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.