Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Climate Murder? Media Picks Up Novel Legal Theory Suggesting Big Oil Is Homicidal

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

 

A new narrative is making its way through major media outlets about major oil corporations: climate change that they purportedly caused is taking lives, and they could be held liable for homicide.

In recent weeks, numerous outlets have run stories or opinion pieces promoting or otherwise examining the novel legal theory, which is the subject of a new paper published by the Harvard Environmental Law Review, according to a Tuesday E&E News report detailing the architects’ efforts to market their idea to prosecutors. The Boston GlobeThe GuardianNewsweekInside Climate News and other outlets have all recently published pieces promoting the idea that leading oil companies could or should be charged with murder for their role in climate change, which the theory’s architects claim has caused thousands of deaths in the U.S.

David Arkush, who runs Public Citizen’s climate program, and Donald Braman, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, articulated the theory in a March paper. Public Citizen is a left-of-center organization founded by failed Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader that, among other things, pressures American International Group (AIG) to stop providing insurance coverage for fossil fuel companies, according to its website and Influence Watch.

“Activists and journalists have called executives of major oil companies ‘mass murderers,’ lamenting that ‘millions of human beings will die so that they can have private planes and huge mansions,’ and a growing chorus of communities devastated by [fossil fuel companies’] lethal conduct have begun to demand accountability,” the authors state in their paper. “But as of this writing, no prosecutor in any jurisdiction has charged [fossil fuel companies] with any form of homicide over climate-related deaths. They should.”

The paper also suggests that the American Petroleum Institute (API), a leading trade association for the oil and gas industry, was involved in the industry’s purported attempts to obscure the effects of emissions.

“The record of the past two decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable American energy to U.S. consumers while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint,” a spokesperson for API told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”

The two authors contend that energy corporations were aware of the warming that emissions from their products and operations would cause for decades, and that those companies decided to mislead the public and obscure what effects those emissions may have. A similar narrative lies at the heart of climate lawsuits that have been filed against energy companies in numerous jurisdictions across the U.S. in recent years.

Arkush wrote a Wednesday piece for Newsweek laying out his theory and referencing these climate lawsuits, opining that the fossil fuel industry’s purported “crimes may be among the, if not the, most consequential in human history.” The Boston Globe ran a similar opinion piece authored by Arkush and another official for Public Citizen on March 17.

The Guardian ran its own piece about the climate homicide theory on March 21, using the headline “Fossil fuel firms could be tried in US for homicide over climate-related deaths, experts say.” Clean Technica, a site that promotes green energy, ran a March 16 piece on the new legal theory with the headline “Climate Criminals — Prosecuting Big Oil For Environmental Crimes.”

Inside Climate News published an April 4 story on the subject, using the headline “Should Big Oil Be Tried for Homicide?” and including excerpts from interviews with the two architects of the climate homicide theory. The pair suggested that the aim is not to punish individuals or seek vengeance, but instead achieve results that would prompt companies to shift their investments away from fossil fuels, according to Inside Climate News’ story.

However, Inside Climate News did quote legal experts who expressed skepticism about the theory’s merits.

“I do not believe that a criminal prosecution on homicide charges against the major oil companies is appropriate or can be sustained,” John Coffee Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in corporate law, told the outlet.

Nick Pope is a contributor at The Daily Caller.

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

Project Porcupine. Assessing the fantasy of an EU military surge.

Published on

An alliance with a powerful person is never safe.”—Phaedrus

The day after the historic debacle in the Oval Office, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky received yet another round of “whatever-it-takes” assurances from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London, and Russia claimed to have shot down three Ukranian drones from its airspace. Russia asserts that Ukraine aimed to hit a key compressor station on the TurkStream pipeline, one of two remaining active gas links between Russia and Europe. If destroyed, Europe would have plunged into a deep energy crisis. The diplomatic response was swift:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asked his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, to use all means at his disposal to prevent future attacks and Fidan pledged to do so, the Russian foreign ministry said on its website. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, whose country receives Russian gas through Turkstream, said on Facebook that Lavrov had informed him of the attack by telephone. Szijjarto said the operation of Turkstream was critical to Hungary’s energy security and called on the European Union to uphold guarantees that infrastructure linked to the 27-nation bloc would not come under attack.

Last ties | Sesfa

We warned of this vulnerability in our January Pro Tier presentation, Natural Gas Between Russia and Europe: History, Current Crisis, and Future Prospects (now unlocked for all subscribers here), and the attack underscores the live-wire risk of fighting wars by proxy: proxies can go rogue. This risk intensifies as the proxy realizes the war is lost, a reality that even Zelensky must be grappling with as he ping-pongs from one crisis meeting to the next. Zelensky’s thinly veiled threat that the US would soon “feel” the pain of the war, delivered to the US president for all the world to hear, leaves little doubt about the intended message behind the TurkStream mission.

With the US looking to wash its hands of the war, leaders of the European Union (EU) are gathering tomorrow in Brussels to plot their next move. Coming on the heels of the summit held in London on Sunday, the EU is pushing forward on a historical proposal to replace the financial and military resources previously provided to Ukraine by the US. Not all European capitals are thrilled about it:

The European Union is preparing for a military spending bonanza. But for governments, it’s not only about the cash.

An emergency meeting of EU leaders on Thursday to figure out how to boost Europe’s security, amid United States President Donald Trump’s looming military disengagement from the continent, should be a chance to project a show of unity. But instead, it looks like a power grab is on the cards.

National capitals fear European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will exploit this crisis to extend Brussels’ powers to new areas and strengthen her influence vis-à-vis national governments.

Not wasting this crisis | Getty

The enthusiasm to create a multinational military comes on the heels of von der Leyen’s ambitious plans to reindustrialize the EU and establish a place of prominence in the AI arms race. Among the many problems with this vision, one is determinative: physics. That Europe is a drone attack away from yet another energy emergency is scandalous enough, but it is also testimony to the impossibility of converting platitudes into bombs. Brussels might refuse to acknowledge this fundamental truth, let alone confront it, but it is the sort of problem that cannot be wished away. The numbers are truly shocking.

Subscribe to Doomberg to unlock the rest.

Become a paying subscriber of Doomberg to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Continue Reading

conflict

Zelenskyy Suddenly Changes Tune On Russia Peace Deal After Trump Blocks Flow Of Military Aid

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy dramatically changed his tune on peace negotiations with Russia just hours after President Donald Trump pulled the plug on military aid Monday.

Zelenskyy issued a long statement to X Tuesday, floating prisoner exchanges, a halt on air operations and naval operations as potential first steps towards peace, while also lamenting his fiery meeting in the Oval Office on Friday. Just a day earlier on Monday, Zelenskyy said that he believed an end to the war with Russia was “very, very far away,” prompting Trump to halt all military aid to the nation that evening and slam his comments on Truth Social.

“None of us wants an endless war,” Zelenskyy said on X. “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins,” Zelenskyy continued. “We are grateful for this. Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”

Zelenskyy originally came to the White House Friday to sign a mineral deal that would have allowed for U.S. investment in mining projects in the nation, which was seen as the first step towards a U.S.-brokered ceasefire. However, he was asked to leave the White House without signing the deal after making statements Trump and Vice President Vance deemed “disrespectful.”

For instance, Zelenskyy implied that the U.S. might “feel” the impact of war in the future. The U.S. has spent over $170 billion on Ukraine’s defense since the war began three years ago.

After the meeting, Trump said in a Truth Social post that Zelenskyy was “not ready for peace” because U.S. involvement grants him a “big advantage in negotiations.”

In Zelenskyy’s new post Tuesday, he said he was ready to sign the mineral deal at “any time and in any convenient format.”

“We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively,” Zelenskyy said on X. The deal in its final form did not explicitly make any security guarantees from the U.S. 

Trump’s exchanges with Zelenskyy are not the only example of his penchant for aggressive advocacy abroad, as earlier in his administration, he leveraged tariff threats to gain concessions from Mexico and Canada to crack down on the fentanyl epidemic among other issues.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and the White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X