We are heading into the twelfth year of the national litigation campaign against America’s energy industry – but you wouldn’t know it from looking at it. Despite this decade of assaults from activists, the lawsuits have failed to deliver a penny of the millions of dollars in damages government officials claim to be seeking, and the cases’ claims remain meritless.
2023 was just another disappointing year for the billionaire funders and activists propping up the litigation ecosystem. At the end of the day, the trial lawyers supporting these cases are the only ones who look to be coming out on top. While California was the activists’ “big get,” its filing pales in the broader context of decade-long litigation activity in the Golden State. Even Governor Gavin Newsom said he was “ignorant” and “naive” on the issue – an indicator of how little this litigation effort is permeating into the mainstream beyond its own echo chambers. Meanwhile, the Rockefellers themselves are still invested in the same “Big Oil” they claim to be fighting – shrouding a big stamp of hypocrisy over the entire campaign.
And as we enter into an election year, the litigation campaign will serve as another lens for the contentious blue issue highlighted by COP28: villainization vs. collaboration with an industry that has an integral role in promoting sustainability and reducing emissions.
Without further ado, here are the 2023 highlights:
Climate Litigation Playbook Exposed – and Rejected – in the States
Emails obtained through public records requests by Energy Policy Advocates shed light on the deep coordination between the activist group Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) and municipal officials that file litigation against American energy companies. CCI advertises themselves to officials they’re recruiting as the “staff they wish they has on climate accountability” and an “extra set of hands,” raising questions as to how taxpayer money is being used to follow activist agendas.
CCI’s efforts to recruit new plaintiffs continued – and failed – this year. In March, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted against a CCI-promoted resolution that would have encouraged state leaders to sue American energy companies over climate change damages.
Then, it seems their attention turned to the oil and gas producing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio. In both states, CCI followed its usual playbook: releasing a study into the purported costs of climate change in Pennsylvania and Ohio, amplifying that study with a media blitz and comments from elected officials, and offering its favored solution of suing American energy companies.
However, the Pennsylvania business community was quick to see through the pitch. David Taylor, head of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, pointed out the lawsuits’ costly impacts while energy expert David Blackmon highlighted the litigation’s hypocrisy. Curt Schroder of the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform warned against “weaponi[zing] our judicial system and encouraged the state to “reject the radical activists” pushing this litigation.
Despite CCI’s best efforts, E&E News recently reported on their stagnant progress. While calling the possibility of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania or Ohio the “cherry on top” – as if these lawsuits are part of a trophy case – CCI President Richard Wiles admitted that such a suit in Ohio is “unlikely” and in Pennsylvania “no lawsuits have been proposed.”
New Faces and Cases
Through funding key players like CCI and coordinating with plaintiffs, it’s well-established that wealthy donors like the Rockefellers are the ones pulling the strings in the climate litigation campaign. So, when the leaders of the Rockefeller nonprofit network telegraph what’s coming next, it’s smart to take them at their word.
This spring, Rockefeller Family Fund director Lee Wasserman re-entered the climate litigation media-sphere to speak about things to come: namely the entrance of new private law firms to support new lawsuits. Just weeks later, Multnomah County, OR filed suit, enlisting three newcomer law firms to serve as outside counsel. Then, in November, California retained plaintiffs’ firm Leiff Cabraser – another new face on the block – to serve as counsel on behalf of the state in its lawsuit.
The Golden State’s lawsuit, filed in September after a decade of deliberation is based on the same debunked and “hyperbolic” theory that completely fell apart for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Many questions remain about California’s lawsuit, however one can’t ignore the political context. Governor Gavin Newsom – who is long presumed to have presidential ambitions – announced the suit with a New York Times exclusive during Climate Week NYC. He then declared California to be the energy industry’s new “foe” during a Red State vs. Blue State Debate on Fox News. Similarly, AG Rob Bonta took every opportunity at COP28 in Dubai to hobnob with environmental activists and advertise the lawsuit to a receptive audience.
A suit like this is particularly rich coming from a state that is well known to have backwards energy policies and record-setting high gas prices.
All Headlines, No Substance: Nothing New in Any of the Cases
2023 proved that as much as activists try to reengineer old claims and promise watershed moments, climate litigation continues to rely on attribution science and rehashed arguments.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded a years-long debate of whether these lawsuits belong in state or federal court when it denied review of the energy companies’ appeals, allowing the cases to proceed in state court. Despite the victorious cries from litigation proponents, the procedural development had nothing to do with the merits of the claims brought forth – still, to date, every case that has been heard on its merits has been dismissed.
Likewise, a highly publicized study marketed as “Exxon Knew 2.0” was really a poor excuse for a book report from well-known activists Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran. And Multnomah County’s experimental event-driven lawsuit has been widely panned from all sides of the aisle, with media outlets bashing it as “fantastical” and reliant on “scientific unknowns.”
Congress Steps Up Scrutiny of Climate Litigation Industry
Members of Congress got a front-row seat to inner workings of the climate litigation industry when President Biden nominated former UCLA academic and Sher Edling consultant Ann Carlson to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As new information came to light about Carlson’s role in the climate litigation mill, her nomination ultimately spiraled into an embarrassing withdrawal by the White House, a Congressional investigation into the financing of climate lawsuits, and her ultimate resignation from the agency.
To recap, Carlson’s nomination was quickly overshadowed by growing concerns over her lack of qualifications as a traffic safety expert and well-documented background as a climate activist. Public records obtained by Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO) clearly showed that both Carlson and the Biden administration wanted to use the niche traffic safety position to hijack the department and turn it into a climate-centric agency focused on emissions. This approach tracked with Carlson’s activist record at UCLA, where she coordinated the financing of climate nuisance lawsuits by using her proximity to wealthy donors to funnel resources to Sher Edling.
Carlson’s involvement and advisory role with Sher Edling – and the larger climate litigation money trail – serves as the ultimate example of shady third-party litigation financing, so much so that Senate Commerce Committee Ranking member Ted Cruz (R-TX) and House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) opened a probe into who funds and supports the firm.
Bottom Line: The climate litigation mill keeps churning – but without any success or meaningful effect. This year multiple states declined CCI’s pitch and, in one instance, a years-long climate lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. Meanwhile, on the federal level, Congress has turned its investigative eyes to the litigation campaign’s unscrupulous funding sources.
The coordination among CCI, academics, and wealthy donors confirms what was already evident: climate litigation is anything but an organic, grassroots effort. Instead, the record shows that it’s a concerted national campaign boosted by its own echo chamber of wealthy donors, environmental activists, and trial lawyers that seek to eliminate the U.S. oil and natural gas industry.
