• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022 January 31, 2023
Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB January 31, 2023
Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty January 31, 2023
Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds January 31, 2023
Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing January 23, 2023
Next
Prev

In Conversation: ‘Sue Big Oil’ to Pay Its Share for Climate Disruption, B.C. Legal Centre Says

June 12, 2022
Reading time: 6 minutes
Primary Author: Mitchell Beer @mitchellbeer

B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure/Flickr

B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure/Flickr

29
SHARES
 

British Columbians should expect their governments to hold fossil fuel companies accountable rather than passing the costs of climate change on to citizens, said Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, in a feature interview just days before WCEL’s unveiling of the new Sue Big Oil campaign this Wednesday.

“We really hope folks will join us for our launch on the 15th,” he told The Energy Mix late last week. “We’ve got an exciting path forward that anyone who’s concerned about climate change is going to want to support, and we can really build a movement that is going to sue big oil.”

  • The climate news you need. Subscribe now to our engaging new weekly digest.
  • You’ll receive exclusive, never-before-seen-content, distilled and delivered to your inbox every weekend.
  • The Weekender: Succinct, solutions-focused, and designed with the discerning reader in mind.
New!
Subscribe

The Energy Mix: What’s the basis for the Sue Big Oil campaign?

Andrew Gage: A number of lawsuits have been filed around the world, most of them in the U.S. but also in the Netherlands and Germany, that mostly centre around the idea that companies bear some responsibility for their products. If you’re selling a product that you know will cause significant impacts to the climate and to communities, you bear at least a proportionate share of the responsibility for that. We’ve seen lots of examples like asbestos and pharmaceuticals where companies have been sued because they knew a product would cause harm and they either undermined the science or they lied about it, and they continued to sell the product without taking responsibility for it.

The history of Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry tracks that very well. The industry has known that its products would cause these impacts for decades. Arguably as early as the 1950s and 60s, but certainly by the 1980s, they had a pretty good idea of what the impacts of their products would be on communities around the world. They could have looked at alternatives and chose not to because they were too expensive or would undermine their business. And they often funded or directed misinformation campaigns to undermine public support, as well as aggressively lobbying national and international bodies to undermine progress on climate change.

So what we’re proposing isn’t that novel. There are unanswered legal questions, but there’s a basis in Canadian law for bringing these types of arguments. In fact, in 2019, 28 law professors from across Canada wrote a letter to local governments saying they thought there was a legal basis. So there’s a fair bit of support in the legal community that there are questions that should be litigated before the courts.

The Mix: How many local governments are involved?

Gage: Local governments have previously sent climate accountability letters raising these questions. They didn’t indicate an intention to sue, but they raised the fact that they’re paying climate costs and it’s unfair that they pay the full cost.

The Mix: How does attribution science help you make your case?

Gage: It’s climate science more generally. One of the key pieces of work showed that the top five companies are responsible for around 14% of GHG emissions. So that provides a basis for talking about the fair share of each of these companies and what they should be responsible for paying. There’s also their history of involvement with deception and the proportion of the cost that belongs to end users versus the products. But it’s a starting point for talking about their liability.

Then there’s attribution science, which ties climate impacts, particularly weather events, to climate change. So it really depends on what you’re suing for. If it’s damages, it’s very helpful that scientists say a particular event is 150 times more likely at 2°C warming. If on the other hand a local government wants to sue for the costs of climate change, for a one-in-100-year flood event now happening every 20 years, that’s not precisely attribution science. It’s a much better established science related to estimating the change in probabilities. They’re related, but it’s much easier to see how to argue this case based on more conventional science.

The Mix: What’s the endgame? Is this campaign literally about getting fossil companies to pay, or about undermining their social licence and building community momentum to phase out fossil fuels?

Gage: We live in a world where the fossil fuel industry is hugely profitable because they’re not paying their fair share of the costs. They are causing billions of dollars of impacts to communities around the world—the Insurance Bureau of Canada says local governments should be spending C$5.3 billion per year just to adapt to climate change. And that’s going to rise in the direction we’re going. Those are huge sums of money, and when you factor that into the business models of the oil and gas industry, the companies that appear to be profitable are actually climate debtors.

So both end goals are in play. We want communities to be able to prepare, and they need the resources to do it. But at the same time, the appearance of profitability of this industry undermines just about everything else we want to do on climate change. You have the government of Canada saying our climate plan is going to rely heavily on an unproven technology, carbon capture and storage, that is designed to allow the industry to continue producing and go on at an ever-increasing scale. That only makes sense if you think this is a profitable industry that has a net benefit to society. So until we actually challenge this appearance, this sleight of hand, whereby our communities pay the cost and the industry profits, we’re going to have a lot of difficulty working to solve climate change in a way that makes sense.

The other point is that this is not particularly about regulating or getting compensation from Canadian companies. Something really interesting from a legal point of view is that you can sue global companies for their global emissions in B.C. courts where they cause local impacts. So this is not about targeting any one country’s emissions. It’s about holding global companies accountable for the harms in B.C., and that’s a gamechanger. It’s treating a global problem as a global problem and finding a way to hold them accountable.

The Mix: This runs directly counter to fossil executives’ baked-in assumption that they’re entitled to be heard and respected because they’re economic leaders. You’re calling them “climate debtors”.

Gage: You saw the same thing with the tobacco industry—they received massive subsidies in their home jurisdictions util they were sued. That’s how the subsidies dried up and they lost social licence. A big part of that was that it became clear they weren’t actually so lucrative when they had to pay the true cost of their industry. The fossil fuel industry appears to be a wealth creator, and as long as we let them get away with presenting themselves that way, governments will think it’s natural to subsidize them, that they should squeeze out every last drop.

Andrew Gage is Staff Lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law. Follow-up: @singingwithin. Sign up here for WCEL’s campaign launch on Wednesday, June 15.



in Canada, Cities & Communities, Climate Denial & Greenwashing, Community Climate Finance, Energy Politics, Energy Subsidies, Finance & Investment, Legal & Regulatory, Oil & Gas, Sub-National Governments

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Mike Mozart/Flickr
Ending Emissions

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
326
Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures
Canada

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE
Ending Emissions

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Mike Mozart/Flickr

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
326
EcoAnalytics

Albertans Want a Just Transition, Despite Premier’s Grumbling

January 23, 2023
324
RL0919/wikimedia commons

Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing

January 23, 2023
2.4k
United Nations

Salvage of $20B ‘Floating Time Bomb’ Delayed by Rising Cost of Oil Tankers

January 27, 2023
122
/Pikrepo

Four Decades of Research Show Gas Stoves as ‘Overlooked’ Risk to Indoor Air, Child Health

December 7, 2020
1k
jasonwoodhead23/flickr

Canada, U.K., U.S. Must Cut Oil and Gas 76% by 2030 to Keep 1.5° Alive, New Analysis Finds

March 23, 2022
505

Recent Posts

Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
125
/snappy goat

Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds

January 31, 2023
94
Victorgrigas/wikimedia commons

World Bank Climate Reforms Too ‘Timid and Slow,’ Critics Warn

January 31, 2023
42
Doc Searls/Twitter

Guilbeault Could Intervene on Ontario Greenbelt Development

January 31, 2023
132
Next Post
Twitter

Hopes Fade of Finding Missing UK Journalist, Brazilian Indigenous Expert Alive

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}