Rhode Island

1 24 HJR 54?

Rhode Island’s two representatives are:

1^st District

Gabe Amo

Democrat

Since Nov 7, 2023

View District Map

2^nd District

Seth Magaziner

Democrat

Since Jan 3, 2023

View District Map

https://www.drillednews.com/post/growing-group-of-states-backs-rhode-island-s-climate-suit-vs-big-oil

1/20

More than a dozen states filed an :{amicus brief:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: on Friday supporting Rhode Island’s :{climate lawsuit:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: against fossil fuel companies. The coalition of states supporting Rhode Island’s case is the largest yet, with Maine, Delaware, and Hawaii weighing in for the first time on litigation seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for climate change impacts.

“The climate crisis is impacting Maine in a number of ways, from ocean temperatures affecting our fisheries to extreme weather damaging our infrastructure and costing taxpayers,” :{said:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey. “Big oil companies played a big role in creating this crisis and inhibiting an effective, evidence-based policy response. They should be held accountable for their actions.”

Rhode Island is the first state to bring a climate lawsuit against major fossil fuel companies. The companies are appealing a :{decision remanding:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: the case back to state court, where it was :{originally filed:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: in July 2018. Appeals are also pending in similar climate lawsuits brought by municipalities, including two cases that were dismissed in federal district courts. The fossil fuel companies want the cases in federal courts, where they have historically had an easier path to dismissal, while the communities argue the cases arise under state law and belong in state courts.

The 13 states supporting Rhode Island are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

The attorneys general say Rhode Island’s claims, such as nuisance and failure to warn, are state law tort claims that are widely applicable to manufacturers of harmful products. They cite litigation against opioid manufacturers as an example, noting that states and local governments are pursuing state law claims in those cases. “Just like with the opioid crisis, the consequences of climate change often are felt locally, and state and local governments play a critical role in crafting and implementing solutions,” the AGs’ brief states.

In its suit, Rhode Island alleges that the major fossil fuel producing companies knowingly contributed to climate change and failed to warn regulators and the public about the harms of fossil fuel use. Instead, these companies questioned legitimate climate science to confuse the public and maintain their profits. The complaint argues that Big Oil should be liable for infrastructure-related damages resulting from their actions.

“Whatever measures are undertaken, the cost of sea-level and temperature rise to state and local governments will be massive,” the states write in their brief.

Most of these states have previously signed amicus briefs supporting climate lawsuits brought by a handful of California communities, New York City, and Baltimore. One :{brief:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: filed in March last year in support of Oakland and San Francisco was signed by 10 states plus the District of Columbia.

Hawaii was not part of that coalition that previously filed amicus briefs, but Hawaii Attorney General Clare E. Connors :{did sign:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}:the brief supporting Rhode Island. Hawaii is joining as the local governments of :{Honolulu:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: and :{Maui:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: recently initiated lawsuits of their own against fossil fuel companies.

It remains to be seen whether any of these states will :{join Rhode Island:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: in suing fossil fuel companies. New York and Massachusetts have both sued ExxonMobil for misleading investors, and while New York’s case was unsuccessful, the :{Massachusetts case:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}:, which also contends the company misled consumers, will be one to watch this year.

The attorneys general of Maryland and California, two states where municipalities are already suing fossil fuel companies, have expressed interest in holding polluters accountable under state law.

“Maryland, like other states, should have the right to pursue these fossil fuel polluters under state law, even when the danger to the environment and public health is widespread,” :{said:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh.

“Corporations promoted the use of fossil fuels that accelerate climate change and hurt our coastal states,” :{added:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:700;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);box-sizing:inherit"):}: California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “For the sake of our communities’ and our children’s futures, we cannot let polluters off the hook.”

By Dana Drugmand

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02072018/rhode-island-climate-change-lawsuit-fossil-fuel-industry-rising-sea-levels-heat-waves-storms

Rhode Island on Monday became the first state to sue oil companies over the effects of climate change, filing a complaint seeking damages for the costs associated with protecting the state from rising seas and severe weather.

Standing atop a seawall in Narragansett, state Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin compared the case to the lawsuits filed decades ago against tobacco companies and said it would hold the companies—including ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Royal Dutch Shell—accountable for harm they have caused.

"Big oil knew for decades that greenhouse gas pollution from their operations and their products were having a significant and detrimental impact on the earth's climate," he said. "Instead of working to reduce that harm, these companies chose to conceal the dangers, undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation and engage in massive campaigns to promote the ever increasing use of their products and ever increasing revenues in their pockets."

The lawsuit, filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court, names 14 oil and gas companies and some of their affiliates, saying they created conditions that constitute a public nuisance under state law and failed to warn the public and regulators of a risk they were well aware of. It follows a series of similar lawsuits filed by local jurisdictions around the country.

Rhode Island is known as the Ocean State—it has more than 400 miles of coastline—and officials stressed the risks that coastal communities face as a result of rising seas. Kilmartin noted that the area where he was standing could be underwater if a major storm were to hit later in the century, when the seas are several feet higher.

"As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' wrongful conduct described in this Complaint, average sea level will rise substantially along Rhode Island's coast; average temperatures and extreme heat days will increase; flooding, extreme precipitation events, such as tropical storms and hurricanes, and drought will become more frequent and more severe; and the ocean will warm and become more acidic," the lawsuit states.

It says Rhode Island is already seeing the effects, and taxpayers are left to pay the costs.

Shell released a statement to Reuters saying that "lawsuits that masquerade as climate action and impede the collaboration needed for meaningful change" were not the answer to climate change.

Latest in a Wave of Lawsuits

More than a dozencities and counties in California, Colorado, New York and Washington have filed similar lawsuits against major fossil companies in recent months in attempts to hold them financially responsible for the effects of climate change. Many of those cases involve coastal communities—such asNew York City and tinyImperial Beach, California—that have seen the damage sea level rise can cause and are now looking for how to pay for protective infrastructure.

The fossil fuel industry has beenfighting to have these cases dismissed or moved to federal court, where it faces better odds of having the cases thrown out.

That tactic succeeded last month, when a federal judge in California dismissed the lawsuits filed by San Francisco and Oakland. In his decision, U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote that the dangers of climate change are "very real" and that fossil fuel companies didn't dispute that burning their products causes it, but that the issue should be handled by Congress rather than in a federal liability lawsuit.

State courts, where other lawsuits are still being handled, may take a different view.

'A Greater Burden on States to Take Action'

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who spoke at the press conference announcing Rhode Island's lawsuit, said the courts are an appropriate venue.

"The fossil fuel industry is fond of saying, you're in the wrong forum, you shouldn't be going to the courts, you should be going to Congress," he said. "The reason they say that is because they have Congress locked up with their political power and their money and their influence."

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo said the Trump administration's inaction on climate change means that states must do more.

"Given that we have a president in the White House who denies climate change and has pulled out of the Paris climate accord, it puts a greater burden on states to take action," she said. "If the federal government isn't going to do their job, we'll do it for them."

https://www.americansecurityproject.org/congress-climate-security/

11/17

...Climate change is a threat to national security. The military and national security community has been preparing for the effects of climate change for over a decade. However, for several years, there has been notable push-back from Congress; as recently as 2016, the House of Representatives had voted along purely partisan lines to support an amendment prohibiting any action by the Department of Defense on climate change.

In a remarkable turnaround, the Republican-led Congress has now begun to ask for the military to plan for the effects of climate change, and President Trump has signed legislation requiring that they do so. Below, is a of list legislation considered in 2017, by their committee of jurisdiction.

House Armed Services Committee

In the House version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 2810), the committee accepted an amendment sponsored by Congressman Langevin (RI) that stated that it was the sense of Congress that climate change “is a direct threat to the national security of the United States” and that military installations “must be able to effectively prepare to mitigate climate damage.”

The Amendment requires a report to Congress on vulnerabilities to climate damage in military infrastructure and how climate change is affecting missions like humanitarian assistance and disaster response. The report would detail how much addressing climate change is expected to cost the Department.

The amendment was accepted by voice vote in committee.

Full House of Representatives

When the full House considered the NDAA on July 13, Representative Perry offered an amendment that would strip the bill of any language on climate change, including the report. After floor debate that included discussions from Rep. Langevin, Rep. Peters, and GOP Representatives Stefanik and Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment to strip the climate security section failed by a vote of 185-234, with 45 Republicans voting against. This vote on the House floor was an important signal that Congress is ready to support the military’s actions in preparing for the effects of climate change.

House Appropriations Committee

In the report to accompany the 2018 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2998), the House Appropriations committee called on the Department of Defense to plan for the effects of climate change on its bases and its operations.

The report directs the Department of Defense to take into account the impacts of climate change, both “as a driver of instability” and as a threat to the military’s infrastructure. Noting the 2015 report to Congress about the national security implications of climate change, the report asks the Secretary of Defense to report back to Congress (not later than 120 days after enactment of this Act) on the “adaptation strategies developed for vulnerable installations.”

Furthermore, the report includes strong support for the Department of Defense to continue its work planning for the impacts of climate change. In a section titled “Climate and Security for Military Installations” the report states:

The Department of Defense must pay close attention to potential adverse impacts of climate change as a driver of instability. From sea level rise to increased drought and flooding across the country and the world, proper defense planning must include considerations related to climate change impacts. The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to plan infrastructure and other projects using the best available data and science on climate change to mitigate risks to our armed forces serving domestically and abroad.

The Omnibus Appropriations bill in which this bill was folded into has not yet been signed into law.

Senate Armed Services Committee

In the reportto accompany the Senate version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S.1519), the committee asks that the Secretary of Defense performs a “comprehensive threat assessment” and “implementation master plan” by March 1, 2018. The report looks both at how to address overseas stability issues as well as infrastructure impacts. The committee is worried about how climate change will threaten readiness for the military as a whole. One particularly interesting area is that it asks for the report to asses how “public-private partnerships” could be used to build resiliency.

House-Senate Conference

spn

Leaders placed by Talent Market in right-wing think tanks include Lawson Bader as President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (now President and CEO of DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund); David Bobb, President of the Bill of Rights Institute; David Keating, President of the Center for Competitive Politics; Mike Stenhouse, CEO of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity; and John Tsarpalas, President of the Nevada Policy Research Institute.