Phil Goldberg is an attorney at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP in the firm’s Washington, D.C.-based Public Policy Group. From 1993 through 2000, he was a staff member to three Democratic Members of Congress, including Rep. Steve Rothman (NJ), when Mr. Rothman served on the House Judiciary Committee.
Environmental progressives have been urging the federal government to address climate change for more than 30 years. Many of these efforts have focused on setting limits on the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases collectively referred to as “greenhouse gases” or GHGs. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama all negotiated international treaties on global emissions, and Congress has considered numerous climate-related bills. None of these efforts, however, has resulted in binding emission caps for U.S. operations, and Senate efforts to pass a “cap and trade” bill have been dropped. As a result, some progressives advocate a new arena for this battle: the courts, with lawsuits against a group of companies to directly force them to reduce emissions.
As the full Senate debate over health care reform legislation finally gets under way following Saturday’s vote, Democratic leaders in Congress should continue fending off special-interest amendments that could be added to what promises to be an enormous piece of legislation. One such provision almost made it into a House committee’s bill earlier this year: a “litigation earmark,” as some in the business community termed it, that had nothing to do with improving America’s health care or cutting health costs but would have opened the door to speculative, mass litigations against American businesses.
