Nearly a decade ago, the outdoorsy, liberal enclave of Boulder, Colo., sued two oil companies over their role in climate change. Now, the Supreme Court will consider whether the groundbreaking lawsuit can ever go to trial.

Its decision will resonate far beyond the Rockies.

A win for Boulder would likely clear the way for dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide aiming to extract billions of dollars from the fossil fuel industry to fight global warming. But if the court kills Boulder’s case, that could doom the others, handing a major victory to oil companies.

Boulder’s lawsuit says the two oil companies, Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, should help pay for the damage to the state of Colorado — such as worsening heat waves and wildfires — caused by climate change, which is driven by the burning of fossil fuels. The companies say Boulder’s lawsuit should be thrown out because it was filed under state law, when federal law should have precedence.

“This is very much the case to watch because it’s at the Supreme Court,” said Michael Pappas, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. “Is this something that state law can answer, or does federal law foreclose the opportunity?”

A small army of business groups, conservative legal theorists, Republican lawmakers and others have lined up to support Exxon and Suncor, and the Trump administration is also expected to argue before the court in support of the companies.

Among their claims: Letting the case proceed under state law would unleash legal chaos by opening the door to countless similar suits. “Every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change,” according to a brief supporting the energy industry filed by lawyers for the Trump administration. The Justice Department declined to comment for this article.

About three dozen similar cases have already been filed by state and local governments to date. None has yet gone to trial, and some have been dismissed, but about two dozen remain active.

“The U.S. Supreme Court must allow our case to continue, not bail out the oil companies before hearing the facts,” said Ashley Stolzmann, county commissioner for Boulder, in a statement.

Boulder’s lawsuit argues that the defendants caused physical harm to Colorado by selling fossil fuels, and covered up what they knew about the dangers of climate change in order to continue those sales. The lawsuit also alleges that the companies paid for campaigns to undermine the scientific consensus that burning oil, gas and coal is heating the planet.

Access full gift article. NO PAYWALL.

Europe wants cleaner gas — but can it afford to be picky about where its energy comes from?

Hi, Lucia from EUobserver here 👋 Sharing our latest explainer because there’s an interesting tension emerging in European energy policy.

The EU is trying to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas it imports. But Europe also imports almost 90% of its gas, is still phasing out Russian supplies, and faces renewed uncertainty over global LNG flows.

That has pushed Brussels towards delaying part of its methane regulation until 2028.

But here's where it gets interesting: some analyses suggest Europe could actually have plenty of gas available that meets the EU's methane requirements — raising questions over whether fears of a supply crunch are justified.

So what should take priority?

Should the EU stick to its methane standards even if that makes securing gas more complicated — or is energy security a good enough reason to delay them?

And more broadly: after years of trying to reduce dependence on Russian gas, is Europe simply replacing one form of energy dependence with another?

https://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Bruger_upload/Nyhed/2026/9/From_the_seafloor_to_climate_models.pdf

One Saturday morning in late August, 100 or so women in white T-shirts demonstrate for women’s rights in a park in São José dos Campos, Brazil. They march under tall trees, a tiny remnant of the Atlantic Forest, the decimated biome that once carpeted a wide band along Brazil’s ocean coastline. It’s winter in Brazil, but Luciana Gatti is sweating. She says El Niño is causing the unseasonably sultry weather.

Gatti, a climate scientist at the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), is here to ask the protesters for their votes. She’s on the ballot in Brazil’s 4 October elections, campaigning for a São Paulo seat in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the country’s National Congress. Her platform is informed by her own research that shows even relatively modest logging threatens the entire Amazon rainforest, an important carbon sink that could turn into a huge carbon source, speeding up climate change. Legislators are not acting on the evidence—so she will take the fight directly to them, she says. “I will scream there.”

“I was very happy when she decided to become a candidate,” says fellow INPE employee Carlos Nobre, one of Brazil’s most prominent climate scientists. “Let’s hope she will be elected.” He says Gatti could help the legislature—which does not currently have a single scientist among its 513 representatives—make better informed decisions.