华盛顿——数十起气候诉讼的命运可能取决于美国最高法院将于10月5日审理的一起案件。该案涉及向石油公司索赔，指控其在全球变暖中扮演角色，并隐瞒化石燃料的危险性。
WASHINGTON - Dozens of climate lawsuits could live or die by a US Supreme Court case to be heard on Oct 5 seeking damages from oil companies for their role in global warming and for concealing the dangers of fossil fuels.
这起被称为“森科诉博尔德案”的纠纷始于2018年，当时科罗拉多州的博尔德市和县起诉埃克森美孚和森科能源，指控他们“明知故犯地导致并加剧了气候变化”，同时“隐瞒和/或歪曲其产品的危险性”。
Known as Suncor v Boulder, the dispute began in 2018 when the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, sued ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy, claiming they “knowingly caused and contributed to the alteration of the climate” while “concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers” of their products.
森科在科罗拉多州运营一家炼油厂，而埃克森美孚与落基山脉州有着深厚的联系。原告称，由于与燃烧化石燃料相关的气候变化引发的野火、洪水和其他极端天气，他们遭受了数亿美元的损失。
Suncor operates a refinery in Colorado, while ExxonMobil has deep ties to the Rocky Mountain State. The plaintiffs say they have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in losses from wildfires, flooding and other weather extremes stemming from climate change linked to the burning of fossil fuels.
这是约40起类似诉讼之一，由城市、州、部落和其他地方司法管辖区提起，其模式借鉴了针对烟草和阿片类药物生产者的成功诉讼。
It is one of around 40 similar suits brought by cities, states, tribes and other local jurisdictions, modelled on successful litigation against tobacco and opioid producers.
这些公司辩称，此类诉讼旨在强加一项巨大的“碳税”，可能导致能源行业破产；这是一种非法的监管温室气体排放的尝试，本质上是在要求法院驳回所有此类诉讼。
The companies contend such suits aim to impose an enormous “carbon tax” that could bankrupt the energy industry – that they are an illegitimate attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and are essentially asking the court to make them all go away.
在未能将案件移至联邦法院后，这些公司在州法院和科罗拉多州最高法院的驳回申请均告失败。
After failing to move the case to federal court, the companies lost bids to have it dismissed in state court and at Colorado’s Supreme Court.
美国总统唐纳德·特朗普政府提交了一份简报，敦促美国最高法院受理此案，大法官们同意了。
US President Donald Trump’s administration filed a brief urging the US Supreme Court to take up the case, and the justices agreed.
法院将考虑联邦法律——特别是《清洁空气法》——是否优先于博尔德的索赔，宪法本身是否禁止此类诉讼，以及法院是否可以在审判开始前审查此案。
The court will consider whether federal law – specifically the Clean Air Act – pre-empts Boulder’s claims, whether the Constitution itself bars such suits, and whether it can review the case before a trial has taken place.
佩斯大学环境法教授卡特里娜·库告诉法新社，如果大法官们专注于最后一个问题，“那基本上只是把问题推后”，因为更广泛的问题很可能在稍后阶段被提出。然而，对这些联邦法律问题的裁决将对许多待决诉讼产生影响。
If the justices focus on the last question, “that essentially just kicks the can down the road” since the wider questions would likely be raised later, Katrina Kuh, a professor of environmental law at Pace University, told AFP. A ruling on the federal law questions, however, would matter for many pending suits.
“这可能会彻底终结这些诉讼，”库赫说道。或者，大法官们也可能对这些问题作出更窄的解释——例如，允许科罗拉多州仅对其州内排放适用本州法律。
“It could extinguish them entirely,” said Kuh. Or the justices could narrow them – allowing Colorado, for example, to apply its state law only to emissions within the state.
这些问题还涉及所谓的“气候超级基金”——纽约州和佛蒙特州制定的法律，要求污染者为气候适应项目买单。
The questions also bear on so-called “climate superfunds” – laws in New York and Vermont that would make polluters pay for climate resilience projects.
纽约州的这项法律已于9月被一名联邦法官否决，如果最高法院作出不利裁决，可能会彻底堵上通过上诉重新恢复该法律的可能性。
New York’s was struck down by a federal judge in September, and an adverse Supreme Court ruling could shut the door to it being revived on appeal.
保守派法律学者、威廉与玛丽大学法学院教授乔纳森·阿德勒向法新社表示，他不同意石油公司的法律理论，并认为此类案件“具有可行性”，但并未对案件本身的实质问题发表看法。他同时指出，大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特、尼尔·戈萨奇和克拉伦斯·托马斯最值得关注，因为“这三人此前都表现出对宽泛的联邦优先权主张的怀疑”，尽管他也认为他们同样可能对该类诉讼持怀疑态度。
Conservative legal scholar Jonathan Adler, a William & Mary law professor who filed a brief supporting Boulder, told AFP he disagreed with the oil companies’ legal theories and believed such cases are “viable” – without offering a view on the underlying merits. He added that Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas bear the most watching because “all three of them have shown some scepticism towards broad preemption arguments”, though he said they are also likely to be sceptical of suits of this nature.
在听证会召开前，极保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托因批评者要求其回避（理由是他持有石油和天然气公司股票）而自行退出案件审理。
Ahead of the hearing, ultra-conservative Justice Samuel Alito recused himself after critics called on him to step aside over his oil and gas stock holdings.
即便没有阿利托，保守派仍保持5比3的多数，但如今4比4的平局已成为可能——这将维持科罗拉多州的裁决，并允许案件继续进入审判阶段。
Conservatives still hold a 5-3 majority without Alito, but a 4-4 split is now possible – which would leave the Colorado ruling in place and let the case proceed to trial.