Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Politics

Climate lawfare is running into a powerful force liberals didn’t expect

by February 10, 2025
February 10, 2025
Climate lawfare is running into a powerful force liberals didn’t expect
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Judges around the country are making quick work of climate lawfare, a welcome development following the U.S. Supreme Court declining to confront the issue earlier this year.  

In recent months, three judges in Maryland and New York have dismissed climate-change lawsuits from public litigants who accuse energy companies of harming communities through emissions and concealing those harms from the public. Their decisions suggest an emerging consensus that federal law does not permit these kinds of claims, which fail on their own terms in all events.  

More than two dozen cities and states have filed nearly identical climate-change lawsuits, creating significant risk for energy companies and consumers who enjoy the quality of life cheap and abundant power provides. 

The plaintiffs pleaded state law claims accusing the defendants of creating a public nuisance and deceiving the public. The energy companies have raised a variety of defenses. Their principal defense is that the climate claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act, which assigns emissions regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency, with limited carve-outs for states that do not apply in the instant cases.  

Taken together, the recent decisions clarify the fundamental political goals of climate litigants. In dismissing the city of Baltimore’s climate lawsuit, Judge Videtta Brown explained that a successful state law climate claim ‘would operate as a de facto regulation on greenhouse gas emissions,’ echoing the like conclusions of the Second and Ninth U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.  

The reason for that is obvious. In these cases, the energy providers face liability unbound. The prospective damages are so high that the defendants would fundamentally alter their business practices. That is the policy outcome the plaintiffs intend, which makes the preemption issue straightforward.  

Indeed, U.S. District Judge William Alsup speculated that climate lawfare threatens the continued viability of fossil fuel production altogether. When dismissing Oakland’s climate change lawsuit in 2021, Alsup wrote that the damages sought ‘would make the continuation of defendants’ fossil fuel production ‘not feasible.’’ 

Public reporting about the origins of the climate nuisance, fraud and misrepresentation cases fills out the picture. News accounts establish that a skillful network of academics, lawyers, celebrities and leftwing foundations are at work behind the scenes, at once incubating new legal theories and lining up financing. These facts aren’t necessarily germane for a court, but reasonable onlookers should not be obtuse about what’s going on here.  

Apart from the preemption issues, a Jan. 14 decision in New York clarifies that climate deception suits don’t meet the requirements of a misrepresentation tort. As above, the reason is obvious.  

‘The connection between fossil fuels and climate change is public information,’ Judge Anar Rathod Patel wrote in dismissing the second of New York City’s climate change lawsuits. Courts have determined that ‘a reasonable consumer cannot have been misled’ when the plaintiff does not identify salient facts that the defendant alone possessed.  

The climate misrepresentation claims rest on a contradiction. The plaintiffs maintain that the public is broadly aware of climate change, and that ‘climate anxiety’ shapes economic and political choices. But those same consumers have supposedly been deceived by the energy companies and kept in the dark about the connection between fossil fuels and a changing climate. As Patel wrote, the plaintiffs ‘cannot have it both ways.’  

Rebranding extreme social engineering as environmental or consumer protection is an old liberal trick. Ironically, the pioneer of this tactic, Ralph Nader, contributed to the current climate policy problem with his successful ‘pro-consumer, pro-safety’ crusade against nuclear power in the 1970s.   

I am not sure that the Supreme Court is clear of climate lawfare. While most courts confronting the late wave of climate lawsuits have dismissed them, a few have allowed them to proceed to discovery and trial. The existing split in authorities thus seems like to grow. And the plaintiffs need only prevail in a handful of cases to extract the changes they seek. But it is surely positive for consumers and for the rule of law that the prevailing trend is against the plaintiffs. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Shein drops UK warehouse plans as doubts grow over London stock market listing
next post
Elon Musk embraces X platform as key tool in DOGE transparency amid onslaught of attacks from Dems

You may also like

AOC heckled, booed as NYC town hall descends...

May 27, 2023

Hamas faces ‘legitimacy crisis’ as desperate Gazans flock...

May 29, 2025

Gingrich & Walker: Kamala Harris’ abandoned astronauts should...

August 31, 2024

AK convenes for new legislative session, faces familiar...

January 17, 2023

BREAKING: Kathy Griffin’s Twitter Account Permanently Suspended For...

November 7, 2022

The least thing politicians can do when China...

October 5, 2023

“They Believe They Have The System Wired” –...

November 1, 2022

Trump said to lift all military restrictions on...

November 15, 2024

Netanyahu warns of potential ‘eruption of AI-driven wars’...

September 29, 2023

Squad’s lesson in Cuban socialism didn’t last long...

March 10, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Deportations to Add Almost $1 Trillion in Costs to the “Big Beautiful Bill”

      June 6, 2025
    • How to Eliminate Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Medicare

      June 6, 2025
    • GOP Cuts and State Budgets

      June 6, 2025
    • Trump’s tariff strategy could pay for his tax bill, but only if they stick, experts warn

      June 6, 2025
    • Trump not interested in talking to Musk: ‘Elon’s totally lost it’

      June 6, 2025
    • When the President Bit: From the Shark House to the White House

      June 6, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,017)
    • Politics (15,549)
    • Stocks (3,132)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved