,
6 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
"As early as the late 1950s...[fossil fuel co's] had knowledge of risks associated with their products...While they told the world there was no reason for concern, Defendants took climate risks into account in managing their infrastructure. [They] should be held liable." 1/n 
2/n: That is the crux of an amicus brief by experts @NaomiOreskes, @RBrulle, @BenFranta, @STWorg, @J_Farrell, @UCSUSA, @IGSD_DC, & me filed last week to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: sheredling.com/wp-content/upl…. Short on time? Our Table of Contents offers top-line takeaways.
3/n: Our amicus brief is 1 of 10 in support of an appeal by San Francisco & Oakland seeking to hold fossil fuel co's accountable for climate damages. Other briefs from @JohnKerry, @AmbassadorRice, @GinaEPA & other fmr govt officials, 11 Attorneys General; 6 Senators; many others.
4/n: Read all of the amicus briefs here: sheredling.com/climate-change…
5/n: For a quick round-up of the San Francisco & Oakland case and context for these appeals, @ClimateLawNews has got you covered: climateliabilitynews.org/2019/03/27/san…
6/n: If you want to learn more about the history of climate denial & delay by fossil fuel interests, here's my testimony to EU Parliament last week on the matter:
