The ecosystem of funders, activists, academics, and attorneys has operated in the shadows for too long. This week, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing on anti-energy lawfare, shining a light on the deep pockets and anti-energy agendas behind climate lawsuits.
In comments during the hearing, Subcommittee chair Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) summed up the challenge:
“What we’re seeing is not the rule of law, it’s lawfare. These lawsuits aren’t meant to succeed on the merits, they’re designed to exhaust, to intimidate, and to destroy America’s energy sector. Death by a thousand cuts.”
Here’s what you need to know about Wednesday’s hearing:
Tired tobacco analogy falls flat
Democrats on the subcommittee took the opportunity to rehash a tired comparison between the multi-state tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s and the ongoing climate lawfare campaign today. But upon the smallest bit of scrutiny, activists’ “big tobacco” analogy falls apart.
This comparison is entirely rhetorical, not factual. Oil and natural gas offer clear societal and economic benefits, unlike tobacco.
Energy analyst Robert Rapier explained this obvious difference in Forbes:
“If Big Tobacco disappeared from the planet, there would be no meaningful or lasting negative impact on society. […]
“The entire world derives enormous economic benefits from consuming oil every day. If that consumption suddenly ceased, the global economy would immediately grind to a halt.”
Fossil fuels raise standards of living around the world, particularly in developing countries seeking affordable energy to power economic growth – and climate lawsuits are explicitly designed to “bankrupt” the companies that make economic development possible.
Not your average consumer protection claims
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who testified at Wednesday’s hearing, explained how climate lawsuits are an abuse of public nuisance and consumer protection laws.
As AG Kobach pointed out, the biggest challenge is the issue of causality. Why would a city or state target oil and natural gas companies for producing fossil fuels, when actual emissions are generated by factories, vehicles, and even consumers?
The answer is obvious: because climate lawsuits are inherently political lawsuits, devised by radical climate activists and wealthy donors in backroom meetings. The goal of these lawsuits is first and foremost to delegitimize oil and natural gas companies – the legal merits are secondary.
State judges across the country are beginning to see through climate plaintiffs’ charade. Last year, a state judge in Baltimore dismissed the city’s climate lawsuit, rightfully pointing out that it is an improper “back door” attempt to enact preferred climate policies. Additional cases brought by New Jersey, Annapolis and Anne Arundel Counties, and New York City were dismissed in recent months.
But the hearing made it clear that if activists lose this round in the courts, they will turn to other avenues to achieve their goal of eliminating the fossil fuel industry. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Democrats’ choice of witness, David Arkush of Public Citizen, who has devised a fringe “climate homicide” theory to criminally charge oil companies for the effects of climate change.
A well-funded (and foreign-funded) plaintiff support network
From the beginning, plaintiffs in climate lawsuits have been supported by an ecosystem of well-funded NGOs that churn out favorable news stories, promote biased research, and even recruit new filers.
This week’s hearing placed particular focus on the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). Characterized by Sen. Cruz as “judicial capture,” CJP trains judges on how to interpret plaintiff-friendly climate science like “source attribution” in the courtroom.
CJP is funded by many of the same donors that also fund Sher Edling LLP, the lead plaintiffs’ firm supporting climate lawsuits nationwide. The law firm’s advisors have also advised CJP on developing its curriculum. And at least one judge presiding over a climate case in Hawaii has participated in, and even presented at, CJP events, creating a clear conflict of interest.
Additional activist groups supporting plaintiffs in climate cases are funded by foreign actors.
Testifying before the subcommittee, Capital Research Center President Scott Walter detailed how British billionaire Christopher Hohn funds the activities of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), an activist organization that lobbies state and municipal officials to file climate lawsuits.
Another shady foreign billionaire, Swiss citizen Hansjörg Wyss, funnels hundreds of millions through dark-money pass-throughs to fund radical climate groups pushing climate lawsuits.
Bottom Line: Climate lawsuits present a risk to both energy security and the rule of law. Sen. Cruz and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee are doing important work by shining a light on the foreign interests, wealthy donors, and radical agendas driving the climate lawfare campaign.
