States want to make Big Oil pay for climate harm. Now, courts are weighing in.

The recent court setbacks for New York's "climate superfund" law, which aims to hold Big Oil accountable for climate-related damages, are a reminder that the path to climate justice is often fraught with challenges. The law, modeled after the Superfund program that addresses hazardous waste sites, seeks to recover costs associated with climate change impacts such as sea-level rise and extreme weather events. While these losses may seem discouraging, they do not necessarily signal the demise of similar efforts nationwide.

The fossil fuel industry has long employed a strategy of litigious delay and misinformation to evade accountability for its role in climate change. However, as the scientific consensus on climate change continues to grow, and public awareness of the issue increases, courts are becoming increasingly willing to consider the merits of climate liability claims. The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case, which will review a lower court's decision allowing a climate lawsuit brought by San Francisco and Oakland against major oil companies to proceed, could have significant implications for the future of climate litigation.

As the solar industry continues to grow and play a larger role in the transition to a low-carbon economy, it will be watching these developments closely. A favorable ruling for climate liability claimants could potentially create a new financial liability for fossil fuel companies, which could in turn level the playing field for clean energy technologies like solar. What's next to watch is how the Supreme Court's decision will impact the proliferation of climate lawsuits nationwide, and whether states will continue to pursue innovative solutions like the "climate superfund" law to address the climate crisis.

Originally reported by grist.org. SolarNews adds analysis for climate & energy readers.