Charleston Climate Enrolls against energy companies rejected by the judge

On Wednesday, a judge rejected the trial of the city of Charleston against two dozen energy companies, claiming that the court had no authority under the law of South Carolina to move forward with prosecution that make radical allegations on climate change.

J. Roger Young, from the Southern Carolina Common Pleadings Court, said the lawsuits alleging oil and gas companies negatively affect the climate could open floods to prosecution brought about any meteorological activity and could lead to a “list of potential complainants” which is “unlimited”.

“Already, dozens of states, counties and municipalities have continued a meli-melo of oil and gas companies for the alleged weather effects of climate change,” wrote Young in an opinion. “If these proceedings have succeeded, municipalities, businesses and individuals across the country could cause proceedings for injuries after each meteorological event. The list of potential complainants is unlimited.”

The climate law in the courts in the blue state could affect energy consumers, the expert says: “huge effect”

The judge’s decision was taken with prejudices, which means that the trial cannot be brought back. But Charleston could appeal the decision.

The city brought a trial for the first time in 2020, alleging that energy companies and pipeline were a nuisance and did not sufficiently warn the effects that fossil fuels have on the climate. The city has said that defendants should have damage to what it said has increased floods, damaged storms, higher temperatures and ecosystem disturbances.

Environmentalists and defenders of climate change have brought prosecution across the country, such as those who dispute the emissions caused by the trucking industry, to impose restrictions on fossil fuels and to promote alternative forms of energy. Opponents of these efforts welcomed Young’s decision on Thursday.

“ Cult of the climate ” in the opinion while the legislators push to leave the federations in the blue state of the roadblocks towards the “domination of American energy”

A demonstrator has a sign “There is no B sign” next to the hammer of a judge. (Brian A. Jackson / South Florida Sun Sentinel; Ronen Tivony / Sopa Images / Lightrocket via Getty Images)

Christopher Mills of Spero Law, an expert in constitutional law who previously grafted for judge Clarence Thomas, described the rejection of the trial “without surprise”.

“Judge Young followed the clear consensus of the courts across the country, which agreed that the law of the criminal state is not the right avenue to resolve the complex question of global climate change,” said Mills.

“It would be a shame that the city continues to lend its name to this quest without merit by lawyers of the West Coast trial to deprive Americans of vital energy resources. In fact, as judge Young explained, city theory would be responsible, because it has long used and maintained the roads and fossil bridges which allow fossil and maintained transport.”

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, said in a statement that the trial was part of an operation “focused on the ESG”, a reference to the practice of investing based on political agendas.

“The courts should not be armed to blame American energy producers for the global and eternal phenomenon of a changing climate,” said Isaac. “This case was part of a coordinated campaign and focused on ESG to shake up energy companies and impose climate policy by dispute rather than on the legislation. The judge was right to throw it away.”