If It’s Not Open Warfare, It’s Collusive Lawfare

Environmentalist lawsuits reach new heights of absurdity and threats to American energy  

Paul Driessen

The Biden Administration continues waging war on fossil fuels, aided by environmentalists, politicians, and corporations chasing subsidies, competitive advantages, power and profits. They want to “fundamentally transform” America’s energy and economic systems, prevent “climate cataclysms,” and ensure “environmental justice” for some (by inflicting injustices on others).

Their weapons include withdrawing huge areas from economic activities; banning leasing, drilling and pipelines; and imposing regulatory standards so costly or technologically impossible that coal-fired power plants, internal-combustion vehicles, and gas stoves, furnaces and water heaters must be abandoned.

This open warfare is augmented and amplified by more clandestine “lawfare.”

Environmentalists have long employed lawsuits to impose by court decree what they cannot achieve via ballot boxes or legislation. The litigation often redefines sloppily or deliberately vague statutory language, to impose more onerous standards that can block or bankrupt oil, gas and mining projects – and then ignored for land- and resource-intensive wind and solar projects.

An especially pernicious strategy is “sue-and-settle” lawsuits, wherein environmentalists collude with friendly federal agencies to create a “disagreement” over a policy or regulation, and sue in friendly courts. The parties then agree to a settlement that’s been negotiated behind closed doors, leaving the public and impacted third parties with no opportunity to address the case’s legal or evidentiary merits.

Now ultra-progressive states and cities are charging onto this battlefield with more destructive lawsuits.

Delaware and Rhode Island have joined Baltimore, Honolulu, New York City, San Francisco, and other jurisdictions in filing climate change lawsuits against oil and gas producers, refiners and sellers in state courts – where they believe they will face more sympathetic judges and juries than in federal courtrooms.

The arguments for transferring the cases to federal jurisdiction are compelling – and were presented persuasively by John Yoo, C. Boyden Gray and other experts who reviewed the differing Courts of Appeals decisions, and the policy and legal questions surrounding them:

Fossil fuel “greenhouse gas” emissions alleged to cause climate change cross state lines and must therefore be governed by federal agencies. Sea level rise, flooding and other damages allegedly caused by those emissions must likewise be attributed to multiple sources in multiple states, and thus must also be the purview of federal laws and agencies.

No state, much less any city, should be permitted to set or manipulate national energy, climate or environmental policies and hold other jurisdictions to their agendas. Different legal opinions among various federal courts require Supreme Court intervention.

BP America, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Suncor Energy and other oil company defendants made these and additional arguments in asking the US Supreme Court to reaffirm that cases addressing climate change claims are inherently governed by federal law and should be transferred from state to federal courts.

However, the Supremes inexplicably opted not to review the cases at this time. That means these and other cities and states will continue suing energy companies – perhaps securing verdicts and multi-billion-dollar damage awards.

The litigation will create a legal, constitutional, scientific and public policy nightmare for the nation, businesses, consumers, courts and states, especially after verdicts have been rendered and bills tendered to scapegoat companies for payment. An already confusing and impenetrable judicial and permitting jungle will become even more perilous.

However, these complex pollution issues are made vastly more complicated by the basic question of whether carbon dioxide (which humans and animals exhale and plants require to grow, “green” our planet and help ensure record crop yields) should ever be labeled a “dangerous pollutant.” Even more so by the impossibility of separating “greenhouse gas” emissions from a few US petroleum companies from:

* all other American oil and gas, coal, agricultural, industrial, transportation and other emissions;

* human activities worldwide, including thousands of coal-fired power plants in China, India and dozens of other countries that have no obligation or intention of reducing their fossil fuel use anytime soon, thus increasing carbon dioxide levels (deliberately and misleadingly called “carbon pollution”) in Earth’s global atmosphere for decades to come;

* greenhouse gas emissions (and toxic air pollution) from mining, minerals processing and manufacturing to make the wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, grid-scale backup batteries, transformers and transmission lines required for a “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” energy future; and

* climate changes caused by natural forces throughout Earth past history, now and in the future.

As litigant cities and states pursue billions in penalties and damages from these companies – supposedly to cover the costs of building levees and stormwater impoundments, raising roads and bridges, and otherwise protecting communities from “increasing sea level rise” and “more frequent and intense storms” – they will also have to address other inconvenient truths.

For example, seas have risen naturally 400 feet since the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago. They are now rising at an easily manageable7-12 inches per century – and much of the perceived sea level rise is actually due to land subsidence in coastal cities worldwide, not rising seas.

The litigants and courts will also encounter the bitter reality that the “fundamental transformation” they so earnestly seek means covering the planet with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines … and the quarries and mines to build them. America already lacks sufficient EV charging stations and step-up and step-down transformers for new homes and a functional grid. Millions more will be needed in short order to reach Net Zero – which means thousands of new mines, quarries, processing plants and factories.

Toyota Motor Corp. calculates that “more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035.” That’s essentially just for new EVs, and getting them approved and developed would likely take decades. A US energy transformation – to say nothing of a global transformation – would require thousands of mines, and thousands of processing facilities.

The process of converting cobalt, lithium, aluminum, iron, rare earths, manganese, nickel and other ores into high-end metals is fossil-fuel-intensive, greenhouse-gas-emitting and dirty. “Reaching the nickel means cutting down swaths of rainforest,” the Wall Street Journal notes. “Refining it … involves extreme heat and high pressure, producing waste slurry that’s hard to dispose of.” Using little children to mine cobalt and processing rare earth elements involve legendary ecological and human rights abuses.

Worse, all this is only the beginning of the planetary desecration. We’re talking millions of onshore and offshore wind turbines, billions of solar panels, hundreds of thousands of miles of new transmission lines, billions of half-ton battery modules – and all that goes into making them. We’ll have to replace fertilizers for crops and feed stocks for thousands of products, by planting millions more acres in food and fuel crops, destroying more wildlife habitats. Turbine blades chop millions of birds and bats from the sky every year. Offshore turbines disorient whales and dolphins, causing many to beach themselves and die.

Then we’ll have to bury the broken, worn-out and obsolete panels, turbine blades and other equipment. The world has already installed some 100,000 wind turbines and 2.5 billion solar panels. In whose backyards will the landfills go for all this trash – and the massive lakes for the waste slurries?

There is nothing clean, green, renewable, sustainable or climate-friendly about any of this.

The Supreme Court – and courts, regulators and legislators everywhere – have a lot of work to do.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights.

4.9 37 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin Kilty
June 9, 2023 2:42 pm

The modern world is far too good for most people. They don’t appreciate it. They can’t understand it. Killing gold egg laying geese is more on their level.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 9, 2023 2:52 pm

And governments grow by consuming more and more fossil fuels that they are so set against.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Scissor
June 10, 2023 12:13 pm

Fossil fuel for me but not for thee.

Which is why they want to preserve what is in the ground for their use and the use of the Wealthhoders, with the multiple mansions and fleet of cars, planes and yachts to luxuriate in and on, who purchased these politicians their seats of power and influence and appointed their Ivy League lackeys into the permanent government bureaucracy.

William Howard
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 9, 2023 4:55 pm

Democrats never understand that making perfect the enemy of good always produces even worse results

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 9, 2023 8:46 pm

Leftists are good at destroying what better men built. Leftists/Socialists/Marxists never understand that all efforts to perfect the nature of human beings and to centrally plan the fantastically complex social, economic, technological and industrial realities of everyday life is self-defeating. The very governmental power that undergirds central planning brings with it rigid organizational and ideological imperatives that stifle the necessary ability to adapt to changing circumstances in order to succeed.

The UN IPCC is a prime example of governmental inability to adapt to changing circumstance: The IPCC leadership knows that observationally based ECS is now around 2℃/doubled CO2. Yet they still cite the CliSciFi climate models that range upwards of 5.7℃/doubled CO2. And Clintel’s “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC” highlights the fact that the scientific body of AR6 WGI shows extreme weather is not worsening, but the WGII writeup and Summary for Policy Makers still claims extreme weather is worsening. And so on.

Rud Istvan
June 9, 2023 2:58 pm

All true. Good post. The now many state court ‘public nuisance doctrine’ lawsuits have all failed. There are three reasons:

  1. Beyond state remedy purview if national/international scope. A4§1 of Constitution.
  2. No provable actual state damages for monetary relief.
  3. No provable immanent potential state damages for injunctive relief.

And there is NOTHING the climate lawfare folks can do to change those factual basics, try as they might. RICO thingy failed, public nuisance failing, so they got nothing despite fervent wishes like in Oreskes ‘
2010 ‘Merchants of Doubt’.

And at any attempted jury trial, the following facts are dispositive:

  1. Sea level rise is NOT accelerating.
  2. Arctic sea ice has not disappeared—as if that mattered in CA.
  3. CA forest fires are a product of poor forest management and poor utility power line management, not climate change. Else there would not be successful countries billion dollar lawsuits against PGE.
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 9, 2023 4:33 pm

“CA forest fires are a product of poor forest management”

Good forestry will reduce the fire hazard- not entirely, but much of it- and, it will produce valuable wood products- a win-win solution.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2023 12:47 am

In my Victoria, Australia, the world record holder for Covid-19 lockdown marathons, the socialist Premier has decreed there will be a ban on logging starting soon.
Now, as a student for decades of the social construct named “Property Rights” it has long been my belief that throughout recorded history, trees belong to the people. Governments do not own them, from first principles (but some trees can start out as commercial plantations that might be sold to a government.)
Various governments over various times and places might have acted as if they own trees ( because they assume that they own everything that counts) and so concepts of ownership vary from place to place.
My question is about the situation in your country.
Is there any recognition that trees belong to the people, not the government, as a natural resource like the oxygen in the air we breathe. That oxygen is not a subject to be traded or taxed. Are trees similar? (plantations excepted)?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  sherro01
June 10, 2023 4:43 am

Here, every state has its own forestry laws and laws regarding roadside trees. As far as I know, on your property, you own the trees – but, there are regulations in most states- some regulate lightly and some very severely. Here in Woke-achusetts, the state brags they have the best (meaning toughest) logging regulations in the world- to protect wetlands, rare species, etc. As for roadside trees- some may have been planted by the community- if so, you had better not cut them. If they grew in on their own- it depends, the community may say you can’t cut within a certain distance of the road- because the road doesn’t end at the edge of the road- the road right of way might be 50′ wide or 100′ wide or something else. For cutting roadside trees it’s best to check in with the local government first or you could get sued.

But there is a movement originating here in Woke-achusetts to stop all logging- or most of it- called proforestation. The guy who dreamed this up was an IPCC author a few decades ago. He’s a fanatic!

I’ve heard that in Cambridge, MA- if you have a house in the city and a few trees in your yard- if you want to cut one, you MUST get letters from 3 certified arborists (certified by the state) that there is a major health problem with that tree before you can have it cut- or the city will sue you! Cambridge, of course, is an ultra far left community.

In other states there are few or no regulations regarding what you do with your trees.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2023 5:54 am

My in-laws own a home in Connecticut, on several acres of woodland/wetland. They may not cut live trees or remove dead or downed trees. Heck, they can’t even shift the orientation of the stairs off the porch as it might change the drainage across the small yard.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  starzmom
June 10, 2023 6:07 am

Wow, that’s crazy and can’t be legal. Well, the wetland maybe- CT follows everything MA does in environmental issues and MA was probably the first place in the nation to decide to protect wetlands. Trees not in a wetland, though, shouldn’t be restricted from cutting- if not right on the road. I suggest have them talk to the local conservation commission and find out what the bylaws are. Restrictions on a small property like that aren’t likely to be from the state. Maybe it’s just a misunderstanding of the by-laws. Downed trees are also restricted? That’s got to be wrong unless in the wetland or a stream channel.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2023 1:11 pm

My brother had to renew the sewer from his house to the street. The plumbing company arrived and said “Oh dear, there is a tree grown up where we have to dig. You will need to apply for a permit to cut it down.” My brother said “Come back tomorrow. There will be no tree”. And since no one reported him, he got away with it.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 13, 2023 1:26 pm

Another example of steel disease making the environment stronger.

B Zipperer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 9, 2023 6:09 pm

But the lawfare can cost a fortune to defend. Especially to smaller outfits.

It’s kinda like threatening people socially for their ideas, so they self-censor.
Companies may decide not to invest in certain areas, or have use their R&D
money for lawyers. The Alarmists can win even if the lose the case.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 9, 2023 8:53 pm

4) Hurricanes are not becoming more frequent, intense nor of longer duration.
5) Floods are no more common nor destructive than than they have been in the past.

Richard Page
June 9, 2023 3:15 pm

There is a rising tide of authoritarianism threatening to engulf whatever democracy we have left in the West. It’s becoming more and more difficult to see where the ‘will of the people’ has any meaning left when our elected representatives vote against our interests, change the rules to suit themselves and completely ignore what their own constituents have said.

Reply to  Richard Page
June 9, 2023 3:31 pm

Well said.

Reply to  Richard Page
June 9, 2023 3:37 pm

It’s becoming more and more difficult to see where the ‘will of the people’ has any meaning left when our elected representatives vote against our interests, …”
Can you give an example of where the elected representatives have acted against the will of the people? I’m curious given “the people” did elect a Democratic government that campaigned on issues that most recent Democratic governments have. Seems to me there have been no real surprises only democracy in action.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 4:35 pm

You seem a bit naive- politicians make promises to get elected then don’t deliver. Isn’t that acting against “the will of the people”?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 9, 2023 6:09 pm

Be specific for this government?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 9:01 pm

Inflationary spiral of excess governmental spending. Energy shortages and electrical system blackouts. Corruption of the FBI, EPA, ATF & etc. Open border policies allowing a record flooding of illegal aliens. Allowing men to dominate female sports. Polling consistently shows a majority of Americans oppose these governmental policies, and by super majorities in most cases.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 10, 2023 7:45 am

Good list!

Reply to  Dave Fair
June 11, 2023 10:54 pm

Inflationary spiral of excess governmental spending.”
You do know government spending was a whole lot worse under Trump, right?

Allowing men to dominate female sports. “
Are you saying there was no males competing in female sports under Trump. I say BS to that.

“Corruption of the FBI, EPA, ATF & etc. “
Your opinion I guess.

“Americans oppose these governmental policies, and by super majorities in most cases.”
Well then use your democratic right to vote this lot out. Interestingly though if you are going to talk polls, Americans overwhelmingly want more gun control….

Dave Fair
Reply to  Simon
June 12, 2023 1:34 pm

Simon, I never mentioned President Trump. Does President Trump live in your head? Was he involved in everything bad that ever happened?

It doesn’t matter what the polls say about gun control. That darling of a Leftist issue can’t seem to navigate around our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. Lets see how popular gun control is if CA governor Newsom gets beyond political posturing and actually introduces a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Congress restricting gun rights. Opinions about specific gun control measures change radically when there are open and factual arguments on both sides of the issue.

Looking at polls and other media output does not tell you anything accurate about the American populace in relation to gun rights, much less any other issue of importance. Leftists always push things too far and regular people are forced to slap them back into reality. Look what is happening in relation to the radical trans movement. It will not end well for trans zealots.

Reply to  Dave Fair
June 12, 2023 5:38 pm

Wait on, do you like polls or not? You brought them up…
 Polling consistently shows a majority of Americans oppose these governmental policies, and by super majorities in most cases.”
Or is it only polls that agree with you that you favour?

Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 4:42 pm

It is great to see you ADMIT that people like you voted to DESTROY American prosperity. !

That can only because of gross ignorance, or rampant stupidity.

Or both. !

Reply to  bnice2000
June 9, 2023 6:08 pm

Whatever… so once again you have no answer just a jumble of words. So… I’ll try again…. Can you give an example of where the elected representatives have acted against the will of the people? 

Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 7:27 pm

Poor Simple one…

Basic comprehension is not one of your abilities, is it.

That can only because of gross ignorance, or rampant stupidity.

Or both. !

Reply to  bnice2000
June 10, 2023 12:09 pm

True to form, name calling. Seems it is about your level. Now. Can you give an example of where the elected representatives have acted against the will of the people? 

Dave Fair
Reply to  Simon
June 12, 2023 1:41 pm

Prohibition Amendment. Unlimited abortion. Jim Crow.

Reply to  bnice2000
June 10, 2023 10:56 pm

Haha… too funny… the man accusing me of lacking comprehension can’t string a sentence together.
That can only because of gross ignorance, or rampant stupidity.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 9:02 pm

See above, Simon.

Reply to  Simon
June 10, 2023 1:02 am

Show me any people who had the prior will to pay double or triple the past electricity prices, which the government decreed would happen because science demanded it. Remember Obama speaking to the people, boasting that under him, electricity costs would increase?
That is an inarguable example.
Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
June 10, 2023 12:07 pm

There is this blind spot the right in the US have that somehow inflation is all Biden’s fault. It ain’t and here’s a clue for you. It has been rampant across the entire world for the last couple of years, so unless Biden rules the world it is no more his fault than yours or mine.

Rich Davis
Reply to  bnice2000
June 9, 2023 7:34 pm

Simple Simon is a communist foreigner so he can’t be held accountable for Dementia Joe. I do wish he’d stfu though.

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 12:04 pm

I do wish he’d stfu though.”
Wish away….

Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 4:46 pm

Yup. People voted for high energy costs, men in women’s sports and locker rooms, an open border and all of the associated costs, rampant inflation, rising crime, homelessness, unaffordable health care, Covid lockdowns that had devastating consequences, a 2020 election that violated state constitutions, etc., etc. All covered up by the complicit MSM.

Reply to  gdtkona
June 9, 2023 6:11 pm

Oh dear…Take the tin foil hat off then we can talk. Anyway half of those were under criminal Trump (isn’t today a bad day for him) and are many are the result of situations rather than election policy, covid, inflation, homelesness etc. And accusing the Dems of unaffordable health care is just laughable. Haha to the election thing. Only one side actively cheated in that.

Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 7:36 pm

Trumped up indictments..

… even you with your childish, zero-thought leftist bias, must see that fact,

If the left had any ethical morality at all, they would indict Biden (father and son), H Clinton… et al.

Even someone as intentionally ignorant as you are, MUST see this is totally a political ploy, because they are so seriously SCARED of Trump.!

Even someone as unaware and gullible as you, MUST see the massive damage Biden and the gormless demofools are doing to the USA.

No-one sane would have voted for that.

You cannot continue to turn a completely blind eye to reality. !

Rich Davis
Reply to  bnice2000
June 9, 2023 7:49 pm

Bnice2000 your fundamental confusion is that you don’t realize that Simple Simon hates Western civilization and views positively anything that tears it down, most especially the hated of hated USA. Everything that we view with horror is utopia in his eyes. So why waste your time jousting with him?

Reply to  bnice2000
June 10, 2023 12:03 pm

“Trumped up indictments..
… even you with your childish, zero-thought leftist bias, must see that fact,”
If the left had any ethical morality at all, they would indict Biden (father and son), H Clinton… et al.”
He’s on tape admitting the docs are classified. And when was the last time the left or right indicted their own? And if the right have anything on Biden then let’s see it. His son is a crook, but Joe?

“Even someone as intentionally ignorant as you are, MUST see this is totally a political ploy…”
Political or not he is 100% guilty of obstruction and having the docs in his possession when he shouldn’t have. And if it is political, silly Donnie for handing them his guilt on a plate. Seems the mans arrogance got him in the end.

“Even someone as unaware and gullible as you, MUST see the massive damage Biden and the gormless demofools are doing to the USA.”
Done a whole lot better than Trump. At least the country has some international respect now.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Simon
June 9, 2023 7:36 pm

If tinfoil hats will ward you off then somebody let me know where to get one.

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 12:11 pm

Trump can probably sell you one with MAGA on it. I mean he has sold you clowns a whole lot of BS in the last 7 years.

Reply to  Simon
June 13, 2023 1:45 pm

Here’s some authentic BS for you:
31 Audio Tapes recorded in 2015-2016 between Ukranian and US officials discussing the the quid pro quo money/bribe transfers. Biden, Kerry and Poroshenko discussing removal of the prosecutor investigating the Burisma corruption, tariffs, etc, etc, etc.

Call back when you’re finished listening and yeah, bring plenty of popcorn…

Reply to  gdtkona
June 10, 2023 12:55 am

It shouldn’t have been hard for people to understand that they were voting for all those things. The evidence was overwhelming.

Reply to  AndyHce
June 10, 2023 8:45 am

Part of the problem is that the majority of voters vote according to how they “feel” about a candidate or they vote according to their past inclinations rather than what the politician has done.
There is a sizable percentage of voters in the U.S. that treat their party they vote for like a religion – if they were born into a Protestant democrat family, they continue to vote democrat regardless of the results.

Reply to  AndyHce
June 12, 2023 7:19 am

There also seems to be a pretty wide gap between what people voted for, and how the ballots were counted…

Reply to  Simon
June 10, 2023 10:36 am

As a simple sample, how about HS2!?

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Page
June 9, 2023 4:15 pm

I think the real problem is the growing belief that we’re a democracy, rather than a constitutional republic whose sole justification is to protect the inalienable rights of the governed. The founders of the republic were well aware that democracy inevitably devolves to mob rule and tyranny.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 9, 2023 7:38 pm

Exactly right. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner.

Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2023 12:57 am

Well expressed, but here in Australia we have had this situation since I was a post-war kid.
The people once favoured nuclear electricity, but Big Brother back in the 1960s stopped it.
Another example, mid 1980s, we corporately had prime mineral land under our valid granted leases and licences taken from us without compensation because Another Big Brother faction decreed the land must become UN World Heritage listed. The people had not been asked, so I took our government through all available courts. It remained unsettled, apart from our very large legal bill.
Point is, this is not a recent concept. It is just being used more often.
Geoff S

Richard Page
Reply to  sherro01
June 10, 2023 7:14 am

This is why I said it’s a ‘rising tide’ – it has been going on, a little bit here and a little bit there, for some time – probably throughout the post-war period. However it is now becoming blatant and overwhelming – in the UK we have similar examples to the US and Australia, indeed similar examples exist throughout the West. We elect our representatives to enact our will at the highest level of government in the country, to be at the top of the political ‘food chain’ and yet a cabal of msm, opposition politicians and bureaucrats pick and choose who they want to represent us. In the UK now we have next to no choice or say in policies; the main parties are clones of each other, and any politician that dares to speak up to challenge the status quo is hounded out of their elected seat. It’s become a complete farce of democratic principles.

Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2023 9:12 am

I think the Marxist/authoritarian tide has been rising since at least the early 1900’s. Look at the Wilson and FDR administrations.
For the majority of history, people were ruled by authoritarians and the desire to rule over subjects has not disappeared.
Democracies and Republics where the population has at least some input to how they are governed is still rare. There may be elections but, most are shams with no good options.
The seeds to corrupt the system are planted as soon the government is established. For example, there was a movement to establish George Washington as king of the colonies.
In the U.S., for well over 100 years, the Executive branch has garnered more power by appointed bureaucrats replacing the power of the Legislative branch. If this continues, we will again have a king and be subjects rather than citizens.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Page
June 12, 2023 1:49 pm

No, democracies eventually lead to authoritarian rule by demagogs. I’m afraid that nominally a Republic, the U.S. is headed down that path.

CD in Wisconsin
June 9, 2023 3:34 pm

I realize that this is a radical idea that will never fly. But just for the heck of it, I am going to suggest it anyway.

All of the fossil fuel and utility companies need to submit a schedule to the Biden Administration (and probably to the state governors as well) for shutting down all of the fossil fuel power plants and oil refineries over the next 3-5 years (if not sooner) because of climate change. Promise to install wind and solar farms but inform the public that you do not expect them to meet electricity demands.

The oil companies need to put the word out that everybody needs to start buying EVs because crude oil-based surface transportation fuels are to be phased out in the given time period. Tell the airlines and the military that you will at least be looking into biofuels for air transportation. Inform them that it will take a while for production to start up and you don’t know if enough can be produced to meet demand.

As the panic sets in and the economy starts to collapse, remind everybody that we’re all doing it save the plant and stop climate change. If the EPA implements CCS requirements sometime soon, it should play right into the hands of this game plan.

This climate alarmist narrative has been going on for 35 years now since James Hanson testified before Congress at that famous hearing back in 1988, and my point here is that it is time for this thing to come to a head one way or another. If the fossil fuel and utility companies are the bad guys here, then they need to stop doing what they are doing. Show the American people what the end result will be.

This would make a nice plot for a movie, but most of Hollywood would probably never touch it.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 9, 2023 5:30 pm

I think you are describing something similar to what is going on in South Africa although it is occurring a bit slower and there is no plan.

And you would need to check with China that they can supply all the stuff needed otherwise the promised wind and solar farms will be hollow. .

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  RickWill
June 9, 2023 6:33 pm


I do not expect that China (or most all solar panel makers in the world) can or will supply all the necessary solar panels to replace all of our fossil fuel power plants, and that is the problem that the climate alarmist and environmental movement people probably do not understand. That is why I fully expect a collapsing economy from the implementation of my idea.

It is only after the damage is done that people begin to realize the ignorance embedded in the demands they impose on society. And I still think that this is a great plot for a Hollywood movie. Oh how I wish I was a wealthy Hollywood movie producer.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 10, 2023 9:25 am

I think the timetable needs to be stepped up.
If a jurisdiction files suit, immediately shut off the power and fossil fuel deliveries to that jurisdiction. The problem is that giving a timeline gives the jurisdictions time to come up with a line of bull to cover their ass.
Once the population tries to turn on the lights and nothing happens, there will be an immediate response that will not go well for the politicians and bureaucrats that tried to implement the destructive policy.

Joseph Zorzin
June 9, 2023 4:31 pm

“… Delaware and Rhode Island have joined Baltimore, Honolulu, New York City, San Francisco, and other jurisdictions in filing climate change lawsuits against oil and gas producers…”

Time to stop shipping all fossil fuels to those communities/states.

William Howard
June 9, 2023 4:58 pm

Not to mention that no matter how much the western world reduces CO2 emissions, even to the extent,of destroying their standard of living, increases by China & India way more than offset those reductions so the net effect to the climate is zero and China gets to dominate the world

June 9, 2023 5:18 pm

Oil and gas producers have been complicit in the current mess. They are getting what they deserve for going along with nonsense. It does not take long to shoot down the whole CO2 induced climate change garbage. You can observe how Earth’s energy uptake is limited by convective instability on a daily basis.

Right now a convective storm is ripping 3C off the surface temperature of the entire Arabian Sea.

Some of the heat will be transferred to India and released over India to produce rain that will cool the surface by a few degrees. The Indian monsoon is on its way. The dense cloud created by the convective storm will cause the top of atmosphere net radiation to go negative despite the available EMR averaging 450W/m^2.

Same process occurred in Bay of Bengal last month and the ocean off Philippines is currently getting a second dose of energy release:
Look at the power in the wind associated with these convective storms. These are KILOWATTS, THREE orders of magnitude higher than the delicate radiation balance at top of the atmosphere.

Tom in Florida
June 9, 2023 6:58 pm

In a rather small but symbolic gesture, the State of Florida has exempted all gas cooktops and gas ranges sold for residential use from paying state sales tax on those items. The exemption period begins July 1, 2023 and ends June 30, 2024.
The current sales tax exemption on Energy Star rated refrigerators, washers and dryers has been renewed from July 1, 2023 until June 30, 2024. The sales tax exemption applies to refrigerators with a sales price of $4500 or less (up from the current limit of $3000 or less) and to washers and/or dryers with a sales price of $1500 or less per unit.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 10, 2023 5:15 pm

Florida can probably claim major influence for illuminating the dark side of ESG. So maybe more important than a small gesture.

Bill S
June 10, 2023 6:18 am

If Climate Change, rising sea levels, increased fires, etc are as catastrophic as predicted, then all municipal bond issues of NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Portland, Seattle etc must be rewritten to disclose the Climate Change risks that will affect the repayment of the bonds.

These additional risks will raise the borrowing costs for all coastal cities. The SEC is proposing rules to force publicly traded companies to disclose the purported risks of climate change. The same risk requirements will have to be applied to municipal and state bond underwriting.

Gavin Newsom and other blue state supporters of Climate Change risks may not be so enthusiastic when mandated bond disclosures significantly raise their borrowing costs.

June 10, 2023 8:07 pm

The tort laws in this country have just GOT to be changed if we’re to survive as an American culture. Loser pays, frivolous suit penalties, lawyer disbarment for repeated junk suits.
Something got to be done. It’s just nuts!

Reply to  eck
June 10, 2023 8:08 pm

“Lawfare” is a VERY serious problem.

Reply to  eck
June 12, 2023 7:25 am

It’s much worse than you think. All of those problems with “law” that you are thinking of are actually resulting from the fraudulent application of Admiralty Law (the law of the sea) on dry land. Stop going along with that, and all your “legal” (admiralty law) troubles will disappear overnight.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights