Deirdre Macnab, a rancher in northwest Colorado, was disturbed to learn this spring that Rio Blanco County had joined a legal brief siding with Suncor and Exxon Mobil in a major climate case before the Supreme Court. She had spent a decade ranching through worsening heat, drought, and wildfires, and had seen neighbors lose cattle to fire and pay thousands to haul in feed and water. She rallied ranchers to urge the Court to side with Boulder, arguing that local governments cannot keep absorbing the rising costs of climate adaptation while still supporting the agricultural economy.
The case began in 2018, when the city and county of Boulder sued the two oil companies for damages tied to the costs of adapting to heat waves, wildfires, and floods. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Monday. Much of the support for the two sides follows familiar partisan lines, but Colorado ranchers and some conservative thinkers have broken ranks to back Boulder. A watchdog group found that 25 of 38 briefs supporting the oil companies were written by groups with financial ties to the fossil fuel industry or foundations opposing climate science and regulation.
Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from the case because of his financial holdings in oil companies, which could make it harder for the companies to secure a five-justice majority. The Court's decision could have major consequences for whether local governments can hold fossil fuel companies accountable for deceiving the public about climate risks, and for the broader question of who pays for adapting to a hotter world.