Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt, and this
Speaker 1: was a hell of a week for climate lawsuits. On Wednesday,
Speaker 1: the state of Minnesota sued Exxon Coke Industries and the
Speaker 1: American Petroleum Institute in a groundbreaking case alleging consumer fraud
Speaker 1: pegged to thirty years of climate disinformation campaigns. It's a
Speaker 1: really bold suit, taking a new approach. It's centered on
Speaker 1: disinformation about climate change as a crime against the people
Speaker 1: of Minnesota. And then the very next day, on Thursday morning, Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Filed its climate disinformation suit against BP, Chevron, Exon, Mobil,
Speaker 1: and Shell. Like the Minnesota case, the DC case is
Speaker 1: built around consumer protection law, not nuisance law, which the
Speaker 1: majority of other climate cases are based on. That's a
Speaker 1: really important distinction and it will be interesting to watch
Speaker 1: what happens with both the nuisance and these consumer fraud
Speaker 1: approaches in the months ahead. We'll have more details on
Speaker 1: the Minnesota and DC cases for you right after this
Speaker 1: quick message from today's sponsor.
Speaker 2: We're here sing these three next cases specifically because the
Speaker 2: designed conducted funding this campaign of deception, then carrying out
Speaker 2: in Minnesota and violation of the law.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that is Attorney General from the Great State
Speaker 1: of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, announcing a lawsuit against the American
Speaker 1: Petroleum Institute exon Mobile and Coke Industries. This is a
Speaker 1: really big deal, starting with the fact that none of
Speaker 1: the other climate lawsuits have named the API and Coke,
Speaker 1: which is interesting because those are two names that you
Speaker 1: hear a lot when you hear about climate denial. But
Speaker 1: this suit is squarely focused on disinformation, so it makes
Speaker 1: a lot of sense that API and Coke would be included. Plus,
Speaker 1: Coke does actually operate a refinery in Minnesota as well.
Speaker 1: Coke Industries and its owners, the infamous Charles and David Coke,
Speaker 1: were major funders of climate denial through the nineties and
Speaker 1: two thousands, funding various front groups and think tanks and
Speaker 1: all sorts of messaging against climate action. The API, of course,
Speaker 1: is an organization we've covered a lot in this podcast.
Speaker 1: They've been round for over one hundred years and have
Speaker 1: been a key architect and funder of climate denial for decades.
Speaker 1: Here's environmental sociologist Bob Brule talking about how much they
Speaker 1: spent with just one PR firm, Edelman from two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight to twenty twelve.
Speaker 3: Two thousand and eight and got seventy five million dollars
Speaker 3: that year, and then two thousand and nine, let's see,
Speaker 3: two thousand and nine, they got sixty eight million dollars.
Speaker 3: Twenty ten they got sixty three million dollars, and then
Speaker 3: in twenty eleven they got sixty eight million dollars, and
Speaker 3: then in twenty twelve fifty two million.
Speaker 1: That's hundreds of millions of dollars in one contract to
Speaker 1: one firm over just four years. Some of that money
Speaker 1: went toward ad campaigns, some of it went to front groups,
Speaker 1: some went to pr All of it was in the
Speaker 1: service of promoting fossil fuels as a great and necessary
Speaker 1: part of America, undermining anything that said otherwise, including the
Speaker 1: science on climate change. The Minnesota case alleges that these
Speaker 1: three broke Minnesota consumer protection laws by essentially lying to
Speaker 1: the public about climate change. It's an interesting approach because,
Speaker 1: unlike the fourteen climate liability cases making their way through
Speaker 1: various state and federal courts right now, this one is
Speaker 1: unlikely to deal with jurisdictional issues. It's a state suit
Speaker 1: about the violation of state laws. That makes it a
Speaker 1: lot harder for fossil fuel defendants to remove it to
Speaker 1: federal court, which is something they've tried to do in
Speaker 1: all of these cases. Here's Assistant Attorney General Lee Curry
Speaker 1: spelling it out. This book Paint does not seek to
Speaker 1: hold these companies accountable for climate change.
Speaker 3: It seeks to hold.
Speaker 4: Them accountable for violating Minnesota's unction.
Speaker 2: Launch.
Speaker 1: Of course, the case also comes on the heels of
Speaker 1: weeks worth of Black Lives Matter protests that started in
Speaker 1: Minnesota over the police killing of George Floyd, and Ellison
Speaker 1: and his colleagues made the connection between climate change and
Speaker 1: racial justice. Crystal Clear. Sam Grant, the director of Minnesota
Speaker 1: three point fifty, had this to say, we have.
Speaker 2: Freedom to profit over freedom degrees. A writer that the
Speaker 2: freedom degrees must come first because we have to live
Speaker 2: in order for anything else to happen.
Speaker 1: And on the first page of the complaint, in the
Speaker 1: very first paragraph, it reads, quote warming will continue with
Speaker 1: devastating economic and public health consequences across the state, and
Speaker 1: in particular disproportionately impact people living in poverty and people
Speaker 1: of color. This is the first time I've seen environmental
Speaker 1: justice mentioned this explicitly in any of these climate cases.
Speaker 1: So it's great to see it. And the DC case
Speaker 1: also notes that low income communities and communities of color
Speaker 1: and elderly communities will be disproportionately impacted by climate change.
Speaker 1: Like the Minnesota case, it also hinges on consumer protection statutes.
Speaker 1: Filing suit under these consumer protection laws means that Minnesota
Speaker 1: and Washington d C. Do not have to prove they
Speaker 1: are suffering specific climate harms like more extreme wildfires or flooding,
Speaker 1: or rising sea levels or higher temperatures, even though of
Speaker 1: course those things are happening. They don't have to prove it.
Speaker 1: They don't have to prove that the fossil fuel companies
Speaker 1: even caused it. What they do have to prove is
Speaker 1: that the fossil field defendants lied to consumers, that they
Speaker 1: have put out misleading information false advertising. The DC complain
Speaker 1: also includes withholding information from the public. Here's Kate Kanopka,
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General in charge of the Public Advocacy Division
Speaker 1: for DC. She wrote DC's climate complaint and explains how
Speaker 1: this consumer protection statute works. Here.
Speaker 4: I want to be clear that Kate has been as
Speaker 4: a consumer protection case and so in fact, the harm
Speaker 4: comes to consumers when they are not given full and
Speaker 4: accurate information about the purchases that they are making. And
Speaker 4: so it's very important for us to keep in mind
Speaker 4: that one, there is no requirement for us to show harm,
Speaker 4: but two that really the point of the matter is
Speaker 4: is that these consumers have been harmed by their failure
Speaker 4: to be able to make informed purchasing decisions. Our Consumer
Speaker 4: Protection Statute is an extremely broad remedial vehicle which gives
Speaker 4: us a very broad ability not only affirmativeness representations, but
Speaker 4: also the company's failure to provide information that they had
Speaker 4: that would have been material to purchasers purchasing decisions.
Speaker 1: The DC complaint focuses quite a bit on the fossil
Speaker 1: fuel companies more recent at campaigns which highlight their investments
Speaker 1: in renewables and paint natural gas as a clean, green fuel.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've seen these ads or heard them in
Speaker 1: various podcasts in recent years. Here's a small sampling. Some
Speaker 1: farms grow food, this one gross fuel. Doers need energy,
Speaker 1: and demand for it is expected to grow.
Speaker 2: America's natural gas and oil companies are successfully meeting the
Speaker 2: demand for greater energy.
Speaker 1: On natural gas can step in to keep the power
Speaker 1: flowing and the lights shining. The biggest natural gas booster
Speaker 1: by far in the last decade has been the America
Speaker 1: Petroleum Minstitute API, which is not a named defendant in
Speaker 1: the DC suit. However, the API is mentioned in the complaint.
Speaker 1: The DC folks take the stance that the fossil fueld
Speaker 1: companies fund and control the API, so they hold the
Speaker 1: companies accountable for API's actions. This could all get pretty
Speaker 1: interesting if either of these cases makes it past the
Speaker 1: fossil fuel company's inevitable motion to dismiss these cases. If
Speaker 1: these cases get into discovery, I suspect we will see
Speaker 1: quite a bit more documentation of exactly who knew what
Speaker 1: about climate change, when they knew it, and what they
Speaker 1: did with that information. That's it for this time. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening. We'll bring you updates on these and all
Speaker 1: the other climate cases out there as they happen. You
Speaker 1: can also read more details about both of these cases
Speaker 1: and access the full complaints on our website drillednews dot com.
Speaker 1: I want to take a minute and thank our latest
Speaker 1: Patreon patrons. They are Robert April Maha, John Kendall, Zabarowski,
Speaker 1: Stacy Craig Harvey, Sally Francis, Mark Inyard, and a special
Speaker 1: thanks to Jonathan Starr, our Big Green Energy patron. Thank
Speaker 1: you guys so much. Your support is helping us revamp
Speaker 1: our Climate COVID policy tracker this month because there are
Speaker 1: more than one hundred items on there now and it's
Speaker 1: getting really unwieldy and our to use, So we're doing
Speaker 1: a bit of a user experience refresh on that and
Speaker 1: we'll relaunch it in the next week or so. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, you're also helping us continue to track all
Speaker 1: of the policy rollbacks and big news. In the next
Speaker 1: month or so, we'll be launching our Drilled Local Reporting Network,
Speaker 1: bringing stories to the website and the podcast from reporters
Speaker 1: on the frontlines in oil and gas states. So if
Speaker 1: you've got a local climate accountability story you think we
Speaker 1: should look into, or you know a great reporter where
Speaker 1: you live, or you've got a tip for the tracker,
Speaker 1: give us a shout at pitches at drillednews dot com.
Speaker 1: And finally, we have a new season coming at you
Speaker 1: in July. If you're not already a Patreon subscriber, you
Speaker 1: might want to think about signing up. In the next month,
Speaker 1: we're going to release all of season five at once
Speaker 1: as a Binge listen and subscribers will get it early.
Speaker 1: We'll have a trailer for you on that in the
Speaker 1: next couple weeks. I'm excited for you all to hear it. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's it for the sales pitch. Thanks again for listening,
Speaker 1: and we'll see you next time.