I thought that the title was hyperbolic, but as framed here, it is true. In a society that followed the course of justice this would succeed, but we've seen this is a society where law sanctifies privilege. In the ruling opinion of the LEAF vs Alabama case in 2005, Chaney's Energy Task Force inserted "Energy development is too critical to be hampered by unnecessary environmental regulation," which was a talking point and political lightning rod for the right at the time. Hence we are 1/2 to 3/4 along in building-out the current continuation of fossil fuel dominance - the shale gas boom.
Counsel for the CK's should hammer the defense on every delaying tactic they try to employ. The scientific community is in virtual unanimity (well beyond the confines of the strictly climate studying/investigating scientific community) and the defense will have to refute a large body of peer-reviewed data and analysis and not stall while trying to manufacture unsupportable "alternative facts."
Here is a legal refutation of Bannon's "we are an economy" dehumanization mantra. My grandson is 11 yrs old and is - it's in the genes - disturbed by everything that is going on. This weekend I'll make sure he understands what is being done by these young upstarts not much older than he, and maybe he'll carry the message to his peers. This is a tough place: we eat coal and breathe methane here. Thinking of him is all that sustains me sometimes.