Today marks an important day in environmental law history. On the day I am writing this, March 21, a judge in northern California is set to hear an unusual case: oil giants BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and ConocoPhillips and the cities of Oakland and San Francisco will present their understanding of climate science IN COURT, making this the first ever (EVER) hearing on the science of climate change inside a courtroom.

Wait, what? I thought science fairs and presentations were over in high school. Well, so did most courts until now. In this landmark case, Judge William Haskell Alsup released a court notice to the plaintiffs (Oakland and SF) and the defendants (oil companies) saying that both sides must answer 2 parts of specific questions he asked them on Feb 27: The first part traces the "history of scientific study of climate change" and the second set forth "the best science now available on global warming".

Michael Burger, head of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told the McClatchy Washington Bureau on March 7 that "At the core of the plaintiff's lawsuit is the idea that these companies have long known about risks of their products...yet they took a course of action that resisted regulation and sought to keep them on the market as long as possible." Lawyers representing the cities of Oakland and California stated in their complain that "Defendants took these stark warnings and proceeded to double-down on fossil fuels,” and “Even at this time, with the global warming danger level at a critical phase, defendants continue to engage in massive fossil fuel production and execute long-term business plans to continue and even expand their fossil fuel production for decades into the future.

Oakland and San Francisco are not the first to take climate change complaints. Previous plaintiffs include 21 young adults, (Juliana V. United States AKA #youthvgov), New York City, and even some folks in the Netherlands. What sets this new case apart from the previous ones is that this case takes its complaints directly to private industry, rather than the federal government.

While it is fantastic that climate change is being legally recognized, the circumstances are quite unfortunate. In the face of complete apathy at best and vehement denial of climate change from the current presidential administration, citizens, organizations, cities, and states are having to take the safety of the planet into their own hands. I'm sure sometimes it sounds very noble--individuals standing up for what they believe in is at the core of democracy, and I applaud the efforts of every single person who refuses to sit idly and instead acts as an agent for meaningful change. However, the issue of climate change is larger than a group of citizens, a few cities, or even the entirety of the United States. Global climate change is eroding our ability to live safely on the planet we've called home since the origin of our species. Areas that were once habitable no longer are (or soon may not be), the other species that co-exist with us and provide us with valuable resources are being depleted faster than they are replenished, leading to massive extinctions, and global health continues to suffer in the face of increased pollutant levels.

If we don't have a safe planet to live on, nothing else matters--not plaintiffs and defendants, not cities and states, not who said what. I am glad that more and more people are understanding the urgency of climate action, and I hope this trend continues. I eagerly await the outcome of this case and how it informs future climate science legal actions.