As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether state and local governments can use state law to seek damages from fossil fuel companies for climate-related harms, Rice University experts are available to discuss what the case could mean for climate litigation, environmental regulation and corporate accountability.
The case could have broad implications for lawsuits brought by cities, counties and states seeking to recover the costs of flooding, wildfires, extreme heat and other climate-related impacts - and for the larger question of whether those claims should be handled under state or federal law.
Jim Blackburn, professor in the practice of environmental law at Rice and an environmental attorney, can discuss the legal stakes of the case, including federal preemption, state versus federal authority and the use of tort law to pursue climate-related damages. Blackburn has decades of experience working at the intersection of environmental law, energy development, flooding and coastal resilience and can also address what the ruling could mean for communities seeking to recover the growing costs of climate impacts.
Daniel Cohan, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice and author of "Confronting Climate Gridlock," can speak about the broader climate, energy and regulatory context surrounding the case. An atmospheric scientist who studies air pollution, climate change, power plants and environmental policy, Cohan can discuss how fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate risks, how U.S. climate regulation has evolved and where litigation fits into the broader effort to address climate change.
