A new activist campaign has popped up seeking to promote climate litigation against major energy producers, but its leaders aren’t disclosing their donors and they’re endorsing a legal strategy that’s already a proven failure.

Called the “Evergreen Action Plan,” it’s been authored by formers advisers to Washington Governor Jay Inslee who repurposed the climate change policies from Inslee’s short-lived presidential campaign with the purpose of creating “a roadmap for national mobilization; a governing document for our nation’s lawmakers.” They make it clear it’s an “open source” plan to be used by a Democratic president and Congress.

The plan is a recycling of unrealistic energy and environmental policies that have already been rejected by voters, law enforcement, and courts around the country, but does link to the law firm that’s been at the center of the climate litigation campaign.

Here’s what you need to know about the plan and its leaders:

Doesn’t Disclose Funders

While the plan’s authors talk a big game about holding energy companies accountable, they aren’t living up to that same standard themselves. HuffPost reported on the lack of transparency:

“Evergreen declined to name its exact funders, but a spokesman said it included ‘multiple environmental foundations.’”

If this really is just an “action plan for federal lawmakers,” then why the secrecy? If environmental foundations promote worthy causes, then why can’t their donors be made public?

But as we’ve learned, environmental activists, and their allies in the media and academia, often use a complex web of coordination and fundraising.

Could the “Evergreen Action Plan” be yet another piece of the coordinated legal and PR campaign to “bring down” American energy companies?

Makes Failed Climate Litigation a Top Priority

In a section titled, “Holding Polluters Accountable,” the plan calls for the next president to support litigation against fossil fuel companies:

“The next President must also strengthen enforcement of existing laws governing climate and fossil fuel pollution and punish those who break laws and pollute communities. This includes holding fossil fuel companies accountable for climate and public health damages — and rejecting any proposal to limit fossil fuel companies’ legal liabilities for the climate damages that their pollution has caused, or for their role in misleading investors and the public about the dangers of climate change.” (emphasis added)

But those lawsuits have been complete failures. Federal judges tossed out suits from San Francisco and Oakland and New York City that sought to force large payments to those cities from major oil and gas companies. And a case brought by the New York attorney general alleging accounting fraud against ExxonMobil was also soundly rejected.

The plan also appears inspired by the failed “Exxon Knew” campaign, as it compares climate litigation to the lawsuits against the tobacco companies in the 1990s and calls for the president to press their own U.S. Department of Justice into action:

“Oil companies’ own experts warned them decades ago that these climate dangers could be ‘severe’ or even ‘catastrophic.’ … Much like lawsuits against tobacco companies in the 1990s, these suits seek to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the accelerating harms their corporate decisions have caused and are causing in American communities. And, similar to the 1990s, the next Department of Justice should be prepared to support them.”

This repeats a campaign theme of Bernie Sanders. Yet that climate liability campaign was manufactured by wealthy activists who manipulated science and journalism to promote their narrative and attack energy companies, and the tobacco comparison has been shown to be deeply flawed.

Department of Justice Has Shown Zero Interest in This Campaign

For much of the 2010s, activists worked with elected leaders, including state attorneys general, to pursue climate litigation against energy companies. They even attempted to get the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to take up their cause.

Freedom of information requests have shown the depth of the collusion, which revealed that that the odds of getting the DOJ to pursue these types of cases were “slim to none.”

Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives asked former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (who served under President Obama) to launch an investigation into ExxonMobil. That request went nowhere.

Not only have cases brought by states and municipalities failed, the federal government has also declined to get involved, but the authors of this “Evergreen” plan still seem to think it’s a winning strategy.

Cites Sher Edling Law Firm

The “Holding Polluters Accountable” section mentioned above also redirects to the website of law firm Sher Edling, which has taken a leading role in the climate litigation campaign.

“Oil companies’ own experts warned them decades ago that these climate dangers could be ‘severe’ or even ‘catastrophic.’”

That hyperlink leads to public relations-style document attacking energy companies from Sher Edling. Vic Sher, a partner at the firm, has been a central figure in suing energy companies, a tactic the Evergreen Action Plan is endorsing.

Sher has also touted the importance of public relations efforts that support climate lawsuits:

“If you look at the media rollout for the cases that we’ve filed so far, it’s been amazing, it’s been terrific. Stories in The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, scholarly pieces commenting on the strength of this case compared to the past cases. And I will tell you that while we didn’t write any of those stories it’s not just by happenstance, and a lot of work goes into it by very smart people.” (emphasis added)

A biography of Sher provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts notes that “Sher came to the conclusion that the environmental movement desperately needed a capacity for integrating sophisticated litigation with political and communication strategies.” This tactic has been endorsed by other activist lawyers involved in the climate cases, including one that said positive press coverage “might be more important even than winning the case.”

The authors of this plan, former advisers to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, could have linked to any of the thousands of news stories that have covered climate lawsuits. Instead, they chose to cite a law firm that’s been at the center of the entire campaign and which employs robust PR tactics to advance their agenda.

Are the authors working with Sher Edling to promote these cases? Does this new operation created to promote climate litigation also receive large sums from the Resources Legacy Fund, which has given nearly half a million dollars to Sher Edling? We don’t know as “Evergreen” group haven’t disclosed their donors.

The Plan is Unrealistic and Has Already Been Rejected by Voters

Beyond litigation, the plan is filled with unrealistic items including a rapid transition to a 100% clean electricity standard, banning natural gas in buildings, and banning affordable, gasoline-powered cars by 2030. The authors of the plan make it clear their ideas came straight from their former boss, stating, “It synthesizes the original Inslee campaign Climate Mission Agenda into twelve planks.”

The history of Inslee, and even the specific staffers involved in creating this group, involves creative use of massive private funding to promote this agenda. Yet Inslee’s presidential campaign, which made climate change the top priority, flamed out just a few months after launching. Inslee never gained traction in the polls despite a Democratic primary electorate that was motivated by environmental and energy issues.

Additionally, Inslee’s record on these issues as governor hasn’t been successful.

If Inslee sunk fast in a national primary and failed in one of the bluest states in the nation and with a Democratic state legislature, why would the plan’s authors think these ideas are worthy of a resurrection in a general election?