Worthington Essay

The City of Austin has filed a civil tort claim against the Fossil Fuel Industry (FFI) seeking damages for the health, social, property and environmental impacts of climate change.  The City contends that beginning in the mid-1950s the FFI knew that burning their product would emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which at steady annual emission rates would over time increase global surface temperatures, which, in turn, would exacerbate the intensity, frequency and duration of heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and flooding, among other extreme events. Instead of warning the public, the City contends, the FFI has denied the causation, and in the late 1980s embarked on a sophisticated campaign of deception to sow doubt about the scientific causation. The City contends that the FFI in the 2000s began falsely reassuring the consumers that the industry was both creating clean products and investing in renewable energy sources (aka, “greenwashing”). The City agrees that fossil fuel products are legal. They reject any intent to regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions. The City contends the FFI’s “campaign of deception” helped addict consumers to oil products, which led to increased emissions and apathy toward regulations and renewables. They contend that that FFI’s campaign to deny, deflect and deceive created a public nuisance, was negligent, and fraudulent. They contend that Greenhouse Gas pollution has harmed and will continue to harm the health and welfare of the public, as well as the City’s infrastructure and budget. They seek damages to be used to pay for projects to finance efforts to remedy, prevent, mitigate and adapt to extreme weather events.

The FFI responds that the lawsuit should be dismissed. They contend that the City is actually trying to regulate interstate and global emissions, which is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. They contend that a state court applying state common law tort theories is not equipped to adjudicate a case that will have substantial geopolitical, economic and national security repercussions. They contend that the City’s pursuit of civil damages will in essence result in regulating emissions from the use of their lawful product. 

You are the governor of Texas. You believe in the right of states to enforce laws that protect consumers from deceptive marketing and air pollution. You understand the role that fossil fuels play in keeping the state’s economy robust. You understand that the current federal administration has not enforced laws that may limit fossil fuel consumption or encourage transition to renewable energy sources. You understand the current administration calls anthropomorphic climate change “a hoax,” that the EPA has refused to classify carbon dioxide as a health endangering gas, and that it has rolled back efforts to regulate emissions or stimulate investments in renewable energy. You understand that damages caused by climate change are expensive, and that they continue to mount, and will become catastrophic if and when the world surpasses the tipping point, while the FFI is recording record profits. Your constituents agree that climate change is a threat to the public health, welfare, economy and environment. Voters also agree that the taxpayers should not have to pay for the damages that the FFI foresaw but denied 50 years ago. You are running for reelection. Your opponent claims that a state court in Austin is an improper forum in which to adjudicate the liability of the FFI for damages arising from alleged deception. 

You have been asked to write a press release that answers the question: Should the City’s lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry seeking damages arising from alleged deceptive conduct be allowed to proceed to a jury trial?

Please answer yes or no and support your position. 

Panel 2. Add body text in this space.

Panel 3. Add body text in this space.

Panel 4. Add body text in this space.

Panel 5. Add body text in this space.