New York Daily News: Climate-change lawsuit falls flat on its face:

“It was a preposterous notion from the start: that the city of New York, which burns loads of oil and gas itself, would take the likes of Chevron and Exxon to court, demanding billions of dollars in damages for causing climate change and putting our coastal city through the ravages of Superstorm Sandy. In a rigorously reasoned ruling, Manhattan Federal Judge John Keenan just bounced the suit, blowing the de Blasio administration’s legal logic out of the water.” (Editorial, 7/20/18)

Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma:

“Do not be mistaken, these suits by New York, San Francisco, Oakland and others are not about the law, they are wanton attempts at jackpot justice in order to fix local deficit problems and set national energy policy. In one breath, they seek to blame American manufacturers for the entirety of global climate change by suing them to pay for local infrastructure projects. In another breath, the California cities assert on their bond filings that climate change did not deteriorate their sea wall based on research they claim won’t show harm until after the year 2100. ” (7/20/18)

Theodore Boutrous, Partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher:

“Judge Keenan got it exactly right. Trying to resolve a complex, global policy issue like climate change through litigation is ‘illogical,’ and would intrude on the powers of Congress and the executive branch to address these issues as part of the democratic process.” (7/19/18)

Judge John Keenan, Federal Judge for the Southern District of New York:

“Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants. But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions there to must be addressed by the two other branches of government. … Congress has expressly delegated to the EPA the determination as to what constitutes a reasonable amount of greenhouse gas emission under the Clean Air Act. To litigate such an action for injuries from foreign greenhouse gas emissions in federal court would severely infringe upon the foreign-policy decisions that are squarely within the purview of the political branches of the U.S. Government.” (7/19/18)

Gale Norton, Former Secretary of the Interior and Former Attorney General of Colorado:

“In the climate change litigation, you have traded environmental plaintiffs attorneys, who were primarily focused on public policy, for an increasing number interested in financial gain. Those (contingency fee) attorneys are looking out for their pocketbooks more than the long-term best interest of the communities.” (7/16/18)

Jay Timmons, President and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers:

“Other municipalities around the country who have filed similar lawsuits should take note, as those complaints are likely to end the same way. New York City, [Boulder, Colorado], and the other California municipalities should withdraw their complaints and follow the lead of others that are focused on meaningful solutions.” (7/6/18)

Daniel Kochan, Environmental, Natural Resources and Administrative Law Professor at Chapman University:

The federal courts are not meant to provide a remedy for every ill of the world, including climate change. In such matters, we need to rely on the political branches to take charge. … A belief in the proper institutional roles is not a disbelief in the science, or a denial of the urgency of the problem. Instead, this ruling says that federal common law should not be expanded by judicial decree simply to satiate a desire for blame or for a deep pocket. Asking judges to stay neutral and refrain from policymaking from the bench protects the interests of individuals of every political disposition. … Constitutional institutions matter. We should guard them from being corrupted and demeaned. Alsup’s order is a refreshing example against the erosion of the courts into political debating societies.” (Op-ed, 7/6/18)

Richard Greene, Former Mayor of Arlington, Texas, and Former Regional Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency:

“[Judge Alsup] who has a liberal reputation in a federal court friendly to progressive public policy, has based his ruling on two very sound and common sense principles in dismissing the lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Oakland, California. The second big thing the judge illuminated is that the use of fossil fuels has resulted from public demand now spanning more than a century as the nation’s economy became the strongest in the world. We all want to drive the vehicles of our choice and to heat and cool our homes and offices for whatever comfort we desire. We reap the benefits from the engines of industry that provide jobs leading to unprecedented prosperity for the nation.” (7/6/18)

Ben van Beurden, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell PLC:

“It’s sort of bizarre that the users of our products say: ‘Well actually we didn’t want your product. So why did you force it on us?’ I don’t think also that in the end it will solve anything other than maybe redistributing wealth to a certain class of the economy.” (7/5/18)

The Oklahoman: Demise of anti-energy lawsuit is welcome news:

“In suing major oil companies, two California cities claimed fossil fuel production contributes to global warming and is therefore a “public nuisance” that should require those companies to pay billions for mitigation efforts. A federal judge has dismissed this claim, and his reasoning should cheer anyone concerned about serious policymaking. … While stating he agreed the climate is warming and fossil fuels contribute, Alsup noted a “balancing of policy concerns” is required. While fossil fuel use may harm the environment, it has also been a boon to humanity.” (Editorial, 7/5/18)

Judge John Keenan, Federal Judge for the Southern District of New York:

“This is an emissions case. Aren’t you trying to dress up a wolf in sheep’s clothing?” (7/3/18)

Lindsey de la Torre, Executive Director of the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project:

“It’s time for politicians and trial lawyers to put an end to this frivolous litigation. Taxpayer resources should not be used for baseless lawsuits that are designed to enrich trial lawyers and grab headlines for politicians. This abuse of our legal system does nothing to advance meaningful solutions, which manufacturers are focused on every day.” (7/2/18)

Adam Morey, Public Affairs Manager at the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York:

“[R]egulation by litigation is the wrong way to fix anything. Real policy decisions should be thought through carefully by government officials who are accountable to the people, not by unelected lawyers and mayors hungry for their moment in the national spotlight. … It’s incumbent on courts around the country to follow Judge Alsup’s example and consistently reject this attempt by unelected, private lawyers to usurp the power of legislative bodies and cash in on a matter as crucial and complex as climate change. And de Blasio, who benefits tremendously from the use of fossil fuels while cynically demonizing them to advance his career, should take a hint and let this one go.” (Op-ed, 7/1/18)

New York Post: Only a matter of time before de Blasio’s lawsuit gets tossed:

“Mayor de Blasio just got a blaring wake-up call from the West Coast about his lawsuit against Big Oil: Get set to be laughed straight out of court, Mr. Mayor. … De Blasio must know his suit is a long shot at best. No matter: His main goal has been to score political points with progressives and burnish his national bona fides as an anti-fossil-fuel crusader. And, hey — if he does win some cash for the city in the process, all the better. … New Yorkers can scratch their heads over these moves and bemoan the waste of (their) money being spent on them. When his efforts fail, though, de Blasio’s self-promotion may backfire. And taxpayers can have the last laugh.” (Editorial, 6/30/18)

Bob Tippee, Oil & Gas Journal Editor:

Common sense triumphed in a June 25 decision on climate change in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge William Alsup forced context into hysterically myopic climate politics when he granted a motion by five major oil companies to dismiss a lawsuit calling their production of oil and natural gas a public nuisance. BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell could have been held liable for inestimable damages if Alsup had let the case proceed.” (6/29/18)

Wall Street Journal: Climate shakedown flops:

“[T]he cities tried to circumvent the ruling by arguing that the mere production and sale of oil is a public nuisance. Judge Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, rightly refrained from trying to regulate global carbon emissions from the bench. The problem of climate change ‘deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case. While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government,’ he wrote. The judge also ridiculed the notion that fossil fuels are a public nuisance and even suggested that they have been a boon for humanity. ‘Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible,’ he noted. Fetch the smelling salts for Tom Steyer.” (Editorial, 6/29/18)

Tiger Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association:

“Courts are appropriate for settling legal disputes. They should not be setting environmental policy that has a profound impact on countless aspects of our daily lives and the continuing prospects for a strong and vibrant economy. This type of litigation has a profound and significant negative economic impact and should be called out for the sham that it is. If allowed to continue unchecked, the costs will not be restricted to the companies so arbitrarily pursued. Rather, taxpayers will foot the bill and the trial bar will move on to the next target to line its pockets.” (Op-ed, 7/28/18)

Judge William Alsup, Federal Judge for the Northern District of California:

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case. Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. Would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?” (6/25/18)

Dorothy Rothrock, President of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association:

A big payday for the trial attorneys, not a solution to global climate change, is the main motivation for these suits. The attorneys and municipalities don’t care that their lawsuits hurt California’s ambitious climate change policies. The eight municipalities making claims against oil companies are making allegations that don’t match declarations they have made in recent bond offerings. Will taxpayers be on the hook for litigation related to these discrepancies? For example, San Francisco, which has told the court that it faces an ‘imminent risk’ of flooding from sea-level rise, told investors last year that the city ‘is unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change’ will occur.” (Op-ed, 3/21/18)

Theodore Boutrous, Partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher:

“Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change. There’s no debate about climate science. The IPCC does not say it’s the extraction and production of oil that is driving these emissions. It’s economic activity that creates the demand for energy, and that leads to emissions.” (3/21/18)

Philip Hamburger, Columbia University Law Professor:

“The threat to scientific inquiry and political speech is obvious…. But with the usurped subpoena power, he [Schneiderman] can engage in a roving investigation, unlimited by any formal accusation, and then can use the results to bring criminal charges. This is a dangerous amalgam of grand-jury and prosecutorial power in one person…. And as shown by Mr. Schneiderman, when attorneys general can issue such subpoenas, a valuable judicial power becomes a prosecutorial threat to liberty and due process.” (5/11/16)

Dennis Vacco, Former Attorney General of New York:

“I was proud to play a major role in holding tobacco companies responsible for the damage they caused and in setting America on a healthier path. We had a clear, convincing legal case and a noble cause. The same cannot be said for attorneys general involved in the current crusade…. The tobacco companies were deceivers. ExxonMobil has been open. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the politicized attorneys general pursuing the company. A chilling impact on public debate is not in our collective interest.” (7/14/16)

Harvey Silverglate, Civil Liberties Attorney and ACLU Member:

The Exxon investigation is “pure harassment….  It is outrageous for any law enforcement official to be seeking to win this battle for minds by flexing law enforcement muscle and trying to shut up the other side.” (6/16/16)

Tristan Brown, Attorney and State University of New York Assistant Professor:

“[T]he Democratic coalition is pursuing a dangerous means of achieving its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Its unprecedented definition of fraud threatens to impose an undue and possibly unachievable regulatory burden on energy firms and their investors.”  (6/21/16)

Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal Columnist:

“What these liberal prosecutors really want is to shut down a universe of their most-hated ideological opponents… The goal of the Exxon probe isn’t to protect consumers or help the environment. It’s a message: Oppose us, and we will marshal our terrifying government powers to intimidate and threaten you, to force you to spend millions defending yourself, to eat up the time you’d otherwise use speaking out.” (6/16/16)

C. Boyden Gray, Former U.S. Ambassador to the EU and Former White House Counsel:

“The decision to single out Exxon is especially ill conceived, because when it comes to actual proposals for real legislative action on climate change, Exxon’s advocacy has been indistinguishable from some of the leading environmental organizations. The Sierra Club’s former chief climate counsel has recounted how he and ExxonMobil’s climate policy manager “found common ground when we realized that we actually agreed on the best approach to climate policy”—namely a revenue neutral carbon tax—hardly the strategy one would expect from a company dedicated to covering up climate science.” (2/11/16)

Financial Times: Flimsy Legal Basis for #ExxonKnew, Alarming Free Speech Implications:

“The investigations launched by the attorney-generals of some US states and the Virgin Islands set a troubling precedent for other policy debates, and threaten to undermine the cause that they aim to support…The legal basis for these actions seems flimsy…Beyond that, the implications of the investigations for free speech on public policy issues are alarming. Everyone ought to be able to take part in policy debates without worrying that their opponents will be able to use the law to go on fishing expeditions through their private communications, looking for embarrassing tit-bits that can be used against them…. The actions by the attorney-generals can only degrade the quality of that debate.” (Editorial, 4/24/16)

Wall Street Journal: #ExxonKnew an ‘Attempt to Stamp Out All Disagreement on Global-Warming’ Policy:

“This marks a dangerous new escalation of the left’s attempt to stamp out all disagreement on global-warming science and policy…. Even with the fearsome power of the Martin Act, this investigation appears built for media consumption more than courtroom success.” (Editorial, 11/8/15)

Bloomberg View: Investigation is ‘Dangerous Arrogation of Power’:

“Engaging in scientific research and public advocacy shouldn’t be crimes in a free country. Using the criminal law to shame and encumber companies that do so is a dangerous arrogation of power.” (Editorial, 11/10/15)

Washington Post: Exxon ‘Didn’t Commit a Crime,’ Science Depends on Allowing Criticism:

“[T]here’s also a risk whenever law enforcement holds the prospect of criminal penalties over those involved in a scientific debate. Legitimate scientific inquiry depends on allowing strong, even unfair, criticism of the claims that scientists make. As the Exxon investigations show, respecting that principle will not lead to positive outcomes in all cases. But it nevertheless demands that the government leave a sizable buffer zone between irresponsible claims and claims it believes may be criminally fraudulent.” (Editorial, 11/14/15)

New York Post: It’s the State AGs Who Should Be Investigated:

“New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and other state AGs are probing ExxonMobil — but maybe they’re the ones who should be investigated…the anti-Exxon campaign is starting to look like a conspiracy in its own right – pursuing a purely political vendetta in a blatant abuse of office.” (Editorial, 4/19/16)