By CFACT Ed
From Real Clear:
Just like fossil fuel divestment, climate court cases to punish fossil fuel (oil, coal, natural gas) producers do not work, and they should be rejected by climate change advocates themselves.
The allegation is that fossil fuel companies misrepresented the impacts of their products and caused untold billions of dollars in climate and weather damages.
Energy Realism proves the exact opposite.
Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels have built the world around us, giving us living standards our ancestors could have only dreamed about.
The first step for “climate action” is obviously to cut into our fossil fuel demand, not punish producers, now an even more vital fact since the AI revolution is meaning loads more electricity needed (coal and gas generate 60-65% of U.S. power).
Indeed, despite decades of trying, even less fossil fuels is seemingly impossible: U.S. demand for fossil fuels continues to rise (see natural gas) or remain “buoyantly very high” (see oil).
This is hardly surprising because oil has no substitute (the electric car failure is now undeniable) and natural gas is affordable, clean, abundant, and flexible to backup naturally intermittent wind and solar.
Globally, growth in renewable energy production is nowhere near meeting growth in overall energy demand, let alone displacing fossil fuels.
No wonder why Power the Future’s Daniel Turner recently confirmed COP30 as a complete failure.
Let alone in China and India, even in the rich OECD countries coal is hanging on much better than what climate groups keep telling us: “IEA: Coal Outpaces Gas in OECD Power Mix as ‘Bridge Fuel’ Falters;” “These 15 Coal Plants Would Have Retired. Then Came AI and Trump.”
The Value of Low-Cost Energy
Economic dislocation and destruction are the clear result of punishing suppliers of natural resources that meet 80% of our energy needs: oil, coal, and natural gas.
You sue an oil company, that company is liable and must then pass costs of that liability onto the people buying its products; i.e., higher fossil fuel prices mean higher input costs for everything that we do, so the price of everything goes up.
Power the Future’s December 2025 report: “How Environmentalism Activism Raises Prices on Everyday Goods.”
As we continue to see in Blue States, where increasingly stricter climate and CO2 emission reduction policies outweigh all other economic and common sense considerations, higher energy prices appear to be the goal: “High Electricity Prices Are a Choice Blue States Make Every Day.”
Artificially increasing the prices of fossil fuels to force the switch to renewables is a regressive tax that hurts poor Americans and communities of color the most.
Oil & Gas Are Becoming More Important, Not Less
The harsh reality for some is that just a few years ago oil and gas accounted for about 68% of U.S. energy supply, and even after President Biden’s term, i.e., the “most climate conscious administration in American history,” oil and gas HAVE GAINED market share in our energy supply (see graphic below).
In terms of “replacing” fossil fuels, legendary energy thinker Mark Mills heading the National Center for Energy Analytics knows that the problem is physics: “We’ll Never Have an Energy Transition.”
And while we remain hopeful for nuclear, big nuclear projects have immense cost overruns, and we are still seeking our first commercial Small Modular Reactor, with the HOPE that they will arrive sometime in the 2030s.
Even a non-fracking state like California, the “greenest” state in the country who has had a Renewable Portfolio Standard for over 20 years to “get off” natural gas, can still be more dependent on gas than fracking giant Texas since natural intermittency makes wind and solar more “supplemental” than “alternative” (see graphic below).
The Climate Case in Colorado
This gets us to the vital climate case in our 4th most important oil-producing state and 8th for natural gas.
Plaintiffs: City of Boulder & Boulder County, Colorado: Defendants: ExxonMobil & Suncor Energy.
Taking place in Colorado itself, just like the rest of these cases, defies common sense.
Oil and gas can contribute nearly $50 billion a year to the state’s economy and meet the bulk of energy needs.
Even coal still generates 28-35% of the state’s power, double the national average.
For these climate cases, coastal litigants focus on things like hurricanes and rising seas, but in Boulder, the 105-page complaint argues that oil companies have harmed property, safety, and health.
They say that this comes from causing higher temperatures, wildfires, droughts, and a shrinking snowpack that devastates water supplies, skiing resorts, and farmers.
They want billions of dollars to compensate jurisdictions for all the damage caused by the use of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Exxon and Suncor say that the Boulder climate case raises complicated national and international issues, so this is a fight that belongs in federal, not state courts.
Of course, they are correct.
Boulder ignores that climate change by very definition is a global issue, which is exactly why claiming climate change “benefits” from energy-climate policies only put forth here in the U.S. is as anti-science as it gets.
What happened to: “We believe in science!”?
This past May, the Colorado Supreme Court finally ruled that the lawsuit could indeed proceed in state court.
Now, Exxon and Suncor have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to review the case, while Boulder argues against that.
SCOTUS is considering whether to grant the petition for certiorari (to hear the case), in what would be a decision that would determine if they will weigh in on this major climate liability fight.
The SCOTUS decision could set a national precedent for climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel producers, which is about the last thing we need at this time (some models have U.S. electricity demand exploding 80% over the next 25 years).
SCOTUS should step in and establish a uniform rule that can be applied consistently when these climate cases are brought.
Climate Litigation Is Surely Not the Answer
Energy-climate policy solutions must come from Congress and federal agencies, not state courtrooms.
Former Climate Czar John Kerry himself has made clear: 1) that reducing emissions is a matter of embracing constantly evolving technologies, not bringing lawsuits in court and 2) the U.S. importance globally on climate change is obviously shrinking because still developing poor countries are just compensating for any reductions in our emissions.
“We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” John Kerry proclaimed in January 2021.
Climate litigation like Boulder is the exact opposite of making progress and the ultimate shoot yourself in the foot energy-climate thinking that Americans rejected when all seven battleground states voted for President Trump for a second time in November 2024.
Especially as we export soaring amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas (all supported by Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump), we must be energy-climate practical, or we risk letting Russia, OPEC, and China control global energy markets.
Renewables have a very important role to play in our massive energy complex, but using climate change to sue the fossil fuel companies that offer us the energy resources that meet 80% of our energy supply is stupid, dangerous, and a waste of precious resources.
This article originally appeared at RealClear Energy
“We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” John Kerry proclaimed in January 2021.
“The problem” is only in some people’s minds.
And since no one will ever go to “zero” at any point as long as resources exist, the entire supposition is just silly.
I work in Boulder as a scientist. It’s a beautiful and yet crazy place. I’m coming to the conclusion that what we really have here is that too many trans reality activists inhabit the city. This lawsuit epitomizes that.
Another example, outside of Boulder, I just purchased gasoline for $1.85/gal. In Boulder I noticed gasoline under $3/gal for the first time in a long time. Still, many Boulderites drive further than needed to buy gasoline at a lower price. Boulder’s policies don’t do anything to stem consumption, in fact they make both it’s use and price higher.
I would say many people in Boulder have this vague notion that they can snap their fingers and replace fossil fuels and plastics overnight, or at least by 2030. The hope that I see is that more and more students are rebelling against the trans reality activists, i.e., they are becoming realists.
2030 is coming fast.
I’m not sure SCOTUS can honor the request in time. Everyone knows that it’s a long way to certiorari.
I like the frame “trans reality”.
Good point, doonman. As Kerry once stated, “…if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions – guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.” (Ref. John Kerry, Biden’s ‘climate czar’ admits U.S. carbon dioxide emission cuts are pointless – Watts Up With That?)
So if Colorado went to zero emissions. it would not make any difference in what they are suing about. Talk about pointless….
not to mention that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally occurring – and every living thing on the planet needs it to survive
Can naturally occurring CO2 be counteracted by solar powered CO2-eating machines that produce O2 and water and transform the C into some solid that can be machined into a building material for sale at Home Depot? THAT would be amazing.
Do you think we can patent this invention?
Why would you want to? There is that little problem of CO2 being the ‘feedstock for ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET, so maybe we shouldn’t be trying to reduce it when our lives LITERALLY depend on it.
The machines are trees which are manufactured into lumber.
Check out the plants in their Gardening Department.
Each of the 8 billion humans on this planet exhale 2 pounds of CO2 daily.
As long as humans and animals invest (/s) the earth, CO2 can never be zero.
Type: INFEST not invest.
Constant lawsuits keep lawyers fat, happy and ready for…more lawsuits
Spot on.
So then essentially, all wealth redistribution efforts are destined to be deposited in lawyer’s bank accounts eventually.
My Modest Proposal ( with a nod to Jonathan Swift) would be to charge the litigants understand RICO. It is abuse of
process, with “evidence” long since disproven, and legal claims consistently denied.
I see CFACT cares for their whales again.
But Jokes aside, outside the US electric car sales are still growing, same with renewables.
That’s still not much. They still had massive growth in the oil and gas industry.
There is zero hope they could compete with renewables by 2030
I understand that Canada expects to get SMRs into production before 2030. Their reliable electricity will surely be competitive with renewables wherever there is a need for reliable supply. (An interesting concept, since I am not aware of any demand for unreliable supply).
They will easily compete with solar every night, every winter, every cloudy day.
Nick Stokes is always demanding unreliable electricity supply 🙂
Maybe MJ describes a needed step. If the Canadians do it first, citizens in haughtier USA regions might feel but-hurt enough to break their 1970’s dogma.
Hmmmm…..
Yes, but fossil fuel energy production is growing faster, so the share is increasing, as per the simple graph above. I think that reading comprehension might be an issue. From the report:
You need to understand the meaning of these words to understand that renewable shares of energy produced, let alone usable, isn’t increasing.
As for EVs, you will see from the report that Chinese sales in developed countries (the only increasing production area because demand has actually dropped in developed countries) is static (despite the distinct lack of units in the graph). They are now selling primarily to their domestic markets and developing countries.
That alone should tell you something, because EVs are definitely more expensive than ICE vehicles.
I imagine that governments who had insanely high import duty on vehicles (like 100%) are giving a temporary waiver for EVs. No kickbacks involved, of course….
And seriously, Ethiopia and Nepal? That’s just hilarious. And you believe the data for China? You dear soul….
Altogether, your sources do not in any way refute the article, and once you examine them, they start looking dodgy anyway, with a lot of hope and smugness. I’m not surprised that you like them.
There is a world outside the US.
The main talking point against renewables and EVs was always “but what about developing countries”. I guess the hope for these future growth markets falls flat now.
trump may hold the US back for a short time, but the world is moving on.
I’m in the U.K., and it is obvious that our grid is steadily deteriorating, and the same thing is happening to the European Union, particularly Germany. As a consequence we have the dubious honour of having the highest electricity cost in the developed world and exported so much manufacturing to China because of it.
Try and find out all the deficiencies of renewables so you will better understand how they will never work economically and reliably.
Try and find out…
Its just a troll, don’t bother.
“The main talking point against renewables …… ” should be that CO2 is not dangerous and renewables are not required.
Due to Trump, imaginary children (especially Somali) just won’t know what snow is.
Let the world move on. The US can enjoy prosperity while the “rest of the world” sits immobile and shivering in the dark when they can’t get their electric grids energized (or keep them energized).
He’s also ignorant enough to believe that renewable “capacity” is a meaningful number.
Renewables are not a viable technology and only work as they do with sufferance and support from real generators.
They are practically and technically unsuited for grid supply and the sooner this is accepted and their use discarded the better we all will be.
The benefit will be a cheaper electricity supply and more stable and reliable grid.
CFACT has ALWAYS care more for whales than anyone that is promoting off-shore wind.
Renewables make up a VERY TINY share of world energy..
World energy use is growing FASTER than the energy provided from wind and solar.
For electricity this isn’t true anymore.
“Total global energy demand grew 2% in 2024 to over 650EJ. Fossil fuels accounted for nearly four fifths of total energy demand – a share that has declined only marginally since 2000”
IEA ‘World Energy Outlook 2025’ (Nov. 2025)
This is how related to the posts above?
Well then stop using FF and show us how you do it, I want you…to show us the way!
I see our socialists still can’t tell the difference between government mandates and consumer demand.
Nice of you to provide links to propaganda sites.
You do not like oil?
Ok. Turn off and throw away your computer.
Cell phone, too.
TV, too.
Medicines, too.
Food, too.
Shoes and most of your clothing, too. No. Wait. Spare us that.
I guess,then, you are all in favour of Mad Ed Miliband’s recent announcement of a £13bn solar panel campaign to provide generous grants and subsidies for solar homes in Britain a country which the World Bank’s ‘Global Photovoltaic Power Potential by Country’ rank 229th out of 230. Only Ireland was rated lower.
Miliband is a nutcase – you and he should get on well.
It’s time for a boycott of Boulder by all energy suppliers. Turn off their power. Stop selling gas, diesel, propane, butane, and everything made from fossil fuels. Stop all deliveries of food, clothing, building supplies, and all commodities that arrive by road, rail, or airplane. Ban all products that are grown, mined, or manufactured with fossil fuels. Give them exactly what they demand for the rest of us. Turn off Boulder. Click.
Then they will experience what a part of Berlin in currently experiencing because of the sabotage of climate nutters.
see the WUWT article Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
Ah, but first get a court order to do so.
Following the court order is protection against damage claims.
No, turn them off first. Then the court order will have to be written in the dark on tree bark with dirt.
Humor – a difficult concept
— Lt. Saavik
“SCOTUS should step in and establish a uniform rule that can be applied consistently when these climate cases are brought.”
Here’s DAVE’s rule for these cases: You have NO CASE. Why not? Because incremental CO2, from using natural hydrocarbons as fuel, is not physically capable of causing “climate” harm. The reason is that the minor static radiative effect is massively overwhelmed by dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
Defendants and the federal government agencies need to nail this down, instead of continuing to concede that *some* warming down here should be reasonably expected. Stop doing that! No one has any reliable means to have determined that emissions of CO2 are causing, or will drive, ANY trend of ANY climate variable.
More here, with references, using the ERA5 hourly parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion” to make this point. The EPA needs to wrap this up and fully rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0305
Oh? Like what? They don’t add anything, all they do is subtract. They should never have become part of the energy system in the first place.
If that was true that wouldn’t work:
IEA: Renewables have cut fossil-fuel imports for more than 100 countries
Go away, troll.Retardables are being forced on people for ideological reasons, not because they “work”.
Guess reality has a
lefttroll bias.Climate Trolls have no grasp of reality, just a muddled Belief System, which is failing rapidly.
The problem is that you think that models trump real world data.
The only problem is on the flip side they caused electricity prices to rise because you have all this extra grid problems to fix.
That is what the models claim. However real world data shows that it isn’t true.
Whenever renewables are in use, fossil fuel plants have to be kept in spinning reserve waiting for afternoon and the sun to start going down. A cloud to pass over the solar array, a flock of pigeons to pass over the solar array, the wind to slow down or stop.
As a result, there is little to no actual reduction in fossil fuel use, just a huge increase in electricity costs.
So last year we had a decline in world electricity demand?
There is nothing that proves the reduction of oil, gas, and coal imports of those countries was directly caused by WTG and WV.
Well in fairness, they do add some things…
Daniel Turner’s “COP30: Another Failed Climate Junket” reveals the hypocrisy on steriods that inflicts the alarmists.
A thought popped up as I read this:
Why do our politicians and appointed or self-designated climate experts virtually never interact with scientists and engineers and economists who do not share their alarmism but believe that we can through adapting address the problems caused by the variable weather conditions and variations in local climates?
This is the question the media should be repeatedly asking but they do not want to hear the answer because it would completely discredit the climate alarmists and their climate narrative.
Boulder is a cesspool of woke idiocy. Allowing clueless zealots to have validity is theater of the absurd.
“Renewables have a very important role to play in our massive energy complex”
I disagree. WTG and WV have niche roles in our massive energy complex.
Any project that could have a significant contribution to the energy complex is seriously incumbered with massive environmental devastation.
Let’s define that “niche” role:
OFF-GRID applications.
Correct.
Golf carts, street lights, small roadside signage, etc.
SV, not WV (Typo)
Even other countries are using the US president as an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway. Will they credit him if it works out? It’s been a minute since a US president lead any international cause that didn’t involve “free money” or a war.
Missing the mark in too many ways here.
Specifically:
The article stipulates way too much nonsense as if it is factual. Challenge ALL of the bullshit, or it continues.
“…natural gas is affordable, clean, abundant, and flexible to backup naturally intermittent wind and solar.”
so we need gas to backup up intermittent wind and solar and of course the cost of building a gas generator and it’s ongoing maintenance and fuel costs should all be paid for by wind and solar farms and rooftop solar to “firm” them. But of course this would make wind and solar unviable.
It’s Boulder, this behavior is expected. Boulder has championed every loony stop climate change response. Ask them how the smart metering worked out? or the proposal to have the city take over the utility system (Xcel)?