Ars answers a federal judge’s questions about climate change

Enlarge (credit: Aurich Lawson / Getty Images)

Climate science has kind of had its day in court before. In 2007, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that CO₂ fits the definition of a pollutant under the Clean Air Act-a decision that forces the US EPA to draw up regulations to tackle climate change, regardless of political winds. But on Tuesday, climate science will literally have its day in court, as a federal judge receives a five-hour tutorial he requested on the subject.

The case pits San Francisco and Oakland against BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell. The cities are alleging that major oil companies sold fossil fuels while knowing their use would change the climate-and, critically, publicly campaigning to convince the public they would not change the climate. As San Francisco and Oakland incur significant costs building infrastructure to protect their cities from sea-level rise, they want oil companies to chip in for the bill.

The case, which would obviously set a huge precedent if the cities won, already seems to have gone further than past attempts. Other judges have booted suits on the grounds that emissions should be regulated by the EPA and therefore the issue can't be decided in a courtroom. But the specifics of the California case-going after sellers of fossil fuels rather than local users of fossil fuels-convinced Judge William Alsup that it can go forward.

Read 24 remaining paragraphs | Comments