2026年2月23日 / 美国东部时间上午9:58 / CBS新闻
华盛顿—— 最高法院周一同意受理能源公司提出的一项诉求，旨在终止一起在州法院提起的诉讼。该诉讼要求能源公司就其化石燃料产品对全球气候造成的影响赔偿数十亿美元。
最高法院的这一决定可能会影响州和地方政府在州法院追究石油和天然气公司气候变化后果责任的能力。美国各地已有数十个城市和县提起了类似诉讼，但最高法院此前曾驳回过类似的争议案件。
法院可能会在下一任期（10月开始）听取相关辩论。
这场法律纠纷于2018年由科罗拉多州博尔德市和博尔德县在州法院提起，被告是Suncor能源公司和埃克森美孚公司。当地官员称，这些生产和销售化石燃料的公司导致了气候变化，进而损害了科罗拉多州。
博尔德市官员在诉讼中指控，“全球无节制的化石燃料生产、推广、提炼、营销和销售”导致“无节制的化石燃料使用”，使地球大气中温室气体浓度增加，从而使全球气温上升。他们表示，气候变化的影响导致博尔德经历了更多极端天气事件，包括热浪、野火、干旱和洪水。
该市声称，能源公司违反了州法律，部分原因是他们明知销售化石燃料的行为会“给科罗拉多州带来众多灾难性伤害”，却仍继续销售。该诉讼要求数十亿美元的损害赔偿。
石油和天然气公司试图将案件转移到联邦法院。这一争议提交给最高法院，后者在2023年拒绝审理此案。
随后，能源公司在州法院寻求驳回投诉，但未获成功。他们辩称，《清洁空气法》优先于州法律中寻求对国际温室气体排放对全球气候影响所造成损害的救济要求。科罗拉多州最高法院去年5月维持了地区法院的裁决，允许博尔德的诉讼继续进行。
在敦促最高法院介入时，能源公司的律师在文件中称，州和地方实体正投入“大量资源”对他们提起诉讼。他们表示，允许此类争议在州法院继续可能意味着该行业将被迫支付数十亿美元的赔偿。
能源公司辩称：“在这些案件中，州和地方政府试图通过追究能源公司在全球范围内行为的责任来控制国家能源政策，这与我们的宪法结构以及联邦政府的政策和优先事项产生了严重冲突。这违反了法院的先例和联邦制的基本原则。”
特朗普政府支持埃克森美孚和Suncor能源公司。副助理检察长莎拉·哈里斯在一份文件中写道，此案提出了一个“具有重大全国意义的问题”，并警告称，如果博尔德的诉讼能够继续，美国各地的每个地方政府都可能起诉“任何对全球气候变化有贡献的人”。
哈里斯写道，博尔德的诉求“试图让请愿人对其在全球范围内的所有化石燃料活动负责，这将科罗拉多州的普通法适用范围大大超出了科罗拉多州的地域界限。”
博尔德市官员的律师则认为，最高法院现在介入还为时过早。他们在文件中表示，该市和该县希望能源公司“分担其社区因部分由这些公司行为导致的气候变化而必须承担的经济负担”。
除了博尔德及其周边县提起的诉讼外，最高法院去年还驳回了15家能源公司的上诉，这些公司试图阻止夏威夷州法院对檀香山官员提起的诉讼，而这一裁决为该诉讼的继续进行扫清了障碍。
最高法院还驳回了共和党领导的州提出的一项请求，该请求试图阻止民主党领导的州提起的诉讼，这些诉讼要求能源行业对其向公众隐瞒化石燃料产品危险的行为负责。
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/what-to-know-about-the-epa-decision-to-revoke-the-endangerment-finding-on-greenhouse-gases/
Supreme Court to weigh bid by energy companies to end state-court climate change suits
February 23, 2026 / 9:58 AM EST / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up an effort by energy companies to end a lawsuit filed in state court that seeks billions of dollars in damages for the impacts their fossil-fuel products have had on the global climate.
The decision from the Supreme Court could impact the ability of state and local governments to hold oil and gas companies accountable in state courts for the consequences of climate change. Dozens of cities and counties have filed similar cases around the country, but the justices had turned down similar disputes that have landed before them.
The court will likely hear arguments in its next term, which begins in October.
The legal battle was brought by the city of Boulder, Colorado, and Boulder County against Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil Corporation in state court in 2018. Local officials argued that the companies, which produce and sell fossil fuels, contributed to climate change, which in turn harmed Colorado.
Boulder officials alleged in their lawsuit that the “unchecked production, promotion, refining, marketing and sale of fossil fuels” around the world led to “unchecked fossil fuel use” and an increased concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, which has then warmed the planet. The effects of climate change, they said, led Boulder to experience more extreme weather events, including heat waves, wildfires, droughts and floods.
The city claimed the energy companies violated state law, in part because they altered the climate by selling fossil fuels at levels they know would “bring numerous catastrophic injuries to Colorado.” The suit sought billions of dollars in damages.
The oil and gas companies attempted to move the case to federal court. The dispute landed before the Supreme Court, which in 2023 declined to hear the case.
The energy companies then unsuccessfully sought to have the complaint dismissed in state court, arguing in part that the Clean Air Act overrides the state-law claims seeking relief for harms allegedly caused by the effects of international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision allowing Boulder’s lawsuit to move forward last May.
In urging the Supreme Court to step in, lawyers for the energy companies argued in a filing that state and local entities are devoting “enormous resources” to litigating cases against them. They said allowing the disputes to proceed in state court could mean the industry is forced to pay billions of dollars in awards.
“In these cases, state and local governments are attempting to assert control over the Nation’s energy policies by holding energy companies liable for worldwide conduct in ways that starkly conflict with our constitutional structure, as well as the policies and priorities of the federal government,” the energy companies argued. “That flouts the Court’s precedents and basic principles of federalism.”
The Trump administration is backing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy. Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a filing that the case raises a question of “vast nationwide significance,” and warned that if Boulder’s lawsuit can proceed, every locality in the country could sue “essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.”
Boulder’s claims, Harris wrote, “seek to hold petitioners responsible for all of their fossil-fuel activities, anywhere in the world — extending the reach of Colorado common law well beyond Colorado’s territorial limits.”
Lawyers for Boulder officials argued it was too soon for the Supreme Court to intervene. They said in a filing that the city and county want the energy companies to “share a portion of the financial burden their communities must bear in coping with an altered climate brought about in part by” their conduct.
Beyond the lawsuit brought by Boulder and the surrounding county, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from 15 energy companies last year that sought to quash lawsuits brought by Honolulu officials in Hawaii state court, which cleared the way for the case to proceed.
The high court also turned away a bid by Republican-led states to block lawsuits brought by Democrat-led states that sought to hold the energy industry liable for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of their fossil-fuel products.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/what-to-know-about-the-epa-decision-to-revoke-the-endangerment-finding-on-greenhouse-gases/
发表回复