US High Court judges reject Exxon’s motion to dismiss climate change lawsuit

May 27, 2022 News

Kaieteur News – On May 24, last the Massachusetts High Court unanimously rejected ExxonMobil’s submission to dismiss a lawsuit against them in which it was stated that the oil giant misled consumers and investors about climate change and the dangers of using fossil fuels.

Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey

The court ruled that the oil giant must face a trial over allegations that it lied about the climate crisis, and even hid the fossil fuel industry’s role in worsening environmental damage.
The lawsuit was brought against Exxon by Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey. Exxon called the lawsuit politically-motivated and claimed that it violated a state law protecting defendants from lawsuits designed to silence them.
According to a Guardian report, Healey’s lawsuit accuses Exxon of breaking the state’s consumer protection laws with a decades-long cover-up of what it knew about the impact on the climate of burning fossil fuels. The state also noted that the company deceived investors about the risks to its business posed by global heating.
Exxon claimed the lawsuit was in breach of legislation against what is known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP, used by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence critics. Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits—known as “SLAPPs” or “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation”—filed against them for exercising their First Amendment rights.
The Massachusetts court ruled that anti-SLAPP laws do not apply to government cases. In fact, Justice Scott Kafker said that the statute protecting against strategic lawsuits against public participation only applied to private lawsuits, not government enforcement actions.
In 2019, Healey sued Exxon following a three-year probe, alleging the company misled consumers about the impact fossil fuel products had on climate change and deceived investors about the climate-driven risks facing its business. Exxon denies the allegations and argues Healey brought the case to punish it for its political stances on climate change.
Healey is a Democrat running for governor and has called the decision “a resounding victory in our work to stop Exxon from lying to investors and consumers in our state.”
On the other hand, Irving, Texas-based Exxon has disclosed that it was assessing its next move.
Meanwhile, on a local front, Exxon is facing yet another court action on the issue of climate change.
Last year two citizens, through their lawyers, filed a case in the High Court against Exxon’s Stabroek Block projects. According to the case, which lists Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, SC, as a representative for the State, the High Court is being asked to determine whether Exxon’s operations violate the Constitutional right of current and future generations to a healthy environment.
The first applicant, Dr. Troy Thomas, is a Scientist and a University of Guyana lecturer. The second applicant, Quadad de Freitas, is a young man from the South Rupununi Region of Guyana, an area rich in biodiversity, now threatened by climate change.
According to Dr. Thomas: “Guyana is a carbon sink. The Guyanese people are not responsible for climate change, but we are already suffering the effects. Climate change, ocean acidification and rising sea level pose existential threats to the people and State of Guyana. As a scientist, I urge people to look at the evidence and to face reality.”
The case refers to the overwhelming scientific evidence of the devastating effect of greenhouse gas emissions, pointing out that oil and gas production are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Guyana is particularly vulnerable to climate change and rising sea levels while ocean acidification threatens the Guyanese livelihoods that depend on healthy marine ecosystems.

The case cites Guyana’s international obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement in support of its claim for declarations that emissions from oil and gas production make the environment more harmful to health and wellbeing in violation of Article 149J of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment and requires the State to protect the environment for present and future generations.
Article 149J specifically states that: (1) Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to his or her health or well-being. (2) The State shall protect the environment, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures designed to – (a) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (b) promote conservation; and (c) secure sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
The case, which is set to be heard in the Guyana High Court, also seeks to protect children, young people and future generations who bear a disproportionate burden in having to live with the effects of climate change.