Fish Wrap Rather Upset GOP Looking To Protect Fossil Fuels Companies From Climalawfare Suits

The complaint from the NY Times might have some grounds if all the employees and the company itself had stopped using fossil fuels. Same way with all Warmists

Republicans Seek Protections for Oil Giants Against Climate Lawsuits

Republicans at the state and federal levels are working to shield fossil fuel companies from laws and legal claims that aim to make them pay for some of the damage caused by climate change.

Lawmakers and oil-industry advocates are running a two-track campaign, in statehouses and in Congress, to pass laws to protect companies from paying some of the costs of intensified wildfires, storms, floods and other effects of global warming. The goal is broad immunity, similar to what Congress granted to gun manufacturers two decades ago.

The effort comes as major fossil fuel companies including Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips face a wave of lawsuits from cities, states and individuals who say the companies knew their products would dangerously warm the planet.

The companies, which did not respond to a request for comment, are also battling new “climate superfund” laws, so far enacted in Vermont and New York, that hold them liable for emissions. New York is seeking $75 billion over 25 years. Similar laws are under consideration in a dozen other states.

Last week, Utah became the first state to enact a law that shields companies from climate related claims. Republican lawmakers in at least four other states, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Iowa, are working on similar bills.

Most of the climate cult lawsuits and laws are winning during the first round, but, losing on appeal, because they are trying to apply state laws to national  issues. As a NJ judge said when killing a lawsuit by the State of NJ

“Because Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged harms caused by interstate and international emissions and global warming, their claims cannot be governed by state law. Under our federal constitutional system, states cannot use their laws to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by out-of-state and worldwide emissions,” Hurd said in the decision.

I’m still rather shocked that none of the lawyers for the fossil fuels companies ever argue “have the plaintiffs stopped using fossil fuels themselves?” Yeah, I’m not a lawyer, but, that seems rather important.