New Zealand Moves To Ban Liability Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Companies

Amid a wave of lawsuits aiming to punish energy producers for climate change damage, a one-time leader of the push to limit greenhouse gas emissions, New Zealand, is moving to put an end to fossil fuel liability lawsuits. Kiwi lawmakers passed legislation in 2019 mandating that the country eliminate carbon emissions by 2050. But the right-leaning ruling coalition government that came to power in 2023 has been chipping away at some of the country’s aggressive climate change policies. In February, the government said it wants to abolish the environment ministry. It has also lifted a ban on oil and gas exploration. On Tuesday, New Zealand’s justice minister, Paul Goldsmith, said the government will change the law to block lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for “climate change damage.”“The courts are not the right place to resolve claims of harm from climate change, and tort law is not well-suited to respond to a problem like climate change which involves a range of complex environmental, economic and social factors,” Mr. Goldsmith said.He added that the lawsuits are “creating uncertainty in business confidence.”The change comes as a climate activist, Michael Smith, has filed a lawsuit against six New Zealand companies, seeking to hold them liable for climate change. New Zealand’s oscillating currents on climate activism echo similar tides in America, where states, cities, and other plaintiffs have made numerous attempts to sue fossil fuel companies. Courts have typically found that local municipalities trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are overstepping their authority. Such decisions are the job of the federal government. However, last year, Colorado’s Supreme Court handed climate change activists a major win when it paved the way for Boulder’s lawsuit against Exxon Mobil to go to trial. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case, which could determine the future of similar lawsuits against fossil fuel companies.Climate change activists say the lawsuits are a means to hold large corporations accountable for their damage from climate change. But fossil fuel advocates say the lawsuits are meant to bankrupt the industry. And before the Supreme Court rules on whether climate liability lawsuits can move forward, several states are passing laws to block such litigation. In March, Utah became the first state to provide liability protection for the fossil fuel industry. Lawmakers in Oklahoma and Tennessee also created liability shields for the industry, while Iowa and Louisiana are working on passing such legislation.Congresswoman Harriet Hageman of Wyoming introduced a bill in the House last month that would create a federal liability shield for energy producers.“Energy security is national security, and we will not self-sabotage our critical industries with a cascade of costly lawsuits and extreme penalties that jeopardize American drilling,” she said in a statement. “America’s energy producers should be protected from the dangerous legal precedent that would be set by the retroactive punishment of lawful activity.”In a statement, the president of the Center for Climate Integrity, Richard Wiles, said that the fossil fuel industry is “panicking” because municipalities are moving “closer to putting Big Oil companies on trial to make them pay for the damage their climate lies have caused.”“Let’s be clear: you don’t need immunity unless you are in fact responsible for the damages claimed in these lawsuits. A liability shield for Big Oil would bar the courthouse doors for communities across the country and stick U.S. taxpayers with the massive and growing bill for climate damages,” Mr. Wiles said. While various states in America and New Zealand are working to prevent fossil fuel liability lawsuits, so far, climate activists do not appear to be giving up on their strategy. On average, between 200 and 300 new cases are filed each year.

New Zealand Moves To Ban Liability Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Companies

More from the New York Sun

James Clyburn, Denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as ‘Infamous,’ Likens Him to Justice Who Wrote ‘Dred Scott’

Defense Demands Recusal of U.S. Attorney Pirro, Attorney General Blanche as Alleged White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooter Pleads Not Guilty

Democrats Consider Radical Plan To Gut Virginia Supreme Court To Save Partisan Voting Map: Report

More from the New York Sun

James Clyburn, Denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as ‘Infamous,’ Likens Him to Justice Who Wrote ‘Dred Scott’

Defense Demands Recusal of U.S. Attorney Pirro, Attorney General Blanche as Alleged White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooter Pleads Not Guilty

Democrats Consider Radical Plan To Gut Virginia Supreme Court To Save Partisan Voting Map: Report

FBI Supervisor Involved in Mar-a-Lago Search Fired Mid-Appeal

A Serial Upper East Side Satirist Skewers Social Media-Addicted Socialites

American Cruise Passenger Tests Positive for Hantavirus as 17 Americans Are Quarantined

Abraham Foxman

Trump Rejects Iran Counterproposal on Nuclear Deal as ‘Totally Unacceptable’