Climate

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.

It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.

California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.

They have “privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.

(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)

Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.

But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.

Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.

The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the oil companies sounded the same theme.

“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.

The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.

“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”

The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.

Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.

UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”

Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.

Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.

The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.

A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.

The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.

Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.

The justices may opt out of ruling, however.

When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.

Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.

And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.

A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.

In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.

Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.

In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.

But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.

Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.

A refinery in Carson in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday, the court announced it will hear arguments on the mandatory detention policy, likely to be scheduled for January.

The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”

The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.

The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.

The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.

Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.

In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.

California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

After turning away cases for a decade, the justices voted to hear 2nd Amendment challenges to the laws in Cook County, Ill., and the state of Connecticut.

Switzerland’s glaciers are rapidly receding due to a combination of winters with too little snow and record-high temperatures across Europe this summer, scientists say. In all, one of the world’s top ski destinations has lost nearly one-fifth of its glacial ice in just five years.

In a report (PDF) published by the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network (GLAMOS) and the Swiss Commission for Cryosphere Observation of the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT) on Thursday, researchers said Swiss glaciers lost 5.5 percent of their ice volume over the hydrologic year ending September 30, 2026, and nearly 20 percent since 2021.

Why is Switzerland, famed for its Alpine terrain and winter sports, losing its glaciers and what does this mean for the country?

Here’s what we know.

What have scientists discovered?

In September, a GLAMOS team visited 23 glaciers in Switzerland to record end-of-summer measurements of ice melt and snow accumulation.

Visiting one glacier named Scex Rouge in the Western Swiss Alps in early September, GLAMOS chief Matthias Huss, one of the report’s researchers, told the Reuters news agency that a measuring pole, about four metres (13 feet) high, was drilled into the ice in July to provide the team with a point of reference.

“Now when we have come back here, we saw the pole was out by three metres [10ft]. So just in August and September of this year, even excluding the heatwaves of June and July, we have lost three metres of ice at an elevation of almost 3,000 metres [9,843ft],” he explained.

“This clearly indicates these conditions that we had this summer, they are just inconsistent with the survival of these small glaciers in the Alps,” he added.

Why are glaciers in Switzerland losing ice?

According to the report, the total mean thickness of individual glaciers in Switzerland has fallen by between 2.5 and four metres in 2026. At glacier tongues – narrow glacial extensions of a glacier which project from land into a body of water – it had decreased by as much as 10 metres in some places over the summer.

“We can clearly attribute the massive ice loss to the warming, and thus anthropogenic [caused by humans] climate change. The summer has been the hottest on record in Switzerland. In addition, there was little snow in winter, and therefore the glaciers were poorly protected when the heat started,” GLAMOS chief Huss told Al Jazeera.

He noted that while their measurements have indicated that the melting has affected all glaciers in Switzerland equally, the effects were most visible on smaller glaciers.

“Those shrink very quickly and sometimes even completely disappeared. Also, large glaciers lost an enormous quantity of ice, but they remain impressive,” he added.

The report’s scientists warned that the glaciers also lost a total of about 2.2 trillion litres of water (581 billion gallons) between July and September alone.

“This is more than four times the annual drinking water consumption of all Swiss households,” the report’s researchers said and warned this could impact the country’s future water supply.

What does this mean for Switzerland?

Switzerland is a country known for winter sports and Alpine tourism, which depends on the glaciers. About 4 percent of the country’s entire workforce is employed in the tourism sector.

“This affects tourism and also how we perceive the mountains – they are no longer white but increasingly grey and black,” he told Al Jazeera.

He added that the water provided by glaciers is also important for the economy. “It is used to fill up hydropower lakes that produce clean energy, and supplies the biggest streams of Europe,” he said.

“We’re not yet seeing the full consequences as glaciers are still around and they contribute water when we need it. But this potential is soon being lost,” he added.

Harry Zekollari, a glaciologist and associate research professor at the Department of Water and Climate at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, shared a similar view.

He stressed that glaciers are important natural water suppliers, as they provide water when people need it most – in summer, when it is hot and dry.

“With climate change, glaciers initially provide more water during summer as they rapidly melt. However, as glaciers become smaller, there is less ice to be melted, and as such the water supply in summer decreases. This peak in water supply has now been passed for glaciers in the European Alps, meaning that we expect glaciers to provide less and less water in the coming years,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Glacier changes can also cause natural hazards, and since most of the ice lost turns into water that reaches the oceans, the consequences of glacier loss [in Switzerland and elsewhere] will be felt for coastlines all around the globe,” he added.

Is there a solution?

Yes. According to Zekollari, in order to save as much glacier ice as possible in Switzerland, the world needs to stabilise rising temperatures as soon as possible.

“Projections for the European Alps and Swiss glaciers show that if we are able to rapidly stop emissions, we may still be able to save about one-third of their ice mass. However, in a case with strong warming, these glaciers are projected to lose more than 90 percent of their volume by 2100,” he said.

He noted that the situation is less grim globally as some glaciers in other regions are more persistent.

“However, even globally, future emissions play a big role and will decide whether we lose about 25 percent of glacier mass by 2100 – that’s the good case, with limited warming – or rather 50 percent – the bad case, with more warming,” he said.

“The losses in the longer term – past 2100 – are even larger due to the long response of glaciers, but also here it is the future warming that decides how much remains. Every 0.1 degree Celsius warming matters.”

Dal Lake in Srinagar, the heart of tourism and cultural life in Indian-administered Kashmir, is slowly giving way under mounting population and environmental pressures.

Once renowned for its clear waters, floating gardens and houseboats, the lake is now clogged with untreated sewage, plastic waste and rampant weed growth, even as thousands of residents and businesses rely on it for transport and their livelihoods.

Unregulated construction along its shores, land encroachment and the expansion of nearby neighbourhoods have reduced its surface area and further damaged its fragile ecosystem.

The impact of climate change, including erratic rainfall and rising temperatures, is accelerating the lake’s decline.

Despite periodic clean-up campaigns and official conservation schemes, the future of Dal Lake remains uncertain, reflecting a wider environmental crisis across the Kashmir Valley.