NICK POPE
CONTRIBUTOR
Nineteen Republican state attorneys general hit five Democrat-controlled states with a legal challenge alleging that the blue states are illegally attempting to impose aggressive climate policies on the rest of the country.
The coalition of red states filed the challenge with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, alleging that the five blue states — California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota — are trying to advance an anti-fossil fuel agenda for the entire country via tools like climate nuisance lawsuits against oil companies. The coalition of red states requested that the Supreme Court step in to determine whether these Democrat-controlled states can effectively interfere in other states’ energy policy.
“Plaintiff States and their citizens rely on traditional energy products every day,” the complaint says. “The assertion that Defendant States can regulate, tax, and enjoin the promotion, production, and use of such products beyond their borders—but outside the purview of federal law—threatens profound injury.” (RELATED: ‘Grave Threat’: Calls Mount For SCOTUS To Intervene In Key Climate Lawsuit Against Major Energy Companies)
The coalition of plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to examine the complaint in the context of the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the ability to address matters of interstate commerce that are beyond the jurisdiction of one state or another. The states that filed the complaint include Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
“In essence, Defendant States want a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry,” the complaint states. “Citing fears of a climate catastrophe, they seek massive penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief against energy producers based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects.”
The complaint references climate nuisance lawsuits that have been pursued by Minnesota and the other defendant states as evidence that the five blue states are trying to alter the national energy landscape by seeking to extract large settlements from traditional energy companies. In many instances, the third-party law firms that are helping prosecutors bring these tort cases stand to reap large paydays if the energy companies being sued decide to settle.
“Defendant States assert the power to dictate the future of the American energy industry,” states the complaint. “They hope to do so not by influencing federal legislation or by petitioning federal agencies, but by imposing ruinous liability and coercive remedies on energy companies through state tort actions governed by state law in state court.”
Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will not side against him and described the red states’ complaint as politically-motivated.
“We are proud to stand up for New Jersey residents and consumers in combating the deception the largest oil and gas companies engaged in for decades. It’s a shame that other states are trying to hamstring our efforts to protect New Jerseyans under New Jersey law,” Platkin said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “But we are confident the Supreme Court will see this for the desperate stunt that it is, and deny their motion. In any event, our important work continues.”
Democratic Connecticut Attorney General Chris Tong issued a statement on Wednesday deriding the complaint filed against his state.
“This must be a fake lawsuit filed in the Land of Make Believe. I live and work in the real world, where I am focused on actual threats — like the climate crisis — to the health and safety of the people of Connecticut,” Tong said. “This is pure partisan political theater, and it will not distract or deter us from fighting for Connecticut consumers, families and our environment.”
The offices of Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Democratic Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha and Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The scourge of leftism continues as their lawlessness continues to expand.
The “scourge” is the one party state. Righteousness can only exist when there are no opposing viewpoints to maintain checks and balances and to call BS in any system.
It sounds like opposing postions to me. While there certainly are many RINOs, I dont think that applies here.
If these new energy/climate/environmental proposals/laws/regulations/agendas/mandates were guaranteed the provide the same level of energy costs and dependability as fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear, citizens wouldn’t have much to complain about. The problem is that with the current levels of technology associated with wind and solar in particular the only sure thing is higher taxes to subsidize unproven products and higher daily consumer expenses as producers are forced to comply with a multitude of new manufacturing and environmental regulations.
And the fact that this supposed “Green” solution of Wind, Solar, Battery Backup, and expansion of electrical transmission actually produces more net CO2 than if they were never constructed in the first place. The fraud is by those who proffer this madness as environmentally friendly.
Not just friendly- it’s gonna SAVE THE PLANET! The hyperbole!
Interesting that MA didn’t make the ‘blue’ list. Obviously, they are still resting on their laurels pursuant to starting this entire mess with Massachusetts vs. EPA.
My thought as well along with, why isn’t Texas on the Red Team?
Good question.
…or Louisiana? I looked for both of those, from the headline I would have bet money Texas initiated this suit. Maybe TX and LA are planning one of their own?
I still say MA is the heart of the climate lunacy. There is zero resistance here. It permeates all of government at all levels and the entire media.
Not all all true. They require tremendous resources beyond those required for traditional generation systems and hundreds of times more real estate. They are also much more detrimental to animals and people, a large bill that will have to eventually be faces. Plus, their implementation is going hand in hand with many extreme efforts to deteriorate most people’s lives through legal mandates.
…and of course the dramatically raise the cost of coal oil and NG.
Oh, baloney. The primary effect of climate hysteria is not financial; it is biological. CO2 +H2O +sunshine in a green plant —> sugar and O2. The O2 is screamed up but is trivial if you do the math. CO2 is around 400 ppm = 0.04% of air. O2 is around 20%. If ALL the CO2 were driven to food and oxygen at once, what would the new concentration of oxygen be?
Sugar is food for the plant, which makes protein and other food for endangered species, me, you, doggies, kitties, and every other living thing.
Carbon fuels and ONLY carbon fuels increase the carrying capacity of the Earth for Life.
Except for legislative and executive absolute immunity, a RICO prosecution would be in order. Conspiring with Sher Edling and various Green NGO’s to extort out of state companies?
Which state AG will be first to step up and file charges. Arrest all actors with 100mil in bail for fear of flight. Should anyone from DOJ stick there nose in, indite them as co-conspirators.
The Goveners of these states need to file an emergency executive order to protect the states from these bad actors, why are they waiting.
While I would like to see Rob Bonta and Gavin Newsom under an extradition order, they are the ones to not extradite themselves. As the absolute immunity doctrine was judge created by the Warren Court, I think one needs a slam dunk test case to try to overturn it. I don’t think this would be it.
You seem to have insight to all this; if one were to file criminal charges through one’s states attorney’s office, do you happen to have a template to provide guidance?
I am not a lawyer. Moving on a political show case would be a political act from the start. Persuading a state senator or assemblyman of your case might work as a start. It depends on the individual, and some politicians are actually serious. Others are PC drones who will blow you off.
Salute!
wait! there’s more!
Colorado Governor Polis has already complained that the EPA is now ordering/demanding/requiring/madating a special gasoline formulation for next 4 or 5 months to reduce air polution along the front range.
So prices go up and we add one more special formulation of gas to the 30 or 40 types we already have to save the planet.
Gums sends…
Always gratifying to see the Left hung on their own petard.
“Democratic Connecticut Attorney General Chris Tong issued a statement on Wednesday deriding the complaint filed against his state.
“This must be a fake lawsuit filed in the Land of Make Believe. I live and work in the real world, where I am focused on actual threats — like the climate crisis “
Right.
Tong needs to be drug tested!
Connecticut is at 42ºN latitude.
There is absolutely zero probability that “climate change ” will ever be a threat.
A slight warming, would if anything, be highly beneficial !!
The Tong guy is a totally brain-washed idiot, without a single rational brain cell in his near empty cranium.
No, in the year 2723 the sea might actually by lapping at his gate post.
Climate Change could be a threat – when we start slipping into the next ice age. Until then, he’s safe!
Tong has a degree in the classics from Brown and graduated from the University of Chicago law school. He also attended an expensive prep school.
He’s part of the nouveau elites. A son of immigrants who work hard to give their children the best educations and this is the result. Ivy League indoctrination. And the students just lap it up. Eventually, they become “leaders” and we suffer the consequences.
Those five “blue” states know they are wrong and are attempting to limit the hit to their competitiveness and outmigration.
Until the oil companies grow a pair, and deprive one off these states their fuel supplies this c#$p will continue . This is the year to do with upcoming elections
Should any oil company attempt to so such a thing the system would come down on it with both feet and a large spiked club.
They spend enough money lobbying politicans.
Several magnitudes LESS than the wind and solar scammer spend !!
But those wind and solar scammers get it all back as subsidies.
“Several magnitudes LESS than the wind and solar scammer spend !!”
Opposites day, bnice version
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?id=E12
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/
Renewables = $14,447,460 – round to $14,500,000
Fossil fuels – $124,400,000
Or almost 9* as much for the FF’ers.
Feel free to rebut me with better data. A prediction folks, No data, just ad hominem impugning of the “liberal” source.
Sorry for the incomplete reply. The documented $ values don’t include the HUGE take from “informal” entertaining. From the week I broke out, in ’81, to when I went internationaI, I was “encouraged” to expense account lunches and post work drinks for local regulatory employees. More takers than I had the time or interest in hosting. Since there have always been many tens of thousands of similarly pushed engineers, geoscientists, support personnel on the US scene, it adds up.
International, is different. More direct bribes and indirect prop ups, like “scholarships” for general’s kids. Less daily entertaining.
You define lowered taxes paid as a subsidy to fossil fuels, ignore the tremendous expenses added to their production via government law and policy favoring wind and solar, I suggest looking at real subsidies and net taxes paid verses useful energy produced.
No adhominem, you are simply wrong. Unfortunately this has been explained to you in detail, to no avail,
I think you’re accidentally responding to someone else.
“You define lowered taxes paid as a subsidy to fossil fuels”
Where?
“ignore the tremendous expenses added to their production via government law and policy favoring wind and solar”
Where?
“I suggest looking at real subsidies and net taxes paid verses useful energy produced”
Sorry, the only “subsidies” that I’ve dissed from the fossil fuel producers are the environmental, safety, health Ben Dovers they’ve been awarded over the decades, and their shirking of 12 $ figures worth of asset retirement obligations. I purposefully avoid AGW costs, since just accounting for what I do mention is – along with reduced candidate quality and soaring service costs – enough to substantially reduce fossil fuel, full life cycle economic competitiveness. Yes, even with the loss of the relatively tiny green start up helps…
Yes, they’d surely be hit with a court order requiring them to supply fossil fuels to a state suing them for supplying fossil fuels. That would be fun to watch.
Oops, reply meant for HB.
Biden would just step in and pull from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They’re safe.
“This must be a fake lawsuit filed in the Land of Make Believe. I live and work in the real world, where I am focused on actual threats — like the climate crisis — to the health and safety of the people of Connecticut,” Tong said.
Without a single example of a current climate threat caused by CO2. Who’s living in the land of make believe, again? It is all predictions and projections of doom without any basis in reality.
In CT and MA, there was a hurricane in the 30s that destroyed a lot of forest. It’s still talked about. Hasn’t been one like that since then. Most of the year it’s frigid in these states. Health and safety? Lots of crime in CT- and I’m not even talking about the biggest money grubbers- the state’s huge insurance industry. Lots of fentanyl in the state. Tong should get off his bong and deal with reality.
Amen to that. Connecticut is hopeless
Connecticut is at 42ºN latitude.
There is absolutely zero probability that “climate change” will ever be a threat.
Warming would be a massive benefit. !
Everything is climate change these days. If Connecticut were devastated by nuclear war, the left would attribute that to climate change.
“California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota”
I’m pretty sure Wokeachusetts is doing it too. I see the idea discussed in local papers- though I don’t pay much attention to climate BS in these papers.
Good to see what side New Hampshire is on. It’s the one state in the region doing forestry right. Most forest acreage in the state is under professional forestry mgt. The state does it with a light touch- with regulation, but not oppressive. On the contrary, Wokeachusetts brags about being the most intensely regulated forestry- and the result? About 20% of private forest is managed, and barely. If you now wright into a forestry plan that the goal is maximize carbon, you won’t have to cut any trees! Or few. State forest land is about 700K acres. And they lose money managing that. It’s a disgrace.
From the article: ““This must be a fake lawsuit filed in the Land of Make Believe. I live and work in the real world, where I am focused on actual threats — like the climate crisis”
That there is funny (ridiculous).
What climate crisis?
It’s an absurd legal challenge, but far less absurd than the legal challenges brought by those leftist attorneys general, like Chris Tong, against fossil fuel companies. Which of these absurd challenges gets a day in court? The leftist ones, because the lawfare perpetrators like Tong choose their (leftist) judges and venues carefully so their meritless and ridiculous cases don’t get summarily rejected, as they should. I doubt the Supreme Court will hear this one because, unlike some state courts and appeals courts, it’s staffed with a majority of sober justices. If any of the ludicrous cases against fossil fuel companies survives legal challenges and makes it to the Supreme Court, you can bet they will strike it down, which is the way it would be expected to happen. Unfortunately, a lot of money is spent on attorneys along the way.
Connecticut is a small enough state that the oil companies could say….
… “ok. have it your way. No more oil products for you.”
… or just add the costs/penalties onto oil products sold into the state.
Time for them to grow some backbone. !
I’d start with Rhode Island. As bad as CT pols are, they can’t carry Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s jock strap when it comes to climate alarmism.
I would start with Deleware. Joe Biden should implement Net Zero in his home State first. See how they like it.
Also, if I were the Texas governor, I would be busing all the illegal aliens to Deleware, too. Let Joe Biden’s State take care of Joe Biden’s illegal alien problem. Bring it on home where it belongs.
Let’s not forget Vermont and Bernie!
I’ve a feeling this only works when the blue states have to rely on the red states to keep the lights on.
Why don’t the red state lawyers make the argument that for the blue state lawsuits to proceed the blue states must first show that higher CO2 has produced some injury to their state. But the blue state can’t do that because higher CO2 has produced no harm. There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfire, or any other climate related events. Where is the harm from increased CO2 levels.
If the blue states cannot show harm, they have no grounds to sue. It seems like such a simple and effective argument to me. There must be something wrong with it. I just don’t know what.
“If the blue states cannot show harm, they have no grounds to sue. It seems like such a simple and effective argument to me.”
It makes sense to me. The Blue States can’t show they have been damaged by CO2, or that they will be damaged in the future. It is as simple as that, as far as the science goes. But courtrooms, especially today, are a whole new ballgame.
If I were the oil companies lawyer, I would be standing there saying “Prove it!” at every step along the way. Then we and the judge would have a nice discussion about what is evidence and facts, and what is speculation, assumptions, and unsubstantiated assertions, and how to tell the difference.
All climate alarmists have is speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, none of which is evidence of anything. They can’t show one instance where anyone was harmed by CO2.
There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. Climate alarmists cannot prove otherwise.
I agree with you completely. And you bring up an excellent point about oil companies. They have been sued multiple times. Why have they not asked the question: What is the harm?
There is no harm. Why don’t the oil companies demand that the people prosecuting show some harm first. And if they can’t show any harm, why don’t the oil companies demand the sued be tossed?
Salute!
Well, there happens to be clear case of CO2 causing harm of the extreme variety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
No climate problem like a flood, fire, tsunami, drought, extreme heat and the beat goes on. But the cultists are convinced that just another degree or two of temperature will kill us all. Like trying to argue with a creationist.
Gums sends…
Gruesome says Climate Change has resulted in more forest fires and state budget deficits. It is NOT because of poor forest management or mismanagement of tax revenue.
That’s the harm. No proof needed because they’re a Blue State.
The only proper action is for the blue states to be cut off from all fossil fuel products that includes oil, gas, coal, electricity produced from oil, gas and coal, plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, clothing and on and on. They should also be named in any suit against the fossil fuel industry for knowingly using and paying for products they believe to be causing the planet harm or death.
“They should also be named in any suit against the fossil fuel industry for knowingly using and paying for products they believe to be causing the planet harm or death.”
The consumers in those states burned those fossil fuels – not the oil companies.
Do you sue the company that sold you a kitchen knife or the Wife who killed her husband with it?
People sue firearm manufacturers for murders using their products, so why not?
BTW — You can literally sue or attempt to sue anybody for anything.
Tax something if you want less of it. Assuming ‘carbon pollution’ is really a driver of climate change, a carbon tax may be the most straightforward and logical way to actually reduce emissions. No cap-and-trade, no carbon credits, just a tax on carbon emissions.
A carbon tax is also insidious, and like a VAT, and would increase costs at every level. I do not trust politicians to enact a ‘clean’ tax without carve outs and set asides.
Any carbon tax would quickly be polluted with loopholes and subsidies. A new industry of carbon tax lawyers and carbon tax accountants would spring up overnight. Like with the income tax, politicians would fundraise on selling favors.
Let’s not forget the new bureaucracy that would also spring up overnight, like a toxic algae bloom.
It would be great if oil companies could stop selling their products in these states, even for just a few days, but a few weeks would be better. It will likely take some such drastic action to wake people up, and even then, there will still be some number of true believers who will never admit how wrong they are.
I won’t mention the name of the utility, but I had about a 30 minute conversation with the president, a VP of operations, and two regional managers of a modestly large, vertically integrated utility about two weeks ago. They cover six states. As much as they have tried to work with the EPA to relax expensive rules, they also have to comply with state policies. These are set by voters, effectively — RPSs essentially.
Three of the six states they cover have a majority of citizens who demand the end of fossil fuels, breaching of dams and their replacement with wind/solar and magic. The other three states citizens want exactly the opposite. The utility is caught in the middle with no middle way to tread.
However, I did note that none of the executives seemed entirely familiar with how rates are set, and have drunk a bit too much of the kool aid themselves.
It’s a devil of situation to be caught in.
This is where we find out the ugly truth how sausage is made.
A benevolent dictator starts to sound like a better idea.
So just to be clear: Blue states are suing big oil for producing products that are approved, regulated, taxed and used in and by Blue states.
What sort of legal system is that?