The people taking Trump’s secretary of state pick to court aren’t who you’d expect

Alex Loznak is about to head into the second semester of his sophomore year at Columbia University, but he's not your typical student. He's one of 21 people, ages nine to 20, suing the federal government for failing to protect them from the damaging effects of climate change.

Loznak, 19, and his fellow plaintiffs are hoping to advance their case, which is set to go to trial as early as this summer, by deposing current ExxonMobil CEO and Trump administration secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson.

SEE ALSO: Prominent climate-denying politician gets schooled by science, again

According to Loznak and the legal team fighting the case, Tillerson is in the best position to speak to the "collusion" between fossil fuel companies and the government to maintain a fossil fuel-centric economy despite well-known evidence that burning fuels like coal and oil cause global warming.

Tillerson served on the board of the American Petroleum Institute and other trade groups that have long opposed policies to reduce emissions, although he says he is in favor of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson pauses during a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2017. Credit: AP/EVAN vucci

Tillerson's deposition is scheduled for Jan. 19, just one day before Trump's inauguration. The notice requesting the deposition asks for all documents relating to Tillerson's participation with a group known as the Global Climate Coalition, a fossil fuel industry-backed group which conducted an effective climate science disinformation campaign during the 1990s through 2001.

It also seeks information on his role in particular decisions the George W. Bush administration made, such as walking away from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

The case, brought by the nonprofit group Our Children's Trust, has already established a landmark precedent when a U.S. District Court Judge, Ann Aiken, ruled that the case can proceed to trial sometime this year.

Her ruling stated that the federal government and fossil fuel industry's failure to stem global warming may violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

"This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case," she wrote in her ruling.

Global surface temperature departures from average during Nov. 2016. Credit: nasa giss

"It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions -- whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty -- have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”

The court said that the plaintiffs had asserted a right “to a climate system capable of sustaining human life,” and that the defendants may be endangering that.

The effects of climate change are becoming more evident each year, with 2016 almost certain to set the record for the warmest calendar year on record. The year was marked with a devastating global coral bleaching event that killed parts of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, along with record low sea ice and unusually high temperatures in the Arctic.

Loznak and his fellow plaintiffs are seeking to hold the federal government, fossil fuel companies and their trade associations accountable for failing to act swiftly and effectively to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases causing human-caused global warming, despite their knowledge of the science of climate change.

Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up!

Five of the 21 youth plaintiffs in a federal climate change lawsuit against the federal government, seen on Thursday, Nov. 10, 2016, in Eugene, Ore. Credit: Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard via AP

The fact that the case is likely to proceed to trial is a surprise to many legal scholars, who thought the case would have been dismissed like many other climate lawsuits.

“The fact that we’re going to trial has surprised a lot of people," Loznak said in an interview with Mashable.

Loznak, along with his legal team, see Tillerson's testimony as key to their case.

“Nobody knows better than Rex Tillerson, I think, how much collusion has gone on between the fossil fuel industry and the government in this country,” Loznak said.

Investigative reporting during the past two years from the Los Angeles Times, Columbia Journalism School and InsideClimate News has shown that Exxon researched climate change as early as the 1970s, yet chose to ignore the dangers of its fossil fuel products, and instead funded disinformation campaigns to confuse the public and politicians about the issue.

The implications of a victory in this case could be unusually far-reaching.

“If we win at trial that means the court is going to order the government to reduce emissions [at rates] consistent with science,” Loznak said, which means about 6 percent reductions per year, far faster than what is currently planned.

Exxon Mobil's Billings Refinery in Billings, Mont., seen in Sept. 2016. Credit: AP

The case, known officially as Juliana v. United States, takes a different approach than previous climate change litigation in the U.S., which have mainly focused on violations of specific legal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act. 

Tillerson could try to change the date or avoid giving a deposition entirely, but so far his lawyers have not requested either of those outcomes, according to Julia Olson, executive director and chief counsel of Our Children's Trust.

Michael Gerrard, who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University Law School, said it's unlikely Tillerson will end up testifying, given his position at the company.

"It would be common procedure in such a case for a corporation to resist the deposition of its CEO,” he told Mashable. “And often such motions are granted.”

Mashablereached out to Exxon for comment but did not hear back by deadline.

“Mr. Tillerson needs to show up for the deposition on the 19th absent a court order allowing him not to be deposed,” Olson told Mashable. “We have every expectation we will be deposing him on Jan. 19th and we look forward to it.”

“All of this evidence is going to come out in ways that will shock people”

Environmental groups are vehemently opposed to Tillerson's nomination to lead the State Department, although most of the media attention so far has focused on his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, rather than his history dealing with climate change.

Olson said the discovery process has produced documents detailing the extent of the influence that the fossil fuel industry and its trade groups have had over government decisions on energy policy.

“All of this evidence is going to come out in ways that will shock people,” she said. “It is beyond what has already been published.”

For his part, Loznak sees the court case as a way to fight back against the political environment which has suddenly turned hostile to climate action.

“All hope is not lost. It may seem like it, especially with some of the president-elect’s cabinet picks, but I think this is the worst possible time to be apathetic," he said.

“This is the time to really get involved, to get organized.”

---

Featured Video For You

---

Biggest die-off of corals ever recorded on Great Barrier Reef

---