The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
World's Biggest Coal Company's Bankruptcy Protects It From Climate Lawsuit, Judge Rules
Peabody Energy is not responsible for climate impacts incurred before its 2016 bankruptcy filing, a judge ruled this week.
The world's largest private coal company is one of 37 fossil fuel companies being sued by three municipalities in California for damages due to climate change caused by burning fossil fuels and for conducting a "coordinated, multi-front effort" to discredit climate science.
St. Louis Judge Barry Schermer, who presided over the bankruptcy, ruled that the counties missed the deadline to file claims during Peabody's Chapter 11 filing last year and that language around environmental exceptions in Peabody's bankruptcy plan do not apply to the California suit. The coal giant, which lost $2 billion in 2015, posted a quarterly profit of $200 million this week, six months after emerging from bankruptcy.
As reported by Bloomberg:
"St. Louis-based Peabody was sued in July together with global energy companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The suit says the companies have known since at least 1965 that their activities were changing the climate, and that there was only a narrow window of time to reverse from a catastrophic course.
Instead, they 'engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge,' discredit scientific evidence and mislead the public, San Mateo County said in its suit.
The global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels extracted by the defendants is expected to lead to 'extreme flooding' on California's coast by 2050, the suits allege."
"We are reviewing the court's decision and considering our options," said Vic Sher, a Sher Edling LLP lawyer representing the California communities, Marketwatch reported. "But it would be a shame if Peabody, the biggest private coal company in the world, can use the bankruptcy laws to avoid defending these cases that call into question their role in damaging our climate, causing sea levels to rise, misleading the public and policy makers about those impacts, and shifting billions of dollars in costs onto coastal communities."
For a deeper dive:
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Anita Desikan
The Trump administration is routinely undermining your ability — and mine, and everyone else's in this country — to exercise our democratic rights to provide input on the administration's proposed actions through the public comment process. Public comments are just what they sound like: an opportunity for anyone in the public, both individuals and organizations, to submit a comment on a proposed rule that federal agencies are required by law to read and take into account. Public comments can raise the profile of an issue, can help amplify the voices of affected communities, and can show policymakers whether a proposal has broad support or is wildly unpopular.
Picture this: a world where chocolate is as rare as gold. No more five-dollar bags of candy on Halloween. No more boxes of truffles on Valentine's day. No more roasting s'mores by the campfire. No more hot chocolate on a cold winter's day.
Who wants to live in a world like that?
By Tracy L. Barnett
Sources reviewed this article for accuracy.
For Sicangu Lakota water protector Cheryl Angel, Standing Rock helped her define what she stands against: an economy rooted in extraction of resources and exploitation of people and planet. It wasn't until she'd had some distance that the vision of what she stands for came into focus.