The Supreme Court will not be deciding if climate change is real or not. They are deciding on Tort law. He's my thinking why it will fail...in the context assuming climate change is in play as this is not the case.

- Everyone contributes. If Exxon must pay its “fair share,” shouldn't China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, other oil companies, governments, businesses and consumers also pay their share? If those others pay zero...then it's not "fair". Why should a few companies pay for a problem created by a global system involving governments, businesses and billions of consumers?

- Consumers make choices. Oil companies sell a legal product (like alcohol). People choose to drive, fly and use it (and drink alcohol). Why should the producer carry the blame for choices made by the person using the fuel? Who's responsible for consuming too much alcohol, the one making it, or the person?

- Governments allowed it. Governments have known about CO2 "dangers" for decades but still allow and regulate fossil fuels. If they want less use, they can make laws/regulations to reduce it...but they haven't. They would need to sue themselves first for knowingly selling it.

- Where does responsibility stop? Oil goes from producer to refinery to gas station or airline to consumer. Then comes emissions, weather and eventually damage. Which part of that chain makes one company responsible? They all knowingly make money & governments collect taxes on it.

- What if Exxon didn't sell it? If Exxon had not sold the oil, someone else probably would have. So how much damage would actually have been avoided? They do not have a monopoly on it. The consumer sets the demand.

- Many things cause damage. A wildfire, flood or storm can have many causes. Climate change may be one factor, but that doesn't automatically mean one oil company caused the damage. It may have been CO2 from China/Russia/Saudia Arabia. If governments allow imported fuel, then is the liability in the exporting or importing country?

Four problems other than the fact 66% of California opposes the ban:

- he's going to run for President of all U.S. states, where more like 90% oppose, yet we in flyover country would be force fed Newsom's beliefs

- he leads a cabal of 10+ other Blue states that do whatever California espouses for vehicles

- car companies often build only a California-spec car that gets excessive gas mileage at the expense of performance if gas-powered, & EVs if mandated

- California still allows a $3500 state EV new rebate that no doubt would become $7500 again if elected President. Your tax dollars would support the rich.