Climate change | Sue oil companies to pay for damages

The Quebec government should sue oil companies for disasters caused by climate change, such as floods and forest fires, Québec solidaire suggested in the fall. Precedents exist, but do they apply to the Quebec context?

Where did the idea come from?

The impacts of climate change will become increasingly costly. “It’s not up to Quebecers to pay for that, it’s not them who disrupted the climate,” declared the co-spokesperson for Québec solidaire Ruba Ghazal on November 13, calling on Quebec to sue the oil companies. present in Quebec such as Valero, Suncor, Shell and ExxonMobil (Esso). “The proposal is not at all absurd, it is part of a global movement,” believes Géraud de Lassus St-Geniès, professor of environmental law at Laval University, emphasizing that there is a link between causality, since 117 companies are responsible for 88% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions recorded worldwide since the Paris Agreement, a British study demonstrated earlier this year.

What are the other pursuits of this type?

States such as New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and California have filed lawsuits in recent years against oil companies due to the damage caused by climate change. Vermont opted for a law to achieve the same objective¹. This type of lawsuit has “potential,” says Stéphanie Roy, professor of administrative and environmental law at the University of Sherbrooke, who draws a parallel with Quebec’s victory against tobacco companies, who will have to pay billions of dollars to tobacco victims as well as Canadian provinces and territories². “What the tobacco companies were criticized for was the disinformation campaign,” because they knew their products were harmful, she said. “It is the same thing that is generally invoked in the appeals in the United States”, which recall that oil companies have known for a long time that the use of hydrocarbons modifies the climate.

Other legal challenges have also failed, right?

A request to initiate class action against the Canadian government over the alleged inadequacy of its climate action failed in 2022, when the Supreme Court rejected it.³. This is, among other things, because “the courts are reluctant to consider commitments [internationaux] governments [comme] justiciable questions that can be decided by a court,” analyzes Stéphanie Roy. “They say these are political questions that don’t belong in the courts,” she adds. But the case against the tobacco companies demonstrates that the use of corporate disinformation “is justiciable”, indicates M^me Roy.

Another case failed in November, in the Netherlands, when an appeals court overturned a first instance judgment which required the oil company Shell to reduce its GHG emissions by 45% before 2030. The court ruled that Shell must indeed reduce its emissions, but the responsibility for setting a threshold lies with the government, a decision which could however be challenged in the Supreme Court. This case relied heavily on international law, which is more difficult to enforce in Canada, and did not require compensation, observes Stéphanie Roy.

Could this work in the Quebec context?

Quebec would risk being accused of lacking coherence if it took such legal action, believes Géraud de Lassus St-Geniès, who sees a contradiction with the carbon market through which the Quebec government authorizes companies to pollute by attributing to them emission rights. “We cannot, on the one hand, say “we authorize you to emit a quantity of greenhouse gases” [avec] a licensing system and, on the other hand, punish them for using their license to exercise their right to emit greenhouse gases,” he says.

What does the Legault government think?

The Coalition Avenir Québec in power does not appear very interested in the idea of ​​Québec Solidaire, as evidenced by the reaction of the office of the Minister of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks, Benoit Cart. “Although we are carefully looking at the states that have taken such a step, our government remains pragmatic and continues to support its fight against climate change with our carbon market which is already proving its worth,” declared to The Press the minister’s communications director, Mélina Jalbert. The deputies of the National Assembly nevertheless unanimously adopted on November 21 a motion presented by Québec solidaire recognizing “that the oil and gas industry represents 33% of global greenhouse gas emissions [et] that the polluter pays principle applies to oil companies.

1. Read the file « The Press in Vermont: Making the oil companies pay »

2. Read the article “Collective action: Towards historic compensation for tobacco victims”

3. Read the article “Canada’s Climate Action: The Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Young People”