Baltimore judge sides with oil companies in climate case, dismissing city’s deception allegations

A Maryland judge Thursday tossed Baltimore’s lawsuit against more than a dozen oil companies that sought to hold them responsible for what the city claims is the impacts of climate change. 

In her ruling, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown, who was appointed in 2010 by then-Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, sided with the energy companies, who argued that only federal law can address global pollution concerns. 

“Global pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states," Brown stated. "Federal law governs disputes involving air and water in their ambient state.”

In its 2018 complaint, the city of Baltimore argued that oil companies “have known for nearly half a century that unrestricted production and use of fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate.”

The companies, the lawsuit claims, engaged in an effort to “conceal and deny their own knowledge of those threats.” 

Brown disputed that Baltimore was only seeking to hold the oil companies accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign. 

“To the extent that characterization of the complaint guides the analysis, this court finds that Baltimore's complaint is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries. The explanation by Baltimore that it only seeks to address and hold defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door,” Brown wrote. 

State or federal

Many of the defendants in the multitudes of climate lawsuits winding through the courts across the country also argue that the plaintiffs in these cases are seeking redress for injuries from jurisdictions that are incapable of addressing the cause of those injuries. 

This was a central point that the state of Montana made in oral arguments Wednesday before the Montana Supreme Court in the state’s appeal of a landmark ruling in which youth climate activists, coordinated by an anti-fossil fuel group, sued the state for not factoring in the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in permitting fossil fuel projects.

This violated a Montana constitutional protection to a clean and healthful environment, the plaintiffs argued, and a Montana district judge agreed. 

“The idea that the state of Montana, the city of Honolulu or the city of Baltimore can somehow regulate that in their own jurisdiction and have any impact at all on the alleged impacts they're seeing from climate change is simply absurd,” David Blackmon, energy analyst and publisher of “Energy Absurdities” told Just the News. 

Honolulu is also suing a dozen oil companies for allegedly causing damages as a result of climate change.

That case is before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the oil companies are asking the high court to weigh in on this issue. The companies say that the federal Clean Air Act preempts state law, and they’re asking the court to clarify whether state law can be used to seek damages from the global issue of climate change.

The Supreme Court in June asked the Department of Justice to give its opinion on the matter, and so it could be next year before the court decides whether to take up the case. 

Brown noted in her ruling that the court’s consideration of the issues was complicated by federal and state courts coming to different conclusions on this issue in similar cases, but Brown sided with the decisions that viewed the issue as having federal jurisdiction. 

Blackmon said that the widely disparate conclusions coming out of state courts are why the Supreme Court needs to review the issue. 

Accusations of deception

As with Baltimore, the city of Honolulu is arguing that the companies engaged in deceptive practices by hiding knowledge of climate change, a contention Brown dismissed. 

Many experts, including those who do want to see fossil fuel use reduced, have disputed the idea that oil companies had some precise knowledge about climate change beyond what was publicly available, which they then tried to conceal to encourage use of their product. 

German physicist Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder has a YouTube channel that features videos such as “I wasn’t worried about climate change. Now I am."

Hossenfelder has stated that she has “no sympathy for the fossil fuel industry” and claims they did try to “obfuscate the science.” However, in a thread on X, she called the idea that the fossil fuel industry “knew” about climate change and hid that knowledge to be an act of the media rewriting history to serve a narrative. 

The truth, Hossenfelder argued, is that “everyone who was paying attention knew the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there was no evidence to back up the idea that fossil fuel emissions were causing temperature changes.”

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., retired professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, is also a proponent of net zero efforts – which essentially is counter-balancing all emissions released by human activities by removing carbon from the atmosphere. He has also disputed the campaign to portray oil companies as having tried to hide knowledge about climate change. 

Larry Behrens, communications director for Power The Future, an energy advocacy group, told Just the News that Brown made the right decision in the case. 

“From the beginning, these lawsuits have been insanely frivolous, so it’s great to see common sense win out in this case. However, it’s clear the environmental movement is trying to go through the back door to change the law, because they know that state legislators and Congress won’t act on their extreme agenda,” he said. 

Blackmon, the energy analyst, thinks the Democratic-run cities are looking for a revenue source. 

“It’s a big money grab. They’re in financial difficulty because of their Democratic policies. So, they’re trying to find a way to fund all the non-core programs that Democrats always want to create,” Blackmon said. 

Sometimes these city-level climate suits are being pushed by anti-fossil fuel groups, such as the Center for Climate Integrity, which has produced reports that estimate the alleged impacts of climate change. The group has received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, which funds many anti-fossil fuel campaigns.

Leonardo DiCaprio’s non-profit foundation awarded grants to a “dark money” group, according to a Fox News investigation, which then got passed onto Sher Edling, a law firm spearheading climate lawsuits nationwide. 

“While families are struggling to afford groceries, we should all be asking where these groups get the millions of dollars to run into courtrooms across the nation in an effort to impose their will,” Behrens said. 

Kevin Mooney, an investigative reporter based in Washington, D.C., told Just the News that America’s energy independence, which has been a boon for the country, is being harmed by an “overly litigious system” that is helpful to America’s adversaries. 

“Our own cumbersome environmental anti-energy laws are dragging us down, and I think foreign countries like China are exploiting that for these groups,” Mooney said. 

Theodore Boutrous Jr., council for Chevron Corp., told the Washington Times that Brown’s ruling affirms that climate policy seeking to regulate global emissions cannot be set by state law. A spokesperson for the Baltimore mayor’s office said that the city will be appealing the case to a higher court.