www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-30 16:35:00
A South Carolina judge postponed ruling after a two-day hearing in Charleston’s climate change lawsuit against 24 oil and gas companies. Charleston seeks damages, alleging these companies knew their products contributed to climate change but concealed this to protect profits. Charleston’s attorneys argued the companies limited energy choices to fossil fuels while misleading the public. The oil companies countered that Charleston still relies on fossil fuels and highlighted their investments in renewables, including BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign. The judge found the arguments helpful and requested draft orders by July 1. A similar case in Pennsylvania was recently dismissed.
(The Center Square) – No ruling from a South Carolina judge was rendered Friday at the end of a two-day hearing in a climate change lawsuit brought by the city of Charleston against 24 oil and gas companies.
The oil companies want a dismissal.
In the lawsuit, Charleston seeks unspecified monetary damages from the oil and gas companies, claiming that they knew their products contributed to climate change but didn’t disclose that to the public.
Judge Roger Young asked lawyers in the case to submit draft orders to him by July 1.
“I hear a lot of arguments,” the judge said. “Sometimes I don’t find oral arguments to be helpful but this was extraordinarily helpful.”
Attorneys for Charleston argued Thursday that the oil and gas companies knew that their products contributed to climate change but kept that from the public in order to continue reaping profits from the sales.
“When I get into a car, or a train or a bus or a plane, we don’t really care what the energy source is that leads to the transportation,” one of the attorneys for Charleston, Matt Edling, told the judge. “We just care that it gets us from point A to point B and that if we’re paying for it, that’s it’s the most economic choice that is available to us.”
The oil companies intentionally created a market where energy choices were artificially limited to fossil fuels, he added.
“That’s the problem,” he said. “You guys, together, you knew all of this and you made herculean efforts to convince the world that it wasn’t a problem. You saw that it could be a calamitous problem, have benefit from it economically to extraordinary disadvantage of cities like Charleston.”
However, attorneys for the oil companies pointed out that the city of Charleston still uses fossil fuels today and that there are few affordable alternatives yet on the market.
They also pointed out that the oil companies have invested heavily in renewable energy and that one, BP, adopted a slogan, “Beyond Petroleum,” and began using the color green in its corporate logo.
“The city’s theory is that these actions are part of an effort to mislead consumers into believing that BP is becoming a sustainable energy company and that this effort is somehow to convince consumers to want to buy BP’s fossil fuel products,” BP attorney Merritt Abney told the judge. “That theory obviously makes no sense.”
A similar case in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, was dismissed earlier this month
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article reports on the legal proceedings in a climate change lawsuit involving the City of Charleston and various oil and gas companies. It presents statements and claims from both sides—the city’s attorneys and the oil companies’ legal representatives—without adopting a particular viewpoint or using language that favors one side. The tone is neutral, focusing on factual reporting of what was said during the trial and relevant case developments. The piece distinguishes between reporting on ideological positions (e.g., the city’s accusations about fossil fuel companies and the companies’ defense and investments in renewables) without promoting those positions itself, maintaining balanced coverage consistent with centrist, factual journalism.
SUMMARY: Clemson coach Dabo Swinney welcomed criticism following their 17-10 season-opening loss to LSU, which dropped the Tigers from No. 4 to No. 8 in the AP Top 25. Quarterback Cade Klubnik, a preseason All-American and Heisman candidate, struggled with accuracy, completing 19 of 38 passes without touchdowns and one interception. Swinney described Klubnik’s performance as a “bad day” but expressed confidence in his bounce-back. Clemson’s offense was also hampered by a hamstring injury to key wide receiver Antonio Williams. The Tigers aim to rebound against Troy, favored by 33.5 points, while Swinney criticized both teams’ film performances.
North Carolina’s 2025 crop season shows promise with healthy corn, soybeans, cotton, and apples, a major improvement from 2024’s drought and storm damage. However, challenges remain: Tropical Depression Chantal caused flooding, wet conditions hurt tobacco, and relief payments from last year’s disasters are delayed. Farmers face financial stress due to low crop prices, rising input costs, trade tariffs impacting exports, and labor shortages exacerbated by strict immigration policies and higher wages. The USDA relocating operations to Raleigh raises hopes for better local support. Despite struggles, a bountiful harvest is expected, supporting the state’s agricultural resilience and fall agritourism.
by Jane Winik Sartwell, Carolina Public Press September 4, 2025
The news about crops out of North Carolina farms is good this year: the corn is tall, the soybeans leafy, the cotton fluffy and the apples ripe.
Compared to last year’s disastrous summer, when it seemed flooding was the only relief from extreme drought, this summer has left farmers feeling hopeful. In Wayne County, extension agent Daryl Anderson says this is the best corn crop the county has seen in 50 years.
That’s a major turnaround from last year, when dry conditions decimated cornfields from the coast to the mountains.
Still, no year in the fields is free of struggle. Rainy weather, delayed relief payments, market conditions and dramatic federal policy shifts have kept farmers on their toes.
Crops lie ruined in fields in Person County after Tropical Depression Chantal, which passed through the area on July 6, 2025. Provided / Person County Cooperative Extension
It’s been a wet year — at times, too wet. Tropical Depression Chantal flooded fields in Central North Carolina in early July. Unusually wet conditions all summer hurt the tobacco crop across the state.
Plus, state relief money for the tribulations of 2024 is coming slow. The legislature just approved an additional $124 million to address last year’s agricultural disasters, but farmers still haven’t received the money originally allocated to the Ag Disaster Crop Loss Program in March.
For Henderson County extension director Terry Kelley, the money is an urgent matter. In Kelley’s neck of the woods, apple farmers are still recovering from the devastation Helene wrought on their orchards. Finances are starting to spiral out of control for many.
“Our farmers are really anxious to get that money,” Kelley told Carolina Public Press.
Rains and flooding from Tropical Storm Helene create a massive washout in a Mills River tomato field in Henderson County in 2024. Provided / Terry Kelley / Henderson County Extension
“They’ve got bills due from last year. They’ve used their credit up to their limit and beyond. We need that money. It’s been a long summer of waiting.”
Though Helene upped the ante in the West, Kelley’s anxieties are felt across North Carolina. In Bladen County, where many 2024 crops were devastated by Tropical Storm Debbie, extension agent Matthew Strickland says there’s been a dearth of information about how the program works.
“We are not sure when those payments will be issued and exactly how they will be calculated,” Strickland said. “We were told they’d go out mid-summer. There’s been no update. Who knows when they’ll go out? Nobody really knows.”
The financial pressure extends beyond those delayed relief payments. North Carolina farmers find themselves at the whim of unexpected shifts in both the market and federal policies.
Though both quality and yield are high for field crops this year, the price of those crops at market is low. Meanwhile, input costs continue to rise. This makes for an unsettling financial equation for farmers.
Plus, President Donald Trump’s tariffs have made American crops less desirable overseas, according to Strickland. Before recent tariff hikes, lots of North Carolina corn, soybeans and tobacco made its way to China. Now, not as much.
“With the political trade wars, we’re really worried when it comes to our soybeans and tobacco,” Surry County extension agent Ryan Coe told CPP. “A lot of farmers are still waiting to see what’s going to happen. We don’t have a crystal ball.”
The tariffs haven’t been all bad, though. While some crops suffer, others have found opportunities. Kelley says the lack of Mexican tomatoes on the market has created a higher demand for local Henderson County tomatoes, for example.
Labor, too, is giving farmers pause. Many rely on legal migrant workers, but the Trump administration’s strict immigration policies have tightened the market.
“It’s more difficult now to get labor, even with legal workers,” Kelley said. “It’s not available as it once was, and it’s terribly expensive.”
That’s because wages for migrant workers on legal H-2A visas continue to rise. In North Carolina, farmers must now pay migrant workers $16.16 per hour. This number is called an Adverse Effect Wage Rate, and it’s designed to ensure that wages for American workers don’t fall.
A cornfield at Trask Family Farms outside Wilmington on Aug. 29. Jane Winik Sartwell / Carolina Public Press
There’s a chance, however, that going forward, North Carolina farmers may have a bigger say in American agricultural policies.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is moving major operations to Raleigh, in an effort to bring the department closer to the nation’s farming hubs. Some North Carolina farmers are excited about it.
“Having the USDA in this area will be good for all farmers in North Carolina,” said Mikayla Berryhill, an extension agent in Person County, where farms were flooded by Chantal’s heavy rains. “We will be able to show them what specific problems we have here in North Carolina and get help with those.”
In the meantime, it looks like it will be a bountiful harvest of crops here in North Carolina. This fall’s agritourism attractions, from corn mazes and county fairs to hay rides and apple markets, should reflect that agricultural resilience.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content presents a balanced and factual overview of agricultural conditions in North Carolina, highlighting both challenges and positive developments without evident partisan framing. It discusses impacts of federal policies, including tariffs and immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, in a straightforward manner without overt criticism or praise. The article focuses on practical issues affecting farmers, such as weather, market conditions, and government relief efforts, maintaining a neutral tone throughout.
SUMMARY: The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to quickly rule that the president has authority to impose broad tariffs under an emergency powers law, seeking to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that deemed most of Trump’s tariffs illegal. The case involves import taxes imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico. The administration argues the ruling creates uncertainty for trade negotiations and risks refunding billions in tariffs collected. Small businesses harmed by the tariffs have challenged them successfully in lower courts. The decision will impact U.S. trade policy and presidential powers over tariffs.
