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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
