As the Supreme Court weighs an appeal in Boulder’s climate case, a key attorney behind the lawsuit made a shocking admission about the true aims of the lawsuit.

David Bookbinder, who served for years as part of the legal team representing the Colorado municipalities – and who still remains “privy to the communications and deliberations of the legal team” today – acknowledged during a recent Federalist Society panel that these climate cases aren’t really about “accountability” at all:

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax. You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products. In some sense, it is the most efficient way. The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. …  [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.” 

The timing of Bookbinder’s comments is striking. His admission comes as the DOJ, 26 states, and now over 100 members of Congress urged the Supreme Court this week to review Boulder’s case, warning that it “upends the constitutional balance” and could “bankrupt the U.S. energy sector” by allowing local courts to dictate national energy policy. 

It also fits a larger pattern of candor from Boulder officials themselves. In 2021, a senior city official admitted the lawsuit was meant to drive “fundamental systems-level change,” while another attorney involved with the case told the press in 2020 that one aim was to “raise the price of the products” created by energy companies so they become too expensive to use. 

Bookbinder Says Boulder Lawsuit Is a Backdoor Carbon Tax 

Bookbinder explained that local officials in places like Boulder see the litigation as a backdoor carbon tax that municipalities like Boulder will use to raise revenue, a while pushing American energy companies into bankruptcy. As a reminder for Boulder and Bookbinder, as of 2023, a PwC study found the energy sector in Colorado supports over 300,000 jobs with $48 billion impact to the state’s economy.    

Bookbinder went further, adding that lawsuits like Boulder’s might be the “most efficient way” to implement a carbon tax, a stunning admission that fundamentally contradicts what climate plaintiffs typically plead in court. He then acknowledged what the rest of the campaign only hints at – these costs would inevitably be passed along to consumers, raising fuel prices for everyone else. 

This admission aligns neatly with what activists first outlined at the now-infamous 2012 La Jolla strategy session, where lawyers, funders, and academics kickstarted the effort to use courts to force climate policy change. Over a decade later, it seems nothing has changed for the Rockefeller-backed activists pushing these cases.  

Political Fallout Mounts 

Bookbinder’s admission comes as the Supreme Court faces increasing pressure to intervene in the Boulder case. The amicus brief filed this week by over 100 members of Congress, including four from Colorado, joins a growing coalition warning that these local lawsuits threaten to federalize climate policy through the backdoor. 

The brief argues that disputes over national energy policy belong in Congress, not in dozens of local courthouses crafting nationwide climate policy. Further, it maintains local governments are trying to “usurp federal authority” by improperly using state law to dictate national energy policy. The amicus brief cites more than a century of Supreme Court precedent holding that disputes over interstate or international pollution must be governed by federal law, and that the true aim of these cases is to raise prices for consumers.   

The irony, of course, is that Boulder’s own attorney just confirmed the plaintiffs’ desired outcome – higher prices for consumers – the very concern those lawmakers and state officials are now raising before the Court. 

BOTTOM LINE: It’s official. Bookbinder’s unguarded remarks lay bare what climate lawfare is really about: higher energy costs for consumers, and bankrupting American energy producers. The Supreme Court now has an opportunity weigh in on Boulder’s climate suit and decide if climate policy belongs in the courtroom, or before the peoples’ elected representatives in Congress.