Adam Kredo writes for the Washington Free Beacon about a significant brief in a closely watched legal battle.
Oil and gasoline products remain “critical to national security,” two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a legal brief, weighing in on a closely watched court case in Hawaii that has activists calling on America’s top energy companies to pay damages for contributions to climate change.
A decision against these companies could have massive repercussions on national security and foreign policy that have not been considered. “Oil and gas products are critical to national security, economic stability and military preparedness,” retired Gen. Richard B. Myers and Adm. Michael G. Mullen wrote in an amicus brief filed last week to Hawaii’s supreme court, which is handling the high-profile case.
The case has pitted the city of Honolulu against Sunoco, Exxon, Chevron, and other U.S. energy firms in what critics have described as a “hyper-ideological” bid by far-left activists to “strong-arm progressive lifestyle choices” on the American public and destroy the country’s multibillion-dollar oil industry. The city wants these companies to pay billions to offset the alleged repercussions of climate change, potentially opening the floodgates for a flurry of similar cases from activists who are against the use of fossil fuels.
The two former military leaders weighed in on the case with a brief last week. They warned that those pursuing America’s energy companies have not considered the national security role played by the firms, which have long-standing relations with the military and fuel operations across the globe. With the case potentially on track to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, Myers and Mullen are warning that a judgment against the energy companies could disrupt America’s national security operations, with reverberations across the globe.
The Hawaii supreme court, which has permitted the case to proceed to trial, “did not address at all the ‘foreign policy concerns'” related to a judgment that would effectively regulate emissions standards for every U.S. state, Myers and Mullen wrote.
