Baltimore suit of 26 energy companies for injuries sustained in climate change, heatwaves, continues


Setting aside as to whether this legal matter should be in State versus Federal Court, the end result is to go after the big pockets of big companies for big bucks.

In the process, of course, we do untold damage to important industries that we need or want for our country’s wheels to go round. In this case in Baltimore against energy companies.

Another example of this type of action is suing various drug manufacturers for billions of dollars regarding Opioids.  Continuing this course will either bankrupt the companies, or damage them to the extent of limiting the research funds available for new discoveries.

The opioid manufacturers included in the lawsuit are Purdue Pharma, Cephalon, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, while the opioid distributors are McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. More than 1,800 lawsuits have been filed against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies.

Read more

On June 10, Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the United States District Court of Maryland ruled that the City of Baltimore’s case against 26 energy companies should be returned to the state court. Although this rules in favor of the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court, this isn’t a clear-cut advantage for the plaintiffs.

Judge Hollander stayed her order for 30 days, giving the defendants nearly a month to appeal her decision. The defendants had argued that the case belonged in federal court because the claims made in the lawsuit were of global impact:

The 26 oil and gas companies targeted by the lawsuit are all but certain to appeal, which will prolong Baltimore’s case further, demonstrating how climate litigation does not provide an efficient or effective means to address climate change’s damages and causes.

The case, which the City of Baltimore originally filed in July 2018, sought to hold 26 fossil fuel companies liable for injuries the city had sustained from climate change, including severe storms, which had allegedly increased the average sea level, in addition to heatwaves that were associated with public health impacts. Sher Edling, a prominent law firm in climate litigation, is representing the City of Baltimore.

Former Mayor Catherine Pugh decided to move ahead with the case, despite decisions against similar lawsuits in California and New York only days before Baltimore’s filing. In California, District Judge William Alsup determined in May 2018 that cases brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against energy companies belonged in the federal judiciary, and strongly questioned key parts of the case, including the allegation that energy companies had created a “public nuisance” against an entire community. Rebuking the plaintiffs, he stated, “If we didn’t have fossil fuels, would have lost [World War II] and every other war. Planes wouldn’t fly. Trains wouldn’t run. And we’d be back in the Stone Age.”

Read more

Juries are more than happy to dole out big bucks. Get a Progressive Judge and the result is about the same as well.

BONUS TIME:  Just in: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that bans mining at the nation’s largest known uranium deposit.


Sure, why not stop our Uranium production after Hillary was kind enough to give 20 percent of our deposits to the Russians.

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.



WhatFingerNews  A great site for all the news.


19 Responses to “Baltimore suit of 26 energy companies for injuries sustained in climate change, heatwaves, continues”

  1. Noreastern Says:

    Coal plants are not economically viable in most nations. Solar in the subtropics and wind in the Northern latitudes produce electricity at halve the cost of coal plants. Coal is no longer economically viable.


  2. george227 Says:

    Fossil fuels are killing us. But now, renewables are even cheaper than coal or oil or even gas.
    Whine about the lawsuits all you want, the end of the game is in sight: Renewables win, pollution loses.


  3. geeez2014 Says:

    “Once valued at $6 billion, the deposit could displace the imports that now constitute 90% of the uranium used by the nation’s nuclear power plants.”

    Are we the only country which hogties our chances of safety (having enough uranium if we need it) and economic advantage (costing more from ‘them’ than from ‘us’)?

    I don’t at ALL understand why the “NO” on that….safety of the neighborhood? Radiation concerns? Please help me out here; I’m not good on scientific stuff! Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Kid Says:

    In order to make their case, it seems they would have to prove man-made global warming. Seems the only way to do that would be by using the Scientific Method, which states that predicted forecast results must be true. Not a single forecast prediction has yet come true unless you believe the lies.

    And injuries from weather ? Putting a dome over your city is a better solution. And considering it’s Baltimore, that’s not a half bad idea.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: