Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A landmark trial is kicking off in Minnesota the first
Speaker 1: time one of the thousands of cases against eat cigarette
Speaker 1: maker Jewel is going to play out in a courtroom.
Speaker 1: Minnesota accuses Jewel and Altria of hooking a generation of
Speaker 1: young people on their products by deception and slick advertising,
Speaker 1: and the state wants the companies to pay up for
Speaker 1: the public costs of addressing an uptick in youth vaping
Speaker 1: and smoking. Joining me its healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of
Speaker 1: Nelson Hardeman Harry Minnesota is using the theory of public nuisance,
Speaker 1: a theory that was used against the tobacco industry in
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties. Tell us about it. Yeah, so a
Speaker 1: public nuisance legal theory. It was a theory that actually
Speaker 1: grew out of cases where there had been some kind
Speaker 1: of public harm like damage to you know, water sources
Speaker 1: and from pollution and things like that. And the idea
Speaker 1: was that essentially you could hold private parties responsible for
Speaker 1: the social costs, the costs that they impost on society.
Speaker 1: So we've been seeing through the opioid cases of the
Speaker 1: last few years they attempt to extend that theory against
Speaker 1: drug makers and pharmacies that allowed easy access, and the
Speaker 1: state of Minnesota is trying to do the same thing here,
Speaker 1: essentially to say that Jewels, you know, the e cigarette company,
Speaker 1: that Altria, the biggest of the tobacco companies, essentially caused
Speaker 1: great harm to the public by encouraging the sale of
Speaker 1: these cigarette flavors to teenagers and to underage consumers. Do
Speaker 1: you think that the public nuisance theory is a good
Speaker 1: fit for what it's accusing Jewelove, I think it is
Speaker 1: a little bit of a stretch. Personally, I think that
Speaker 1: this issue of underage consumers smoking or engaging in healthy
Speaker 1: behaviors is a more complicated problem. It's not a clean
Speaker 1: fit to me that jewel was the entire problem. I
Speaker 1: think there's a broader question about our consumer culture that
Speaker 1: made this product so closely popular with kids. So, while
Speaker 1: I do think that the marketing practices were reprehensible, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that it's a clear line to say that
Speaker 1: they were the cause of all these problems. I also
Speaker 1: think it's unclear. We won't know for years what the
Speaker 1: long term health effects will be of kids starting to
Speaker 1: smoke in eighth grade, and certainly there's been an issue
Speaker 1: of teenagers of older teenagers, tenth graders, eleventh graders smoking
Speaker 1: that preday e cigarette. Minnesota says in papers that in
Speaker 1: the fourteen years between two and twenty fourteen Minnesota high
Speaker 1: schoolers smoking at least one cigarette in the last thirty
Speaker 1: days dropped from thirty two point four percent down to
Speaker 1: ten point six percent. Six years later, nineteen point three
Speaker 1: percent of high schoolers reported having vaped at least once
Speaker 1: in the last thirty days. Does that make their case
Speaker 1: about public health or do they need to do much more?
Speaker 1: I think that's a helpful fact to them. I just
Speaker 1: don't know the whole story. I think the reality is
Speaker 1: like vaping in general has become a more socially acceptable
Speaker 1: and more popular alternative too smoking. So even as we've
Speaker 1: seen a decline in general rates of cigarette smoking, you know,
Speaker 1: with greater awareness that vaping is a slightly healthier choice
Speaker 1: of an overall very unhealthy activity. You know it's increased.
Speaker 1: So I think it's helpful. I just don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a clam dunk. Jule and Altria are
Speaker 1: trying to shift the blame to the state of Minnesota.
Speaker 1: Minnesota got billions of dollars from tobacco settlements over the
Speaker 1: last decade, but spent less than one percent on prevention efforts,
Speaker 1: instead using the funds to bankroll unrelated products like the
Speaker 1: Minnesota Viking football Stadium. This is a really interesting argument.
Speaker 1: If you go back to nineteen ninety eight, the various
Speaker 1: states one something like two hundred and five two hundred
Speaker 1: and six billion dollars. I think the state of Minnesota
Speaker 1: alone got over six billion dollars in the tobacco settlements,
Speaker 1: with all the big tobacco companies, but including the company
Speaker 1: that's now Altria right it used to be Philip Morris.
Speaker 1: And so there was an enormous opportunity for not only Minnesota,
Speaker 1: but for all of the states to use that money
Speaker 1: to really create better public health programs, better education programs
Speaker 1: to reduce smoking and educate people about the dangers of smoking,
Speaker 1: and intervene in trends like this. And I think that
Speaker 1: Jewel and Altria have a good case to make that
Speaker 1: not only Minnesota, but literally every state in the country
Speaker 1: basically wasted that opportunity. When we look at what they
Speaker 1: did with the money, they mostly plugged holes in state
Speaker 1: budgets and just considered it's sort of a flush fund
Speaker 1: to be used whenever there was a financi will needs.
Speaker 1: It's hard to find any examples in Minnesota. There's no
Speaker 1: accession of a state that really used the money comprehensively
Speaker 1: for effective public health related to the danger of smoking.
Speaker 1: Do Altria and Jewel have the same defense or are
Speaker 1: they pointing fingers. Jewel is the main target here. Disuel
Speaker 1: Lab is the company that developed this and marketed this,
Speaker 1: and they are a victim of their own success with
Speaker 1: all of the flavors that they came out with, mango
Speaker 1: and other things that really appeals to kids. Altria has
Speaker 1: the misfortune of having been a major investor, I think
Speaker 1: something like twelve to thirteen billion dollar investment in Jewel.
Speaker 1: But it's not to me at all clear why Altria
Speaker 1: is fitting side by side defending this case with Jewel. Frankly,
Speaker 1: it looks like they are there because they are such
Speaker 1: a big player in the overall tobacco industry and not
Speaker 1: because they were so singularly attached to this product. In fact,
Speaker 1: Altria has completely divested itself of its position and Jewel,
Speaker 1: which I think was never more than a small minority percentage. Ironically,
Speaker 1: Altria has actually invested it in a competing product, Enjoy,
Speaker 1: which is competing with jewels, and so I'm not clear
Speaker 1: if their apparence here is more about optics and having
Speaker 1: you know, the biggest tobacco company in the country so
Speaker 1: much as related to their actual activity and state of
Speaker 1: Minnesota related to eastigs. Also for the deep pocket, yeah,
Speaker 1: no questions. As a parent of children, I share the
Speaker 1: concern about the effective, dangerously effective marketing of east cigarettes.
Speaker 1: But it does seem that Altria is at the table
Speaker 1: mostly not only for their size and disability, but also
Speaker 1: for the potential resources that they can add to the
Speaker 1: pool of funds. So I agree with your comment about
Speaker 1: them being a deep pocket here. As far as if
Speaker 1: the jury thinks the state has some responsibility here, is
Speaker 1: this a case where the jury can allocate damages. Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: the jury does have the ability to attribute comparative amount
Speaker 1: and to assess responsibilities. So yeah, it's a tricky case
Speaker 1: for Altria because it obviously the goal is to show
Speaker 1: that this is a bigger, more complex problem that isn't
Speaker 1: specifically tied to this, but also to try to minimize
Speaker 1: its share of any damages that are awarded. So what's
Speaker 1: the question the jury will have to answer. I mean,
Speaker 1: the question is really whether Jewel engaged in deceptive marketing
Speaker 1: practices that targeted Minnesota youth. And so that's really the
Speaker 1: claim that's being made, essentially, that there was some kind
Speaker 1: of fraudulent practice, you know, that there was actually intention
Speaker 1: to lull kids into taking up vaping in the marketing
Speaker 1: that they use, rather than this being a case of
Speaker 1: kids being marketing, you know that was intended for adults,
Speaker 1: that in fact, the entire strategy of Jewel was to
Speaker 1: hook a whole new generation of young kids on vaping.
Speaker 1: Jewel has faced thousands of lawsuits across the nation, but
Speaker 1: most have settled, and it said that Minnesota had rejected
Speaker 1: settlement offers similar to those reached with other states, which
Speaker 1: provided quote hundreds of millions of dollars to further combat
Speaker 1: underage use and developed cessation programs in those states. So
Speaker 1: is this for the good of Minnesota or is this,
Speaker 1: you know, for making a name and making a statement
Speaker 1: about these products. I'm just trying to figure out why
Speaker 1: they wouldn't settle. Yeah, it definitely is an aggressive strategy
Speaker 1: here on the part of the state of Minnesota. It
Speaker 1: seems interesting that the state Attorney General, Keith Ellison is
Speaker 1: actually taking the lead in trying this case. He's certainly
Speaker 1: someone who has a colorful political history nationally, and I
Speaker 1: do think there's certainly a question of whether there's some grandstanding,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's to create a name for him
Speaker 1: or just to make a statement by taking such an
Speaker 1: aggressive position on this case rather than following the path
Speaker 1: of other states and pursuing a quicker settlement. The State
Speaker 1: of Minnesota hasn't set a number for damages, but Ellison
Speaker 1: said that it could be in the ballpark with Minnesota's
Speaker 1: landmarks seven point one bill million dollars settlement with the
Speaker 1: tobacco industry in nineteen ninety eight. But wasn't that a
Speaker 1: bigger case the case with the tobacco industry, and didn't
Speaker 1: it go back decades. It's really hard to imagine how
Speaker 1: the problem of jewel could be taken as equivalent as
Speaker 1: the nineteen ninety eight tobacco settlement, which was really addressing
Speaker 1: decades and decades of actually deceptive marketing where the tobacco
Speaker 1: industry knew how dangerous smoking was to American health and
Speaker 1: clearly did everything it could to block that information from
Speaker 1: coming out and to keep pushing a product that it
Speaker 1: knew was deadly. So the conduct here happened in a
Speaker 1: much shorter period of time. I don't think Jewel even
Speaker 1: entered the market until twenty sixteen, and I think the
Speaker 1: main period we're focusing on is like twenty sixteen to
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. So it seems like this should be ultimately
Speaker 1: a drop in the bucket compared to the broader tobacco settlement.
Speaker 1: And again, it does to me raised questions why it's
Speaker 1: any general Ellison is taking such an aggressive position here,
Speaker 1: Not to say that this isn't a problem, but to
Speaker 1: suggest that it's on par with the whole tobacco crisis
Speaker 1: seems a bit much. If the state of Minnesota did
Speaker 1: win here, would it help other states to get leverage
Speaker 1: to reach settlements? I mean, how would it affect states
Speaker 1: outside of Minnesota, or you know, the general population outside
Speaker 1: of Minnesota. I mean, I think if a jury is
Speaker 1: receptive and gives Minnesota, give a Jorney General Ellison a
Speaker 1: multi billion dollars or even a billion dollars settlement here,
Speaker 1: I think it will embolden other states, and it will
Speaker 1: concern Jewels and potentially Altria and sort of increase the
Speaker 1: numbers that are being paid out, which are already significant
Speaker 1: and in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So I
Speaker 1: do think that this case in a sense will either
Speaker 1: strengthen or weaken the assessments on both sides of what
Speaker 1: this case is worse and what this harm is worse
Speaker 1: than what it's going to take settle these cases. So
Speaker 1: there is exposure here. If Minnesota wins this case, there's
Speaker 1: going to be more states that are willing to be
Speaker 1: more aggressive and push for more which is going to
Speaker 1: be obviously bad for Joel in Altria. And if Minnesota
Speaker 1: loses the case, will Jewel in Altria be hesitant to
Speaker 1: settle these cases? Again? I mean it's more like I
Speaker 1: think of it a little bit like a stock, right,
Speaker 1: So if Minnesota loses this case, then the value of
Speaker 1: the claims that other states and jurisdictions could make against
Speaker 1: Jewel against Altria will be a little bit lower. And
Speaker 1: Jewels already shown a desire to settle these cases. I
Speaker 1: just think it may be slightly more aggressive and settle
Speaker 1: for a little bit less. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, it seems to me that these companies have
Speaker 1: set aside huge reserves, you know, to pay off claims here,
Speaker 1: not because they agree that there was any deceptive marketing,
Speaker 1: but simply because it's not a popular position to be
Speaker 1: defending marketing that clearly impacted kids and drove more kids
Speaker 1: to vaping. And these companies just need to do what
Speaker 1: they can to get rid of these cases as efficiently
Speaker 1: as they can. So I think this case is going
Speaker 1: to be significant one way or the other. It's going
Speaker 1: to make these cases around the country a little bit
Speaker 1: more are a little bit lessvaluable. Critics of the public
Speaker 1: nuisance theory say that it allows executive officers like state
Speaker 1: attorneys general to improperly step in and replace the role
Speaker 1: of administrative agencies and lawmakers, which should be the ones
Speaker 1: regulating the industry. Do you agree with that or disagree?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not a stan of the expansion of
Speaker 1: public nuisance theory. I think that it played a very
Speaker 1: valuable role in America when it came to some of
Speaker 1: the terrible environmental harm that American industry imposed on different
Speaker 1: parts of the country, where we saw long term, real
Speaker 1: environmental costs that were imposed. You know, when toxins were
Speaker 1: spread in particular parts of the country. I think these
Speaker 1: kind of social behavior oriented public nuisance cases, as in
Speaker 1: the case of opioids and here, are really questionable. You
Speaker 1: can see why it's very exciting to states and to
Speaker 1: executive leaders. But I agree that the questions of the
Speaker 1: long term harm and long term responsibility are probably going
Speaker 1: to be addressed more accurately and with a little bit
Speaker 1: less passion and uncertainty in other places than putting them
Speaker 1: before juries. So I agree with that criticism. The trials
Speaker 1: expected to last three weeks, so we'll find out just
Speaker 1: how the public nusance theory works here. You know, this
Speaker 1: case makes me wonder what's the next issue that we're
Speaker 1: going to see where Americans engaging in dangerous unhealthy behavior
Speaker 1: is going to lead to a public nusance theory. I'm
Speaker 1: still waiting for the sugar industry, you know, for the
Speaker 1: first public nuisance case food. I don't know where it's
Speaker 1: going to be. But I think this kind of reflects
Speaker 1: the trend in American society where, you know, on the
Speaker 1: one he had is good to in my opinion, that
Speaker 1: we're thinking about where the dangers two consumers are. You know,
Speaker 1: On the other hand, it's not always easy to get
Speaker 1: right exactly who's to blame, Thanks Harry, that's healthcare attorney
Speaker 1: Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardeman. The United Nations has released
Speaker 1: an alarming report on the threat to the world's climate.
Speaker 1: UN Secretary General and Tone Guiterrez compared climate change to
Speaker 1: a ticking time bomb and call the report a how
Speaker 1: to guide to diffuse the climate time bomb. You have
Speaker 1: never been better equipped to solve the climate challenge. But
Speaker 1: we must move into warp speed climate action now. We
Speaker 1: don't have a moment to lose, and sixteen kids in
Speaker 1: Montana are not losing any time. They're suing the state
Speaker 1: for robbing them of a clean and healthful environment guaranteed
Speaker 1: in the state's constitution, with its energy policy and extensive
Speaker 1: support of fossil fuels. It will be the first trial
Speaker 1: involving a constitutional climate case, and it begins on June
Speaker 1: twelfth in Helena. Joining me is Michael Girard, director of
Speaker 1: the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School,
Speaker 1: tell us about the complaint file by these Montana kids.
Speaker 1: These young people are suing the state of Montana in
Speaker 1: Montana State Court saying that the state's fossil fuel friendly
Speaker 1: policy violate the state constitution. The Montana State Constitution has
Speaker 1: a cause guaranteeing a right to a clean and healthy environment,
Speaker 1: and the plaintiffs are saying that the state is violating
Speaker 1: that right by allowing so much coal and oil and
Speaker 1: gas throwing. And Montana added that language in nineteen seventy two.
Speaker 1: Has it done anything since nineteen seventy two to live
Speaker 1: up to that very little? They are one of the
Speaker 1: major fossil fuel producing states in the country. What is
Speaker 1: the state's response to this? The state says that provision
Speaker 1: of the constitution does not really mean that they have
Speaker 1: to do anything differently than what they're doing. They're saying
Speaker 1: that the young people don't have standing to sue, and
Speaker 1: most importantly, that it's not the job of the courts
Speaker 1: to set the state's energy and climate policy. That it's
Speaker 1: up to the elected legislature and governor. The plaintiffs are
Speaker 1: kids who have difference stories about how climate change affected them.
Speaker 1: That's right. They all have been affected by whether it's
Speaker 1: extreme heat or rainfall or drought or other kinds of issues,
Speaker 1: so that they are working to establish that they have
Speaker 1: been personally affected by climate change. The track, then, I assume,
Speaker 1: has said that they do have standing. Yeah, so far
Speaker 1: they may have to make additional showings in court, but
Speaker 1: so far they have standing, and so we have a
Speaker 1: trial set for June. Is this trial a first? There
Speaker 1: have been almost no trials on climate change at all.
Speaker 1: This is the first one that is asserting anything like
Speaker 1: these theories. There was one case more than twenty years
Speaker 1: ago from Vermont about motor vehicle standards, and another one
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago in New York about securitious disclosure.
Speaker 1: But this is the first one that's really getting into
Speaker 1: the merits of these issues. Why haven't those other cases
Speaker 1: gone to trial? What stopped them? The other cases have
Speaker 1: pretty much all been dismissed by the courts before the trial.
Speaker 1: The courts have found that there weren't adequate legal bases
Speaker 1: to bring them, or that it wasn't the job of
Speaker 1: the courts to decide these kinds of cases. But this
Speaker 1: is a case uniquely under the state constitution of Montana,
Speaker 1: and so it comes up in a much different way.
Speaker 1: But I should add that just a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of Hawaii said that the environmental clause
Speaker 1: in the Hawaii Constitution required the state to act on
Speaker 1: climate change that was a legal matter without a trial.
Speaker 1: But we're seeing more and more of these state constitutional
Speaker 1: provisions having real teeth. What kind of testimony do you
Speaker 1: expect to hear a trial. I think we'll hear from
Speaker 1: climate scientists who are brought in by the plaintists to
Speaker 1: testify that climate change is happening, that is mostly a
Speaker 1: result of fossil fuel combustion, that those fossil fuels are
Speaker 1: being burnt because of the policies of the state of
Speaker 1: Montana in part, and that there are things that could
Speaker 1: be done to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: There will also be testimony about the negative effects that
Speaker 1: these individual children have suffered. We'll see if Montana tries
Speaker 1: to rebut the scientific evidence. No court in the world
Speaker 1: really has seriously questioned climate science. We'll see if this
Speaker 1: is a first would they be able to have, you know,
Speaker 1: scientists come in and say this is not climate change.
Speaker 1: They can try. There are a very very small number
Speaker 1: of scientists to say that, you know, it's a complete
Speaker 1: opposition to overwhelming scientific consensus. But we'll see what to
Speaker 1: what tactics the state tries to pull out. So this
Speaker 1: case has been nearly a decade in the making. It's
Speaker 1: been going on for that long. Well, the planning has
Speaker 1: for it has been going on for some time, and
Speaker 1: we've seen these cases brought under similar theories going on
Speaker 1: for quite a few years. The plaintiffs, what kind of
Speaker 1: relief are they seeking? Well, initially they're seeking a declaration
Speaker 1: from the court that the policies and actions of Montana
Speaker 1: violate the state constitution and are illegal. But beyond that,
Speaker 1: they're asking the court to require the state to come
Speaker 1: up with a plan to greatly reduce fossil fuel use
Speaker 1: and emissions. We'll see how far the court goes. That
Speaker 1: would be an extraordinary relief. No matter who prevails, it's
Speaker 1: likely this is going to be appealed to the State
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Yes, I think it's likely that whoever loses,
Speaker 1: the loser will appeal a case to the decision to
Speaker 1: the state Supreme Court. So what a decision for the
Speaker 1: kids in this case have an impact outside Montana? Yes,
Speaker 1: it would be a very strong signal about the potential
Speaker 1: role of the courts. We saw a comparable situation a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago where the Supreme Court of the
Speaker 1: Netherlands ordered that country's government to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
Speaker 1: and that helps spur quite a few similar lasses in
Speaker 1: other countries around the world. If the plaintiffs win this case,
Speaker 1: we may see more litigation using similar theories in other
Speaker 1: places in the US. You know, I remember the case
Speaker 1: of Juliana the United States, and that also bit young people,
Speaker 1: but against the federal government. What happened to that case? Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuits, in a
Speaker 1: two to one decision, dismissed the case, saying that it
Speaker 1: was not the role of the courts to be setting
Speaker 1: energy and climate policy. The plaintiffs have now made a
Speaker 1: motion to the district court to amend their complaint to
Speaker 1: seek less traumatic relief, and the court has been considering
Speaker 1: that motion for about a year. That's a long time
Speaker 1: to consider emotion. So why do you think it is
Speaker 1: that children and teenagers are so concerned about climate change?
Speaker 1: When you think about teenagers, to think about them doing
Speaker 1: more fun things than worrying about the climate, Well, it's
Speaker 1: their future. That's a steak. By the time they get
Speaker 1: to be old men and women, the climate could be
Speaker 1: in what much worse shape than it is now? And
Speaker 1: so they have a particularly strong steak in the future,
Speaker 1: much more than those of us who won't be around
Speaker 1: that long. And now let's change the conversation a lot
Speaker 1: to a tiny island in the Pacific trying to do
Speaker 1: something about climate change outside its borders. The tiny Pacific
Speaker 1: island nation of Anahuatu is trying to get in front
Speaker 1: of the International Court of Justice in the Hague with
Speaker 1: the question of what are the legal obligations of the
Speaker 1: major omitting countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions so
Speaker 1: that the small island nations don't drown. In order to
Speaker 1: get before the International Court of Justice, it's necessary to
Speaker 1: have a majority vote of the members of the United
Speaker 1: Nations General Assembly. That vote is coming up on Thursday,
Speaker 1: and it now appears that after several years of campaigning,
Speaker 1: Banawatu has the votes and it looks almost certain that
Speaker 1: this motion is going to pass. In the case we'll
Speaker 1: go to the Hay what impact would a ruling by
Speaker 1: the Hay have? So they don't have the ability to
Speaker 1: order countries to do anything. However, many domestic courts, courts
Speaker 1: of a lot of other countries have been issuing rulings
Speaker 1: based on international law and human rights theories of acquiring
Speaker 1: their countries to do more on climate change. A decision
Speaker 1: from the International Court of Justice would be the most
Speaker 1: definitive statement yet about how international law and Newman rights
Speaker 1: law applied a climate change and it could spur even
Speaker 1: stronger decisions by the domestic courts of more countries. To
Speaker 1: someone looking from the outside at these climate change cases,
Speaker 1: it seems as if we hear a lot about the
Speaker 1: cases and then disappointing conclusions for those who want to
Speaker 1: fight climate change. I mean even you know the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court last year in the West Virginia EPA case, our
Speaker 1: climate change activists making headway, or they are making headway,
Speaker 1: not enough. But back in two thousand and seven, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, in a case called Masterchusetts versus EPA, said
Speaker 1: that EPA had the power under the Clean Air Act
Speaker 1: to regulate greenhouse gases. Based on that, the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: using the Supreme Court decision, did many things that reduced
Speaker 1: greenhouse gas emissions. There are lots of others out there.
Speaker 1: There's not a magic bullet, there's no one decision that
Speaker 1: is going to solve climate change, but a lot of
Speaker 1: these are incrementally adding up to real progress. And are
Speaker 1: there some states where's working better than others? Well, we
Speaker 1: certainly see a lot of action in states like California,
Speaker 1: which has long been the leader, New York, Massachusetts, Washington,
Speaker 1: all of them are doing much more on climate change
Speaker 1: than most of the rest of the country. These were
Speaker 1: not spurred by lasses. These were mostly spurred by the
Speaker 1: local political support for for action on climate change. And
Speaker 1: do you feel that more people get climate change than
Speaker 1: did let's say, five years ago, More people know about
Speaker 1: it and are attuned to it. Yes, The polling is
Speaker 1: clear that a larger percentage of the public is alarmed
Speaker 1: about climate change and the scientific evidence that's coming out
Speaker 1: from the ends to that alarm. There are still those
Speaker 1: who don't believe it or don't believe it's serious, but
Speaker 1: that seems to be a shrinking number. And internationally, are
Speaker 1: you seeing more use of the courts to combat climate change?
Speaker 1: On Thursday as well, the European Court of Human Rights
Speaker 1: is hearing two climate change cases, one brought by a
Speaker 1: group of senior women in Switzerland and other brought by
Speaker 1: the former mayor of a town in France that's having
Speaker 1: a lot of c level rights problems. So we're seeing
Speaker 1: an intensification of the use of the courts around the
Speaker 1: world to fight climate change. Thanks so much for being
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Law Show. That's Michael Gerard, director of
Speaker 1: the Saban Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Blue, Bomberg dot com, slash podcast
Speaker 1: Slash Law, and remember to tune in to The Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Show every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grossow, and you're listening to Bloomberg