In a coffee shop near the federal courthouse in San Juan, I meet with someone who asked to be identified only as "Statute McLoophole"—a pseudonym that, they assure me with a wry smile, captures both their former specialty and current sense of humor about it. McLoophole spent fifteen years crafting legal strategies for fossil fuel companies before becoming a consultant for climate litigation plaintiffs. They're in Puerto Rico following the recent federal court dismissal that ruled municipalities waited too long to file their climate damage claims.

You've seen climate litigation from both sides. What did you think when you heard about the Puerto Rico dismissal?

Statute: laughs bitterly Honestly? My first thought was "there's my old playbook in action." The statute of limitations defense is like the Swiss Army knife of corporate legal strategy. You can use it on almost anything if you're creative enough about when the clock supposedly started ticking.

The Puerto Rico case is textbook. The court said municipalities should have known about their injuries and who caused them by September 2021. But these communities have been dealing with climate impacts for decades. The legal system is basically saying, "You should have sued us sooner for damages that were still accumulating."

pauses, stirs coffee

It's brilliant and morally bankrupt at the same time.

Walk me through how these timing arguments actually work in practice.

Statute: Picture this: you're a municipality watching your coastline erode, your infrastructure flood more frequently, your hurricane damage get worse year after year. When exactly are you supposed to know that ExxonMobil specifically caused this particular flood? Was it when the IPCC reports came out? When internal company documents leaked showing they knew about climate risks decades ago? When your seawall failed for the third time?

The genius of the statute of limitations defense is that it forces plaintiffs to pick a moment—often arbitrarily—and say "this is when we knew." But climate damage isn't like a car accident. It's more like slow poisoning where the symptoms take decades to manifest and you can't tell which dose was the lethal one.

But the Maine case went the other way. What's different there?

Statute: Maine is fascinating because it's not about when they knew about climate change. It's about when they knew about the deception. The court said fossil fuel companies misled consumers about their products' climate impacts. That's a consumer protection angle, not a climate damage claim.

leans forward

Here's what's brilliant about Maine's approach: they're not saying "you caused climate change and we want damages." They're saying "you lied to us about causing climate change, and we want damages for the deception." The statute of limitations clock starts ticking when you discover the lie, not when the climate impacts began.

You mentioned your "old playbook." How deliberately strategic were these timing defenses?

Statute: long pause, looks out window

Look, I'm not going to pretend we were just doing normal legal work. We had entire teams dedicated to what we called "temporal strategy"—basically, how to make sure any future climate litigation would be time-barred before it started.

We'd war-game scenarios: If sea level rises X inches by year Y, when would coastal communities have enough evidence to sue? How do we make sure that date falls outside the statute of limitations period? We'd even track scientific publications and IPCC reports, calculating when "reasonable knowledge" might be established in court.

voice gets quieter

The most cynical part? We'd sometimes delay releasing our own internal research specifically to push back the date when plaintiffs could claim they "should have known." Information warfare, basically.

That sounds like a conspiracy.

Statute: shrugs It's not a conspiracy if it's just really good legal strategy. Which is the problem, right? Everything we did was perfectly legal. Morally questionable, maybe, but legal.

The system rewards this kind of thinking. Judges don't want to open floodgates to unlimited climate liability, so they're receptive to arguments about timing and causation. Politicians don't want to deal with massive corporate liability, so they don't change the rules. And companies just want to minimize damages.

What would actually work better than the current system?

Statute: laughs You want me to design a legal system that works? That's above my pay grade.

thinks for a moment

But maybe we need different categories for different types of climate harms. Acute damages from specific events—hurricanes, floods—those could have traditional statutes of limitations. But chronic damages from ongoing emissions? Maybe those need rolling statutes that reset every year as new damages accumulate.

Or we could flip the burden. Instead of making communities prove when they should have known about climate damages, make companies prove they weren't contributing to those damages. Put the evidentiary burden on the entities with the best access to information.

grins

Though I guarantee you, if that happened, I'd have former colleagues calling me asking if I want to come back and help them fight it.

Are you tempted?

Statute: without hesitation God, no. I sleep better now. Though I do miss the intellectual challenge sometimes. Climate law is like three-dimensional chess—science, politics, economics, all moving at once. It's fascinating work, even when you're on the wrong side of it.

pauses

But I've seen too many communities struggling with real damages while we argued about procedural technicalities. At some point, you have to decide whether you're solving interesting legal puzzles or actually helping people.

What should communities know about filing climate cases now?

Statute: File early, file often, and diversify your legal theories. Don't just go after climate damages—think about consumer protection, public nuisance, infrastructure costs. Each theory has different timing rules.

And document everything. I mean everything. When did your flooding patterns change? When did you first spend money on climate adaptation? When did you learn about company deceptions? The more precise your timeline, the harder it is for defendants to claim you waited too long.

finishes coffee