From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Ah, California lawmakers are at it again, pushing the boundaries of legal absurdity with a bill that would allow victims of natural disasters to sue oil companies for damages. Yes, you read that correctly—wildfire victims could now take ExxonMobil to court as if hurricanes and forest fires suddenly started appearing the moment someone filled up their SUV​.

The Legal Logic of a Cartoon Villain

The bill, introduced by two Democratic legislators, is based on the idea that oil and gas companies have been deceptively hiding the risks of climate change while, presumably, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally. The argument is that fossil fuel use has “intensified storms and wildfires,” costing Californians billions of dollars and even sending the state’s insurance market into turmoil​.

There’s just one problem: this entire premise has already been tried—and laughed out of court. Sher Edling, the law firm spearheading climate litigation, has been slapping lawsuits on oil companies for years using this exact strategy, and guess what? It has failed over and over again. Courts have rejected these cases, recognizing that pinning every natural disaster on Big Oil is about as scientifically rigorous as blaming your morning coffee for rush hour traffic​.

Sher Edling: The Lawsuit Factory

Sher Edling has been on a mission to sue oil companies into oblivion, using the same flimsy arguments that courts have repeatedly rejected. Their entire playbook is based on two thoroughly discredited document sets:

1. The “reposition global warming” memos—unsolicited PR pitches that were never adopted by the industry.
2. The “victory will be achieved” memos—also unused, but somehow still treated as incriminating evidence.

The proposal claims that the oil industry intentionally deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels on climate change that now have intensified storms and wildfires and caused billions of dollars in damage in California. Such disasters have also driven the state insurance market to a crisis where companies are raising rates, limiting coverage or pulling out completely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters, supporters of the bill said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-considers-letting-wildfire-victims-sue-oil-companies-for-damages/ar-AA1xXQzF?

Yet, despite their track record of failure, they keep finding new ways to push this nonsense. Now, instead of arguing in federal courts (where they’ve been shut down repeatedly), they’re shifting their strategy to state-level litigation, hoping that activist judges in California will give them a sympathetic ear​.

Scapegoating Oil Companies While Ignoring the Real Culprits

One of the most ridiculous aspects of this proposal is that it conveniently ignores other major contributors to California’s wildfire crisis. For example:

• Arson: A significant portion of wildfires are caused by human activity, including arson. But sure, let’s blame oil companies instead​.
• Forest Mismanagement: California’s refusal to conduct controlled burns and proper land management has turned its forests into literal tinderboxes. But again, let’s blame Shell for that​.
• Utility Companies: The bill ironically acknowledges that utilities are already held liable when their equipment sparks fires—but instead of focusing on better grid management, legislators want to widen the blame net to oil companies​.

The Ultimate Goal: Legalized Extortion

This entire effort is just another attempt to shake down energy companies for cash. If the courts won’t force oil firms to pay, maybe political pressure and activist lawsuits can do the trick. Sher Edling isn’t in this fight because they care about climate change—they’re in it because climate lawsuits are big business​.

But here’s the real kicker: Even if these lawsuits succeed, who do you think will pay for it? Oil companies aren’t charities—they’ll pass these costs directly to consumers. That means you, the everyday driver, will end up paying even more at the pump because of a lawsuit based on junk science and legal gymnastics​.

If approved, California would be the first state in the U.S. to allow for such lawsuits, according to the bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener.

“We are all paying for these disasters, but there is one stakeholder that is not paying: the fossil fuel industry, which makes the product that is fueling the climate change,” Wiener said at a Monday news conference.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-considers-letting-wildfire-victims-sue-oil-companies-for-damages/ar-AA1xXQzF?

Conclusion: The Never-Ending Blame Game

California legislators are once again proving that they would rather chase after boogeymen than address the real causes of natural disasters. Instead of focusing on practical solutions like forest management, infrastructure improvements, or even investigating why their own policies have driven insurance companies out of the state, they’re opting for another round of performative legal theater​.

But hey, why deal with reality when you can just sue Exxon instead?