
Honolulu's lawsuit against fossil fuel companies leads climate change legal fight
In 2020, Hawaii 's capital city sued major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron, arguing they knew for nearly half a century that fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes the climate. The companies have also profited from the consumption of oil, coal and natural gas while deceiving the public about the role of their products in causing a global climate crisis, the lawsuit says.
Honolulu's lawsuit blames the companies for the sea level rise around the island of Oahu's world-famous coastline. It also warns that hurricanes, heatwaves and other extreme weather will be more frequent, along with ocean warming that will reduce fish stocks and kill coral reefs that tourists love to snorkel over.
The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Attorneys and media representatives for most of the companies didn't immediately respond to emails and phone messages from The Associated Press seeking comment on the lawsuit.
ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 representatives sent emails saying they don't comment on pending litigation.
A hearing is scheduled in state court on Tuesday for a defense motion that argues the lawsuit should be dismissed because the state's two-year statute of limitations expired. Honolulu's claims are based on allegations that have been publicly known for decades, the defense motion for summary judgment says.
'The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has long been part of public discussion and ongoing scientific research and debate for many decades,' a Shell spokesperson said in an email. 'There is a vast public record of media articles, scientific journals and government reports for well over 50 years that make this clear. The suggestion that the plaintiffs were somehow unaware of climate change is simply not credible.'
While the case is still far from trial, it's much closer than some 30 similar lawsuits nationwide brought by other states, cities and counties. Lawyer arguments and the judge's questions on Tuesday will give a sense of how both sides will present their cases, said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
'The first trial in any of these cases will be very significant," he said. 'It will get a large amount of nationwide or even global attention because the oil companies have not yet had to take the stand and defend themselves in a trial.'
Honolulu's lawsuit has reached this hearing stage, partly because the Hawaii Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss it, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take it on.
Meanwhile, a similar lawsuit by Maui County, where a massive wildfire nearly two years ago burned down most of Lahaina and killed 102 people, is on hold.
The state of Hawaii has also filed a similar suit, despite the U.S. Department of Justice in May suing Hawaii and Michigan over their plans for legal action against fossil fuel companies, claiming their climate actions conflict with federal authority and President Donald Trump's energy dominance agenda.
Hawaii's attorney general's office filed a motion last week seeking to stop the Department of Justice's federal lawsuit: 'Allowing this case to proceed would give the United States license to wield the federal courts as a weapon against any litigation between nonfederal parties that an incumbent presidential administration dislikes."
Honolulu's lawsuit has drawn the attention of Naomi Oreskes, a prominent Harvard University science history professor, who submitted a declaration in a motion opposing the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Oreskes drew parallels between the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. 'The fossil fuel industry and its allies and surrogates created an organized campaign to foster and sustain doubt about anthropogenic global warming and prevent meaningful action," she wrote. "They did this by influencing consumers and the general public.'
Soon before a lawsuit by a group of youths against Hawaii's transportation department was scheduled to go to trial, both sides settled the case last year, agreeing on an ambitious requirement to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions across all transportation modes no later than 2045.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
2 minutes ago
- BBC News
Billions needed for failing flood defences on Lincolnshire coast
Flood defences protecting the Lincolnshire coast will be "ineffective" by 2040 unless billions of pounds are invested, the Environment Agency (EA) has to projections, a breach in the defences could leave the town of Mablethorpe under about 4ft (1.3m) of water and Ingoldmells, near Skegness, under about 5ft (1.6m).A meeting of the county council's environment committee on Friday heard urgent action was 90% of defences on a 30-mile stretch of coastline between Saltfleet, north of Mablethorpe, and Gibraltar Point, south of Skegness, were expected to fail within the next 20 years, councillors were told. Deborah Higton, flood risk manager for the EA, told the committee it would take "billions" to replace all of the Lincolnshire coast defences."There is real urgency, even though 2040 feels like a long way in the future," she area, which was below sea level, was "completely reliant on flood defences" to protect 20,000 homes and 38,000 static caravans, she added. Councillor Tom Ashton (Conservative) told the committee local holiday resorts faced "stagnation and decline" without investment."If we don't get investment to secure our long-term security, that decline begins relatively quickly."Councillors would also be forced to consider a "managed retreat" if funding could not be secured, a report compiled for the meeting EA currently replenishes thousands of tonnes of sand along the Lincolnshire coast annually at a cost of between £10m and £ Ms Higton said: "We are facing a future where the old ways of protecting the land will no longer be enough."The agency, along with partners, said it hoped to draw up a masterplan by 2028, and secure funding and contracts by after the meeting, Councillor Danny Brookes, the executive member for the environment at the Reform-led authority, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "It's worrying, but I'm glad to hear we're taking action."We're trying to get this into the council's corporate plan, and we will make sure this does get done."It comes after Reform abolished the authority's flooding committee following its victory in May's local elections, despite other parties calling for it to be the time, council leader Sean Matthews promised the new administration would work "longer and harder on flooding than ever before". Stark warning Analysis by Paul Murphy, Environment is a pretty stark warning from the specialists charged with defending Lincolnshire's coastal communities from the North recent years the Environment Agency has been revising a lot of its projections to take into account the impact of climate change and rising sea levels on our more the EA scrutinises existing flood defences, the more it is finding areas of of people in the county live at or below sea level, many of them in static caravans nestled behind flood of flood water up to 5ft deep in some places will be sobering for this population, many of whom are older and perhaps more vulnerable in an is mention too of "managed retreat" – the Whitehall euphemism for no longer defending against flooding and letting nature take its course. This could have a profound impact on the local storm surge of 1953 claimed 43 lives along the Lincolnshire coastline and led to the construction of existing defences. The risks are more than just government has already announced extra funding for Lincolnshire, including almost £11.3m to bolster defences between Saltfleet and Gibraltar Point. Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Download the BBC News app from the App Store for iPhone and iPad or Google Play for Android devices

Finextra
3 minutes ago
- Finextra
Barclays follows HSBC out of the Net Zero Banking Alliance
Barclays has followed HSBC in withdrawing from the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), claiming that the departure of a host of other global lenders means the organisation "no longer has the membership to support our transition". 1 Founded in 2021, the UN-convened NZBA requires members to commit to "transition the operational and attributable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their lending and investment portfolios to align with pathways to net-zero by 2050 or sooner". At its peak it had around 150 members, including most of the world's largest banks. However, that number has dwindled in the last few months. At the beginning of 2025, ahead of Donald Trump's return to the White House, a host of US banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, pulled out of the global climate-focused alliance. The American banks quit amid attacks from Republicans on "woke" capitalism, with the House Judiciary Committee, led by Republican Jim Jordan, claiming that financial environmental alliances have created "a climate cartel". Now, UK-headquartered HSBC and Barclays have joined their US counterparts. Barclays says it is committed to its "ambition" to be a net zero bank by 2050. Says a statement: "Our targets to mobilise $1 trillion of Sustainable and Transition Financing and for financed emissions remain unchanged. We continue to work with our clients on their transition, finance the transition and scale climate tech, while helping to ensure energy security for our customers and clients." Earlier this week, the CEO of Standard Chartered, Bill Winters, hit out at banks that have rowed back on their climate commitments. 'People that said a lot of stuff, but [when] it was fashionable to say it, [and] who are saying either nothing or the opposite now: shame on them,' said Winters, according to the Guardian.


The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Jury says Tesla must pay $329 million for a deadly crash involving Autopilot
A Miami jury ordered Elon Musk 's car company on Friday to pay $329 million to victims of a deadly crash involving its Autopilot driver assist technology, opening the door to other costly lawsuits and striking a blow to Tesla 's reputation for safety. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cell phone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial.