Less than 24 hours after Bucks County, Pennsylvania filed a climate lawsuit against essential energy producers it seems like the only ones applauding the commissioners’ decision are Washington D.C. climate activists. Meanwhile, voices across the state are decrying the lawsuit as “hypocritical,” “non-sensical,” and “abusive” while highlighting that the suit was seemingly discussed with little public daylight leaving more questions than answers.
Here’s What They Are Saying:
David N. Taylor, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s President and CEO said:
“The industry, especially here in Pennsylvania, has a proven track record of doing business responsibly and making tangible environmental gains, something that the climate fanatics conveniently ignore. It’s unfortunate Bucks County took the bait of a copy-and-paste-lawsuit pushed by out-of-state-activists and billionaire hypocrites over the well-being of Pennsylvanians.”
Kurt Knaus, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Energy Infrastructure Alliance echoed this:
“These local lawsuits do nothing to address our real energy challenges. In fact, lawsuits like this actually undercut Pennsylvania’s role in addressing climate change. Electric sector-related emissions have plummeted in recent years as more natural gas has come online to meet our growing power demands. That has led to cleaner air across our commonwealth.
“The United States is reducing greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other country in the world, an achievement tied to our emergence as the world’s top natural gas producer. The timing of this lawsuit has little to do with environmental concerns and everything to do with concerns over the coming election.”
Curt Schroder, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform highlighted the legal profiteering:
“Bucks County and its elected county officials have relied on oil and natural gas for decades to meet their transportation needs and to power their once-mighty steel industrial base. Yet the commissioners have filed climate change litigation for a situation they helped cause. When can we expect all county-owned vehicles to be electric or all the county buildings to be powered by renewables? One would expect such actions to follow immediately upon the heels of the action taken by the county leaders.
“Pennsylvanians already pay a hefty ‘tort tax’ that goes right into the pockets of out-of-state trial lawyers, and this lawsuit will only raise costs even higher for hard-working people across the state – all without advancing real climate solutions. Lawsuits targeting the lawful production of energy are an abuse of our state’s civil justice system and an end-run around the democratic process.”
Meanwhile, questions about the conspicuously secretive process of the litigation were highlighted by the Pennsylvania press. From the Marcellus Drilling News:
“The problem is this lawfare seemingly came out of nowhere. It was hatched secretly by green groups, including the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) – a Rockefeller-funded D.C. activist group. There were no public meetings. No public input. No public announcements. It was completely hush-hush, with a full media blackout until the lawsuit was filed. In other words, it was CORRUPT. Whose pockets are getting lined by this action?”
Bottom Line: The nationally coordinated and billionaire funded climate litigation campaign may have found a willing proxy in Bucks County, but Pennsylvania businesses and industry are coming out strong against the lawsuit that will only drive up consumer costs and put Pennsylvania workers out of business.
After years of environmental activists circling Pennsylvania officials in hopes they’d be the “cherry on top” of their lawfare campaign, Bucks County took the bait and filed a suit on Monday against essential energy producers. But many questions remain, including why the suit was debated quietly with little evident public input and to what extent outside activists helped push it over the finish line.
1) The W’s: When did the council vote happen? Was it done in public? And if not, why?
A review of county public records reveals a conspicuously absent trail of when and how this lawsuit originated. A county meeting from January 3rd appears to mention an executive session that took place on January 2nd that discussed “pending litigation,” but the public is not privy to such a meeting.
Similarly, public meeting minutes show an item on the January 17th meeting agenda to authorize the County Solicitor to enter into a legal agreement with DiCello Levitt, LLP the law firm supporting the county and lawsuit on a 25% contingency fee basis (the firm doesn’t even have a Pennsylvania office, by the way.) However, the public trail runs cold there, with no further information on when, where, and how the debate and vote on this lawsuit took place.
Was there a competitive bid process? What recommendations did the Bucks County Solicitor General make to the Council? Why was this not done under full transparency for Bucks County residents and the general public to debate? The public should be a part of any deliberations that catalyzed such an important decision on the part of the county.
2) Who is supporting the lawsuit behind the scenes?
We already know the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) – a Rockefeller funded D.C. activist group – has been pushing for Pennsylvania officials to join the litigation campaign, using a familiar playbook that includes sample resolutions, ghostwriting, talking points, and more. CCI was also quick to tout the news on twitter just hours after the suit was filed:
🚨BREAKING: Bucks County just became the first Pennsylvania community to take Big Oil to court for climate deception.
We found that PA faces more than $15 billion in costs to protect residents from climate change.
It’s time to make polluters pay.https://t.co/87sSZQJqcE
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climatecosts) March 25, 2024
Moreover, sections of Bucks County’s complaint are near copy-and-pastes of recent suits filed in Chicago and California. The similarities with Chicago’s lawsuit are particularly notable since Bucks County hired the same outside law firm as Chicago did, and notably, did not hire Sher Edling LLP.
Did the Bucks County Commissioners consult with any ENGOs or other groups in advance of deciding to sue?
3) Why now?
Just next week on April 3rd, the Society for Environmental Journalists is hosting their annual conference just south of Bucks County in Philadelphia where “Big Oil” and alleged “climate misinformation” are a large part of the agenda.
Was this lawsuit timed to make a splash going into a confab of environmental journalists?
Public records show that CCI is sticking around after the conference to pitch Allegheny County officials on a suit soon after the meeting. CCI’s president teased the group’s behind-the-scenes pressure campaign in a statement to the Bucks County Beacon, saying that while Bucks County is the first Pennsylvania government to file a climate lawsuit, “it likely won’t be the last.”
4) Does Bucks County plan to stop using all oil and gas resources in county operations?
Bucks County makes millions off the very industry they now hope to sue into oblivion – $6.7+ million, in fact, distributed to Bucks County from natural gas impact tax since 2012. That revenue directly supports wetlands conservation; trail, park and greenway restoration projects; flood protection, infrastructure and road upgrades, among other important uses.
Similarly, the oil and gas industry directly fuels county services from county vehicles and buildings, to the building blocks of essential county products like playgrounds, pools and libraries.
Pennsylvania lawmakers know that oil and natural gas development is crucial for the state’s economy, even if they don’t fully appreciate who is behind the anti-energy movement. Both of Pennsylvania’s senators, Sens. Bob Casey and John Fetterman, oppose President Biden’s LNG export pause. Like the climate lawsuit campaign, the pressure campaign responsible for the LNG pause was proudly spearheaded by the Rockefellers.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican representing Bucks County in Congress, also understands the importance of Pennsylvania’s natural gas production. Fitzpatrick has co-sponsored legislation to ban Russian imports in order to send a “clear message” that “the U.S. will secure our own energy independence.” Unfortunately, his own district just made that a little bit harder.
Bottom Line: Bucks County’s climate lawsuit leaves Pennsylvania residents with more questions than answers. The lawsuit was evidently discussed and decided upon in secret, without the input of residents who will be impacted by climate lawfare. Other elected officials in Pennsylvania should be on notice that a billionaire-funded environmental activist group is on the ground in the state and laser-focused on undermining the state’s premier economic driver.
The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that the United States has produced “more crude oil than any country, ever,” for the past six years. U.S. crude production reached record levels in 2023, averaging 12.9 million barrels per day.
According to the EIA, crude oil production in the Permian Basin was the driving factor of the increases in total crude oil and natural gas production in the United States.
As EID has previously explained, U.S. oil and natural gas exports – critically, LNG – are key to ensuring energy security both on a domestic and global level in the wake of recent geopolitical market shocks.
As Didier Holleaux, President of trade association EuroGas, explains:
“[U.S.] LNG has been a relief for Europe and contributed to the stabilization of gas and electricity prices in Europe for consumers, after a long period of record high prices caused by the Russian supply drop.”
Despite record U.S. production, the latest International Energy Administration data demonstrates that methane emissions from oil and natural gas are set to go into decline. The analysis finds that fully implementing existing pledges on methane, such as the Oil & Gas Decarbonisation Charter agreed at COP28, would deliver the majority of all emissions cuts needed this decade to align with 1.5°C warming.
In fact, as Politico reports, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry is already seeing methane emissions decline despite this record production – including in the Permian Basin:
“Studies showed emissions decreasing across the Permian basin in Texas and New Mexico despite rising oil and gas production, IEA’s McGlade said.
“And emissions held steady or dipped despite an uptick in production in the Marcellus shale basin in Pennsylvania and the Denver-Julesburg basin across Colorado and Wyoming, said Russell Dickerson, a climate scientist at the University of Maryland.
‘The energy sector seems to be doing a pretty good job with engineering and implementing good engineering practices,’ Dickerson said.” (emphasis added)
As EID has previously explained, the U.S. energy industry takes great care to produce the cleanest gas anywhere in the world and operate responsibly, including by finding and eliminating leaks.
As the IEA global methane tracker shows, the U.S. recorded among the lowest levels of methane intensity among global oil-producing countries at just 0.2kg methane / GJ over 2023. For comparison, Turkmenistan recorded 1.6kg methane / GJ in 2023.
In addition, the 2023 Environmental Partnership report found that 70 percent of U.S. onshore oil and gas operators participating were able to reduce leak occurrence to 0.07 percent. Producers have also been able to reduce flaring by over half in the last two years, thanks to industry innovation.
Bottom Line: The United States continues to lead the way in fulfilling the increased global demand for energy, whilst not compromising on emissions reduction goals. With ongoing geopolitical uncertainty and instability in the energy markets, America’s role as the largest crude producer will continue to be of utmost importance to global energy security.
American energy companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court last week to overturn a ruling that allowed Honolulu’s climate lawsuit against the industry to move forward. This is the first time the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to tackle the merits of the cases head-on, marking a milestone in the litigation campaign.
Energy companies have twice previously sought SCOTUS’s review of legal issues in these lawsuits. While past petitions were related to the jurisdictional question of where the cases belong (state vs. federal court), Wednesday’s petition for certiorari asks the Court to determine whether federal law prevents these cases to be heard in the first place.
The defendants are challenging a Hawaii Supreme Court decision affirming a trial court’s denial of motions to dismiss Honolulu’s lawsuit in October, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The companies argue the federal Clean Air Act preempts state law and ask the Supreme Court to “review and clarify” if state law can be used to impose repercussions for damages from the global issue of climate change. The petition argues this point:
“This case presents the Court with its only foreseeable opportunity in the near future to decide a dispositive question that is arising in every climate-change case: whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.”
It’s important that the Court decides whether or not cases like Honolulu’s are even “viable” before taxpayers have to front the cost for discovery and pretrial proceedings in dozens of cases. “The stakes in this case could not be higher” or more timely, wrote the petitioners:
“Those cases present a serious threat to one of the Nation’s most vital industries. As the federal government previously stated in a similar climate-change case, ‘federal law and policy has long declared that fossil fuels are strategically important domestic resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports.’”
If the Court does not intervene, the companies warned, the litigation campaign could result in cases proceeding “under the laws of all 50 states—a blueprint for chaos.”
Last year, George Mason University Law professor Donald Kochan highlighted the same point, pointing out that “inconsistent or conflicting verdicts” in state courts around the country “risk chaos in global energy markets.” Market instability, massive fines, and a patchwork of liability that hinders innovation would all make it near-impossible for oil and natural gas business to develop resources, driving up consumers’ energy costs.
But that may be, in fact, the goal of the activists pushing the litigation campaign after all. In 2022, an advisor to Sher Edling, the private law firm representing Honolulu and dozens more plaintiffs in climate suits, spelled it out clearly: “If these cases all go to their logical extreme, [the oil companies] all go bankrupt… They should.”
Bottom line: The stakes are high. As POLITICO reports, if SCOTUS takes up the petition and finds that “federal law bars state-level claims related to interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. That would significantly weaken — if not outright end — all similar litigation.”
Whether the Rockefellers are pitching climate litigation or climate change “Superfund” legislation, pragmatic local officials often see the pitch for what it is: an ideological campaign that benefits billionaire donors over every day Americans.
As discussed on EID Climate yesterday, Maryland is one of four states considering climate Superfund bills, legislation that would force oil and gas companies to pay for the costs of climate impacts. And now state officials are speaking out in opposition.
Several Democratic state legislators have voiced concerns that a state-level climate superfund bill would simply pass the cost to lower-income residents via higher energy bills, Maryland Matters reports. Democratic State Senator Malcom Augustine, for example, suggested that the draft legislation is a blunt instrument that would ultimately hurt consumers:
“I’m very concerned about passing a $9 billion cost to Marylanders in a very regressive way, and not very targeted.”
Advocates of the bill pointed to a recent poll that indicated Maryland voters “would look favorably on legislators” who supported the bill. The poll in question, however, was released by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), a local, Rockefeller-funded activist group that previously worked with the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) to convince leaders in Anne Arundel County to file a climate lawsuit.
In response, Augustine rebutted, “Should we work on things based on polls or based on facts?” (emphasis added)
Even a co-sponsor of Maryland’s Superfund bill seemed unconvinced that it was the right approach. State Senator Ron Watson “said he was worried” that the legislation would drive energy businesses out of the state and questioned the rationale of Maryland going solo after certain companies when emissions “[come] from a myriad of sources”:
“‘We have a reliance on these companies. … We’re going to continue to have a reliance on these companies.’
Watson said he saw the logic of Van Hollen’s national legislation but wondered why ‘a teeny, tiny state’ like Maryland would want to unilaterally go after polluters when environmental destruction comes from myriad sources and happens everywhere.” (Emphasis added)
A History of Rejecting Activist Efforts
This isn’t the first time that a Rockefeller pitch has met a skeptical audience.
In late 2022, bipartisan elected officials voiced concerns over the possibility of Baltimore County Council filing a climate lawsuit against energy companies, causing the proposal to be withdrawn before it came to a vote. Democratic Baltimore County Councilmember Tony Quirk cautioned against hiring Rockefeller-backed plaintiffs law firm Sher Edling to support a potential climate lawsuit:
“I think the County Council needs to remember that these types of things aren’t just like paid for with some magical pot of gold. Often a lot of these costs, if successful, get passed on to the consumer. They get passed on to regular average people that really often wind up paying the price, through indirect cost.” (emphasis added)
Similarly, when CCI pitched climate litigation to the Maine town of Bar Harbor, local officials were quick to point out the irony of suing the producers of a product that is necessary for modern life. In the words of City Council Chair Valerie Peacock, “it’s almost like we’re suing ourselves.”
And just last year, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted against a CCI-backed measure that would have encouraged state leaders file a climate lawsuit. At the time, Rep. Tom Mannion argued that doing such would hamstring American energy companies at no expense to other nations:
“Foreign countries, not just companies, have energy policies that would not be kept in check. So we’re here shooting ourselves in the face while the rest of the planet gets to continue on with economic development.” (emphasis added)
Bottom line: While left-wing billionaires continue to back campaigns aimed at limiting resource development, public officials and citizens alike are pushing back.
The billionaire-funded climate litigation campaign against American energy companies has accomplished little in the near decade since its start, with the cases mired in procedural issues and setbacks along the way. Recognizing this, it appears the leaders of the Rockefeller foundations – the central strategists and financial backers of the lawsuits – have decided to hedge their lawfare bets and pursue their ultimate goal of taking down the oil and natural gas industry via state legislative efforts.
In recent years, activists have lobbied state legislatures across the country to pass “climate change Superfund” bills, with legislative proposals currently in Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. These bills would extract billions in fines and payments from energy companies in order to compensate states and towns for the economic impacts of climate change.
To attribute shares of global emissions to individual energy companies, the legislation relies on the Richard Heede’s fringe and biased body of climate attribution science that has received funding from the Rockefeller nonprofits to support climate litigation, or for other means of holding companies “accountable.”
If it all sounds familiar, it should – the Superfund legislation has nearly identical aims to climate lawsuits against energy companies and is yet another brainchild of the Rockefeller Family Fund.
If at First You Don’t Succeed…Try, Try Again.
The recent state Superfund bills were preceded by a failed 2021 effort to pass similar federal legislation, which longtime RFF director Lee Wasserman “helped develop.” However, despite a Democrat-controlled Senate, the bill didn’t make the cut for inclusion in President Biden’s massive infrastructure, climate, and COVID-19 recovery legislative package.
Shifting gears, Wasserman and a familiar cast of activists, foundations and third-party groups laid out their plans to push similar Superfund legislation in “deep blue” states that offer a more friendly venue. A University of Michigan law professor who helped draft and research the bills described the strategy shift in an interview last year:
“The environmental groups that have been pressing for this type of fund decided that their best hope was to try to do something in individual states where there is pretty solid Democratic control.”
Just as New York was the first to file, and lose, a climate lawsuit against energy companies, in May 2022, the state senate became the first state legislature to introduce a climate Superfund bill. During the bill’s rollout, Wasserman spoke on a Zoom presentation alongside the two state legislators who cosponsored the state’s Superfund proposal, where he suggested that other states would soon follow New York’s lead:
“I am certain that because of Senator Kruger and Assemblyman Dinowitz’ leadership we’re going to see similar bills introduced in states across the country.” (Emphasis added)
Other states did follow New York’s lead, of course. The Rockefeller-led climate litigation campaign has made one thing clear: when Lee Wasserman telegraphs what’s coming next, he’s probably pulling the strings.
State legislators in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont have since introduced their own climate Superfund bills. In Vermont, the latest state to consider the bill, the Rockefeller-funded Vermont Public Research Interest Group (VPIRG) has campaigned heavily for the legislation behind the scenes.
Emails obtained by Government Accountability and Oversight show that in April 2023, VPIRG worked on a draft op-ed advocating for Superfund legislation with Vermont Treasurer Mike Pieciak. The two also discussed “legal updates” explaining recent developments in climate lawsuits. Then, in June, VPIRG kicked off a complementary “Make Big Oil Pay” campaign at City Hall.
Opponents of the Vermont legislation have argued that the fee amounts to an unlawful tax. Proponents, including VPIRG and the Vermont chapter of the Conservation Law Foundation, instead characterize the fee as funds for remediation efforts.
But even Vermont Treasurer Pieciak, who has said he’s “excited” about pursuing Superfund legislation, admitted that the Superfund program “would basically be an assessment,” or a tax, on oil companies. In other words, the bill is a backdoor attempt of achieving what Vermont is already seeking to do through the courts.
Bills Are Plagued by Legal, Implementation Issues
So far, no state legislature has taken the Rockefellers’ bait. Maybe it’s because the proposals fundamentally don’t make sense. Seth Jaffe, a lead partner in Foley Hogg LLP’s environmental law practice, wrote in JD Supra that he was “taken aback” by the illogical climate proposals:
“…let me assure you that I have read several versions of these acts several times and I still can’t really make sense of them.” (emphasis added)
Taking perhaps a too-literal page out of the climate litigation playbook, Jaffe pointed out that in assigning energy companies fees – or taxes – the Superfund proposals “use the language of damages, but the statute does not provide much of a trial and there is no attempt to link the payments to specific harms.”
Similar to climate lawsuits, consumers would ultimately get stuck with the bill. Ken Girardin, research director for a New York-based free market think tank, argued that consumers will bear the costs if states penalize major energy companies for lawfully suppling critical products like gasoline and heating:
“’You’re not going to get the money from some guy in overalls on an oil platform or some oil baron on a yacht… It’s money that’s [going to be] be collected from New York consumers and taxpayers.” (emphasis added)
This attempt to dance around calling a tax, a tax, may be the bills’ fatal flaw. The American Petroleum Institute commented that Vermont’s Superfund proposal is “likely unconstitutional and represents nothing more than a punitive new tax on American energy.”
Even Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau — who is part of an informal advisory group supporting the climate lawsuits — has questioned the practical application of such a bill:
“It’s a good idea. But like a lot of good ideas, it’s the execution and the implementation of a law like this that gets complicated.” (emphasis added)
Bottom Line: Climate change Superfund legislation is yet another Rockefeller-driven effort to shift responsibility onto fossil fuel producers, whom they fault for continuing to produce oil and natural gas. But it is still perfectly legal in this country to produce, market, sell, and use fossil fuels – in fact, the defendants’ activities are not only permitted by law, but actually encouraged by both state and federal laws.
These bills are a backdoor tax meant to imperil American energy companies and stuff the coffers of wealthy states while doing little to solve the real challenge of climate change and global warming – just like the failed climate litigation campaign.
The City of Chicago today announced a climate lawsuit against oil companies, making it the latest city to dedicate taxpayer resources towards a billionaire-backed lawfare campaign that, to date, has only lost on the merits.
The lawsuit is supported by familiar faces. The city is being represented by San Francisco-based plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling, LLP, the law firm serving as outside counsel in dozens of copy-and-paste climate lawsuits around the country that is currently being investigated by members of Congress.
And the case comes after years of pressure from the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI).
According to lobbying records from the City of Chicago, CCI has been lobbying the City Council and the Aldermen on filing a climate lawsuit since at least April of last year – coincidentally, right when the city’s new Mayor was elected – and has been embedded in city government for much longer.
Yearslong Effort Finds Its Man in New Mayor
Chicago’s climate lawsuit has been years in the making. When CCI launched its Leaders for Climate Accountability network in 2021, member City Alderman Matt Martin called on Chicago – or even better, Illinois – to sue oil companies:
“As an attorney, I believe it’s critical that we actively explore litigation here in Chicago as well as in Illinois that will help us finally hold accountable those fossil fuel companies that are responsible for the climate crisis — it’s not our taxpayers, after all.”
E&E News reported at the time that Martin said “he was in the early process of discussing the potential litigation with local and state officials. ‘It is something that we are actively exploring right now. And so we’re figuring out some next steps in terms of conversations, not just within the city, but also at the state level as well.’”
Years passed and no lawsuit followed. Then, in May 2023, Bryan Johnson took office as the city’s new mayor. Shortly after Mayor Johnson won the election, Alderman Martin penned an editorial in the Chicago Tribune calling again for the city to file a climate lawsuit:
“From New York City and San Francisco to Minnesota and Charleston, South Carolina, state and local governments are turning to the courts to ensure that the corporate polluters that have profited from the climate crisis don’t leave residents holding the entire bill.”
CCI may have not bee the only activist group pushing litigation behind the scenes. The Chicago chapter of the Climate Reality Project, an environmental activist organization founded by Al Gore in 2006, congratulated two of their members, including a local 350 official, for making Tuesday’s lawsuit happen:
https://t.co/cG0UGvjARI Congrats to members Jeff Green and Pam Tate for making this happen.
— The Climate Reality Project: Chicago Metro Chapter (@realitychicago) February 20, 2024
Climate Reality Project’s founder, former Vice President and millionaire investor Al Gore, famously launched the “Green 20” coalition in 2016 aimed at pressuring attorneys general to file climate suits against energy companies.
Billionaire-Funded Litigation Would Raise Costs for Consumers
Chicago Alderman Matt Martin forgot to mention that consumers still get stuck with the bill if and when a city or state files a climate lawsuit. First, if the donor-funded cases are successful, the damages paid by energy companies will trickle down to higher costs for consumers. One 2022 study estimates that “every $100 billion in potential judgements in these cases could raise gas prices by 31 cents per gallon – or an additional $326 per household per year.”
Moreover, not all of that sum would go to the city. A common thread among these lawsuits is the potential for a big payout for the plaintiffs’ lawyers who are operating on a contingency fee basis. This setup, which means they only get paid if they win the case or reach a settlement, could yield them millions of dollars.
A large portion of any damages – in one instance, over 15 percent – gets paid out to private attorneys. In the case of Chicago’s lawsuit, the terms of the city’s contract with Sher Edling aren’t public. But Chicagoans deserve to know: Is Sher Edling operating on a contingency fee basis, and how much do they stand to gain?
Lawsuit Hinges on “Nonsense” Allegations
Not all Chicagoans think this is a smart idea. In August of 2023, freelance reporter Nick Vlahos urged Chicago not to jump on the climate litigation bandwagon in a Daily Chronicle editorial:
“Climate lawsuits regarding so-called ‘public nuisance’ and ‘deception,’ filed in dozens of states and municipalities across the nation, disincentivize companies from pursuing net-zero greenhouse gas emission goals. Given this reality and a mountain of flaws with the legal claims, Chicago officials should reject any pleas to file meritless litigation against energy producers.”
Vlahos pointed out that Illinois is the fifth-largest energy-consuming state, primarily driven by a large industrial and agricultural economic base. Chicago itself is home to some of the country’s largest airports and rail networks, and is highly dependent on oil and gas to operate.
It’s “nonsense,” Vlahos argued, “to allege that Chicago officials and residents have somehow been ‘deceived’ into consuming oil and gas.”
And yet, that’s exactly the kind of nonsensical statement Chicago makes in its new lawsuit. In one instance, the lawsuit cites, as evidence of alleged deception, an oil company’s claim that its gasoline is “better for the environment” than alternatives. The suggestion is, then, that Chicago consumers, essential workers, government officials, and municipal employees would have made different choices had the climate impacts of their choice been more evident.
This kind of claim disregards the reality of living in a modern economy, where consumer wellbeing, government operations, and industrial productivity all rely on affordable and reliable oil and gas – whether progressive elected officials like it or not.
Bottom Line: If the past is any guide, Chicago’s climate lawsuit is set up for failure. Chicago officials and taxpayers should know that New York’s climate lawsuit – the first of its kind and still the only one that has yet been heard on the merits – was soundly dismissed with prejudice by the New York Supreme Court. No amount of hands-on assistance from billionaire donors and environmental activists could save New York’s suit from what it was: a “hyperbolic” and politically-motivated campaign against lawful energy production.
Explosive new documents have exposed details of the Rockefellers’ coordinated effort to convince the New York Attorney General’s office (NYAG) to launch an investigation into ExxonMobil in 2015. As Fox News reports:
“Left-wing nonprofits quietly coordinated a first-of-its-kind investigation into Big Oil led by the New York State Attorney General (NYAG) years ago, sparking dozens of current climate lawsuits, according to newly disclosed internal communications.”
The emails, obtained by Government Accountability & Oversight after years of litigation, are a clear example of the politicization and weaponization of law enforcement by environmental activists to take down the American energy industry. The Rockefeller-funded activists have continued their campaign into the present day, targeting oil and gas companies through advocacy supporting lawsuits, divestment, export bans, appliance bans, and much, much more.
Correspondence logs first released in 2016 revealed that NYAG Eric Schneiderman’s aides and the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) emailed in early 2015 regarding “activities of specific companies regarding climate change.” The NYAG stonewalled the release of the emails themselves for nearly a decade, citing a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) “law enforcement” exemption – until now.
EID has discussed at length how the Rockefellers are the masterminds and top financiers behind the climate litigation campaign, but these new emails provide an in-depth look at the incredible level of influence the Rockefellers’ deployed to launch the very first climate lawsuit.
Here’s what you need to know:
The NYAG’s lawsuit was born out of a strategy devised at a 2012 conference in La Jolla, California, where anti-oil and natural gas activists developed a playbook to replicate the success of the litigation against the tobacco industry. Part of that included finding a “sympathetic state attorney general” to subpoena documents. And they found their man in New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
In February 2015, RFF president Lee Wasserman set off to aggressively pursue the NYAG to investigate ExxonMobil. Looping in friends and allies, the activists presented the NYAG with everything needed to try and take down the company, including:
After the meeting, Wasserman sent a memo to Schneiderman’s Chief of Staff explaining why the NYAG “should investigate” energy companies under the Martin Act, the state’s most powerful law that grants unilateral power to issue subpoenas to investigate suspected fraud.
(From Fox News)
Career attorneys from the NYAG’s office were suspicious from the start about the investigation. After reviewing Wasserman’s memo regarding use of the Martin Act with AG staff, Schneiderman’s Chief of Staff, Micah Lasher, indicated some attorneys had “legitimate skepticism” on the approach laid out in the memo:
“After our call I gathered our team and pressed them a bit on their views. I think there’s a mix of legitimate skepticism and insufficient exploration. I asked everyone to go back to the drawing board first thing Monday so we can have a more fully informed call at the end of the week.
Please know that I want to find a way on this as much as you do. What you may have heard from me today was a bit of vexed struggle as I balance needing all the help from thought partners as we can get with protecting the prerogatives of our office and the judgement of our attorneys.” (emphasis added)
A month later, Wasserman sent Lasher a second memo that explicitly addressed various concerns raised by NYAG attorneys, adjusted the scope of the investigation, and attempted to squash concerns about unwanted public scrutiny by keeping the investigation in the dark, until desired:
“Your staff is concerned that the fossil fuel companies might succeed in motions to quash subpoenas aimed at their spreading misinformation about climate change. This fear is misplaced.”
“Your office can reduce the chance of motions to quash ever being filed by sending out initial discovery requests without alerting the press. Martin Act investigations can be completely confidential, so if a case fails to materialize the inquiry can be abandoned without publicity.”
It’s worth reiterating that those career attorneys were ultimately proved right, as the New York case was resoundingly defeated and dismissed as “hyperbolic” – but not after millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted and abused.
What better way to launch an investigation that was hand-delivered to you? With a timely news hook! Lucky for the NYAG office, the Rockefellers also provided this on a silver platter.
At the famous “AGs United for Clean Power” press conference, Al Gore and AG Schneiderman credit the 2015 Inside Climate News and Los Angeles Times “Exxon Knew” reporting for kicking off state investigations. But the new emails show that the NYAG was likely aware of the “Exxon Knew” reporting before two Rockefeller-funded “independent” reporting series on the matter kicked off – and long before their eventual publication in September and October 2015.
Before the February 2015 meeting where activists presented a “trove” of documents to NYAG staff, NYAG staff exchanged emails stating the upcoming meeting would cover the “big oil arctic exploration issue,” likely referring to the ExxonMobil arctic sea ice research program – a preview of the “bombshell” coverage that followed months later.
Fast-forward to September 2015: Inside Climate News published the first article in its “Exxon Knew” series, which was paid for by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) via six-figure grants to Inside climate News and its parent organization, Lost Light Projects.
Then, in October 2015, the Los Angeles Times wrote an expose on the arctic research program in the first of a series of articles published as part of a Columbia School of Journalism / Los Angeles Times joint effort. RFF granted the Columbia School of Journalism at least $200,000 in 2015 for the project and likely also funded the effort before 2015, but the organization’s historical tax records are incomplete.
As these articles were published, RFF’s Lee Wasserman maintained a steady cadence of correspondence with NYAG staff, flagging “Exxon Knew” reporting and ensuring that the ecosystem of donor-funded media amplified Schneiderman’s investigation within its echo chamber.
Months after issuing a subpoena to ExxonMobil in late 2015, a spokesperson for NYAG defended the office’s consultation with outside parties on the investigation in a statement to The New York Times:
“…speaking with outside experts is a routine part of the investigative process, and we make decisions based on the merits, period.”
Similarly, in a statement to Fox, Wasserman said:
“We have been transparent in noting communications with public officials…”
But despite the “routine” nature of the process and insistence on transparency, the NYAG fought tooth and nail for six years to keep its communications with billionaire funders and activists out of the public domain, even defying a congressional subpoena from House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in the process.
We now see why NYAG was dead-set on keeping the records sealed – and it begs the question, is this level of undue influence happening in other states and municipalities?
We already know that activist groups like the Center for Climate Integrity and the Rockefellers are working to push climate litigation both from the outside, using the press, and from within, pressuring elected officials like in cases such as Minnesota. But the level of activist influence and access welcomed by New York should set off alarm bells across the country, wherever climate lawsuits arise.
As Chris Horner, attorney representing Government Oversight & Accountability told Fox:
“[These documents put] the lie to claims that these suits are a series of unrelated, purely local actions: Every single ‘climate’ lawsuit has the DNA of this ‘Patient Zero’ case, weaponizing law enforcement against the ‘climate’ industry’s political opponents.” (emphasis added)
The question of the “DNA” should be immediately asked regarding California’s lawsuit and all other cases.
Bottom Line: The long-withheld NYAG emails reveal a concerted effort by left-wing environmental activists to weaponize state attorney general offices to take down American energy companies. Environmental activists did everything in their power – from presenting background materials, to crafting the case, to funding the journalists – while state elected officials bought the farce hook, line, and sinker. New York taxpayers and Americans everywhere should be wary of the sham lawfare that is the national climate litigation campaign.
Billionaire “philanthropists” like the Rockefellers often claim to care about noble causes like the security of the United States’ European allies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it turns out that a campaign targeting liquified natural gas (LNG) exports–which will cause harm to both of those causes–takes priority.
A recent Wall Street Journal article details how the Rockefellers, Michael Bloomberg, and other wealthy donors funneled millions to environmental groups protesting the buildout of new LNG facilities expected to export energy to Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world.
While this revelation surprised some—including respected energy commentators—there is little shock and awe to be had when you consider that these anti-fossil fuel billionaires have been behind campaigns such as Keystone XL opposition, fossil fuel divestment, natural gas stove bans, and climate litigation. Now they’re taking credit for President Biden’s dangerous pause on LNG export terminals? Checks out!
The WSJ story comes on the heels of the Biden administration’s recent decision to halt permits for new LNG terminals until their climate impacts can be studied further. For months prior to the decision, activists ramped up pressure on the president to make such a move, even garnering enthusiasm for the movement on TikTok.
Ultimately, the activists, led by familiar proponents of climate litigation such as Bill McKibben, convinced the White House to freeze LNG exports. A senior Biden administration official who described the activists’ efforts as “intense” admitted to the Wall Street Journal that the pressure campaign “got our attention.” Sarah Brennan, an associate director at the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF), also attributed the pause to activist efforts:
“The pause…is the result of a sustained four-year push that built upon years of opposition to gas exports by community groups and lawyers. … The White House recognized the power [of] this campaign.”
But as is similar to other Rockefeller campaigns, the decision satisfies climate activists but fails in the real world. President Biden’s decision was met with fierce blowback from members of his own party, including Senators John Fetterman (D-PA), Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), and Chris Coons (D-DE); Congresswoman Caraveo (D-CO); and numerous other Democrats.
Rockefeller Plan To Ban LNG Started Years Ago
The plot to halt natural gas exports was years in the making. Six years ago, Larry Shapiro, the Associate Director for Program Development at Rockefeller Family Fund, “spearheaded” the Funder Collaborative on Oil and Gas, with support from donors including Bloomberg Philanthropies:
“In 2018, the Rockefeller Family Fund … launched an initiative called the Funder Collaborative on Oil and Gas to call attention to the U.S.’s status as an oil-and-gas juggernaut and encourage green funders to do more.
“Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City and founder of his eponymous company, has put money into green causes for years, and his Bloomberg Philanthropies has contributed to the initiative.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, a year later, the Collaborative “circulated a memo … to nongovernmental organizations to assess interest in a broad campaign to take on the LNG industry.” After “dispatching scouts to the Gulf Coast,” the donors selected frontline groups to receive immense donations and lead a public campaign against the industry. With their newfound resources, the groups led lobbying, public protest, and social media efforts that ultimately led the president to give into their demands.
In the fall of 2023, the activist movement began to garner significant momentum. After a series of public protests, CP2, a planned LNG facility in Louisiana, became “a hashtag on TikTok as Gen Z climate activists lambasted the project.” Bill McKibben admittedly helped “rally climate groups” and had multiple conversations with Biden officials regarding natural gas exports.
Progressive Democratic Senators such as Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) also engaged with the Rockefeller-backed organization to then “personally” lobby John Podesta, a senior climate advisor to President Biden, on the issue.
Same Ol’ Playbook
Both the actors and the strategy behind the anti-LNG campaign are reminiscent of the Rockefellers’ decade-long effort to reshape the public’s view on fossil fuels, with an ultimate goal of banning American energy production.
Through litigation, divestment campaigns, a war on natural gas stoves, and incitement of public protests, the Rockefellers have attacked the industry from every angle. In fact, the Rockefellers use similar tactics in each of their campaigns such as lobbying elected officials, paying for “scientific” studies, garnering media attention through funded news desks, and funding activist demonstrations.
For example, over the last two years the Rockefellers funded a series of biased, flawed studies intended to support climate litigation efforts, natural gas stove bans, and Biden’s LNG pause. The oil baron-descendants also fund groups that specialize in “grassroots” activism such as The Equation Campaign and 350.org to block energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone XL pipeline. The Rockefellers also fund nonprofits that support, and lobby for, lawsuits that target governments, project developers, and energy companies – all with the goal of stopping fossil fuel production.
Bottom line: These separate but related efforts from the Rockefellers and their deep pocketed friends underscore the fact that the goal of the litigation campaign isn’t corporate accountability or solving climate change, but destroying the energy industry writ large through multi-faceted campaigns funded and echoed by the same players using the same playbook.
Questions continue to swirl around California’s climate lawsuit, launched by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta in September. The latest, however, centers around the involvement of Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a well-known national “Keep It In the Ground” group tied to a variety of anti-energy billionaires whose fingerprints are seemingly all over the case.
New emails obtained by Government Accountability & Oversight suggest that CBD’s potential involvement in the state’s climate lawsuit is interesting given their fraught recent history with the Newsom administration, and suggests that the litigious activist group is carving out a new lane in the national climate litigation campaign.
CBD has filed lawsuits across the country to stop traditional energy production and even renewable energy projects, including suits to block projects in California dating back years. The CBD was a fierce critic of former CA Gov. Jerry Brown, especially over the former California Governor’s refusal to back a statewide fracking ban.
More recently the organization has tangled with Newsom over permitting reform, and just last May sued Newsom regulators over oil and gas permits issued by the state. A press release issued by CBD at the time of their lawsuit excoriated the Newsom administration over the permits, arguing they perpetuated “environmentally racist policies.” Just five months later the CBD struck a far friendlier tone towards Newsom after the state filed its climate lawsuit, praising the Governor and AG Bonta for providing the “climate leadership the world so desperately needs.”
CBD’s apparent shift is all the more noteworthy given the CA DOJ’s resistance to disclosing correspondence involving the group and the state’s landmark climate suit. In response to GAO’s recent open records request, the California DOJ refused to turn over correspondence with CBD email domains exchanged in the months leading up to and after the state’s lawsuit, claiming they are “are exempt from disclosure because they are protected under the work product doctrine.”
The “work product” exemption is curious, as GAO reported, because it is often the posture states and municipalities assume to withhold case preparation correspondence with another well known group, the Center for Climate Integrity. The Rockefeller-funded CCI has a well-established track record providing pre-lawsuit support and media air cover for municipal and state plaintiffs in climate litigation.
The correspondence that was disclosed by the CA DOJ shows that CBD – in collaboration with the Center for Climate Integrity and Corporate Accountability – coordinated with the California Department of Justice ahead of an October 18th briefing on the state’s lawsuit. Despite the fact that the event was branded as a “public briefing,” emails from the California DOJ show the guest list appears to have been limited to a few hand-selected politicians and interest groups.
In December, CBD also hosted a COP28 side event that featured CA AG Rob Bonta speaking about the state’s lawsuit. And while in Dubai, Bonta also appears to have provided a private briefing on the lawsuit to CCI.
Given CBD’s association with activists and donors supporting climate litigation, its potential involvement in the California suit is not entirely surprising.
In its early years, the organization received significant financial backing by controversial Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, who has also backed entities pushing climate lawsuits. And Kassie Siegel, who leads CBD’s Climate Law Institute, sits on the advisory board for UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute, which has lent out its own students and staff to provide direct support for climate nuisance lawsuits.
CA AG Bonta may have his own political motivations for moving this climate suit forward given his stated interest in running for Governor in 2026. In 2022 Bonta’s AG run was endorsed by the Center Action Fund, the political arm of CBD and billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer. Bonta’s close association with Steyer dating back to Bonta’s days in the CA Assembly creates the appearance the California lawsuit could be a political kickback to a deep-pocketed donor just in time for Bonta’s upcoming gubernatorial run. Bonta also endorsed Steyer’s short-lived presidential campaign in 2020, a decision that angered progressive activists in Bonta’s East Bay legislative district. While Steyer has worked to distance himself from climate lawsuits, it has long been speculated that Steyer backed California municipal climate suits that laid the groundwork for the Bonta’s case.
While Bonta’s political motivations are evident, the local politics of this lawsuit are not nearly as helpful for the CA AG. Whether at COP28 or Climate Week in New York City, both Bonta and Newsom appear keen to confine discussion of this lawsuit to audiences that consist of activist groups like CCI and CBD. Sky-high energy costs remain a top concern for the state’s residents, while state data shows state taxes and regulations add an additional $1.12 to each gallon of gas, and have helped drive up residential electric rates 54 percent since 2018.
BOTTOM LINE: CBD’s apparent involvement in the Golden State’s case adds intrigue, considering multiple California attorneys general – including now-Vice President Kamala Harris – passed on filing the lawsuit for years. While cooperating with groups like CBD may advance the short term political interests of officials like Bonta, California residents already pinched by high energy costs will pay the price for this frivolous suit. That’s exactly why this case deserves greater scrutiny from the press.