right to attempt to influence the 
outcomes of elections is one of the primary rights the First Amendment 
was meant to protect. If this form of speech came from a person rather 
than a corporation, there would be no question about whether it was 
protected speech. The Court also held that its previous decisions 
regarding the First Amendment rights of corporations emphasized the role 
that such speech played in creating public discussion.

*In his concurring opinion,* Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote that 
the Massachusetts risked stifling the speech of organizations who use 
the corporate form to ensure mass communication with the public. He also 
argued that the statute could easily interfere with the First Amendment 
protection of the freedom of speech, since many newspapers and other 
news sources are part of large media conglomerations.

Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissenting opinion and argued that the 
majority’s opinion vastly underestimates the importance of state 
regulation of competing First Amendment interests, especially given the 
disproportionate economic power of corporations. Since corporations are 
funded by the money of investors, Justice White argued that it was the 
state’s duty to ensure that shareholder money was being used for its 
primary purpose: to make money, not pursue unrelated political 
objectives. The statute ensured that shareholders’ money is not funding 
political initiatives they would not individually support. He pointed 
out that the statute did not prevent the individuals who make up the 
corporations from communicating their views to the public on an 
individual basis.

*In his dissenting opinion,* Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that 
corporations are, and had always been, considered artificial persons 
under the law, and therefore not granted the rights of natural persons. 
Since the right of political expression is not necessary for a 
corporation to function economically and could be detrimental to the 
overall political sphere, he argued that the statute was justified...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1172


=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, many daily summariesdeliver global warming news 
- a few are email delivered*

=========================================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or 
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines 
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**Climate Nexus* https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the 
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an 
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides 
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter 
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed.    5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief 
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of 
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours 
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our 
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*T*he Daily Climate *Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts, 
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters  at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ 

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/


/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and 
sender. This is a personal hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for commercial 
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20230426/951cf53a/attachment.htm>