It's a start at making at least the fossil fuel corporations pay for their devastation of the planet. And it's action that is worlds apart from making saving the planet about individual choice like no straws, water bottles or plastic bags to carry groceries, which realistically speaking, fighting climate change that way is like pissing in the ocean to bring in the tide. However, it only addresses making those particular destroyers responsible for what they have done so far and does not mention curtailing their future behavior. Also the destruction of our planet does not fall on fossil fuel corporations alone. All corporations pollute with immunity. All governments pollute with immunity. Recycling is a big contributor to pollution. The United States contributes as much as 242 million pounds of plastic trash to the ocean every year, and this despite sending most of it's recycling to poor countries. Recycling is really about manufacturing, we think of it as this environmental thing but recyclables are really raw materials, and cheap labor and unsafe conditions are a necessity to make money so that's what recycling has done for the world up until now. So next step is outlawing various plastics in some countries which while commendable for sure, is not going to do much since nearly 80% of pollution is done by corporations, like but not limited to fossil fuel giants. But this is still a meaningful step.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-more-evidence
Federal Court Ruling in Rhode Island Suit Targeting Polluters Called 'More Evidence of the Momentum Behind Climate Accountability Cases'
In a major win for advocates of making fossil fuel giants pay for devastating climate impacts of their products, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Rhode Island's historic lawsuit against oil and gas companies should proceed in state court, where it was originally filed in July 2018.
While there has been a "fast-growing wave of climate lawsuits" filed this fall, Rhode Island was the first state in the country to sue dirty energy giants—including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell—seeking to hold them accountable "for knowingly contributing to climate change, and causing catastrophic consequences to Rhode Island, our economy, our communities, our residents, our ecosystems."
Since 2017, two dozen local or state governments—including Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Minnesota—have filed similar suits, according to CCI. Whether those cases belong in state or federal court is a key fight between governments filing the lawsuits and the energy companies on the defense.
The Climate Docket reported last week on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to weigh in on the city of Baltimore's case against fossil fuel companies, to "decide if appellate courts can review certain lower court rulings related to whether a case will be heard in federal or state court." As the report explained:
Nearly all of the dozens of cases filed against the industry alleging it should be held accountable for its role in climate change are wrestling with this issue of jurisdiction. The companies are fighting fiercely to have them heard in federal courts, which have traditionally punted climate-related cases to the legislative and executive branches of government. The municipalities want them heard in state courts, where they were filed alleging violations of state laws and where they believe they are more likely to win.