By Craig Rucker
Environmental groups and climate-obsessed local governments are waging aggressive climate lawfare across America — using lawsuits to bypass Congress, the U.N.’s stalled global schemes, Trump administration policies, and Supreme Court rulings. They are determined to impose their anti-fossil-fuel agenda on the rest of us and hammer our living standards.
More than 20 states, counties, and cities cling to the alarmist claim that manmade climate change poses an “existential threat” requiring the rapid elimination of fossil fuels.
Egged on by groups such as EarthRights International, Youth Climate Strike, Sunrise Movement, Extinction Rebellion, and the Environmental Law Institute (which pushes one-sided “education” on judges), they’re suing a handful of major oil companies, alleging these firms “disrupted” the climate and caused billions in supposed weather and warming damages.
Their real goal? “System-level changes” to our energy, economy, and society, through an indirect carbon tax that drives up fossil fuel prices until most families can’t afford them, not just locally but nationwide.
A prime example: After being contacted by EarthRights International, Boulder County and the city of Boulder joined another Colorado county to sue Canada-based Suncor Energy and U.S.-based ExxonMobil. They claim these companies degraded property, health, and safety by fueling climate change with higher temperatures, more droughts and wildfires, shrinking snowpacks, reduced water supplies, harm to farming, and damage to skiing industries.
They’re demanding billions in compensation for alleged past and future “damages.” Officials and attorneys openly acknowledge the endgame is transforming America’s energy system and imposing sky-high costs on fossil fuels everywhere.
In May 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that this lawsuit can proceed in state court. However, these companies operate and sell products nationwide and globally, the asserted impacts aren’t confined to Colorado, and the lawsuit’s ambitions would slam families across the United States and beyond.
This case belongs in federal court, where judges would evaluate the claims through broader national and international perspectives on science, economics and human welfare, not on easily manipulated local venues and media narratives.
Other power-hungry jurisdictions — California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Baltimore, Honolulu, and more — pursue similar courtroom assaults, backed by the same networks. They dodge the core questions.
If federal agencies are not permitted to regulate matters “of vast economic and political significance” without explicit congressional authorization — as recent Supreme Court rulings have made clear — how can local governments and state courts impose de facto national energy and economic policy?
How can they twist unclear science, nonexistent statutes, or vague language into “reasonable” interpretations that massively expand their power and inflate private-sector costs nationwide, contrary to recent Supreme Court decisions? How can this lawfare coalition — colluding with eco-activists and friendly courts — force nationwide outcomes on fossil fuels, climate. and emissions when Congress has refused or failed to act for decades?
How can they override the needs and wishes of millions of citizens whose heating, air conditioning, jobs, nutrition, health, and living standards would be degraded by this destructive push?
These realities explain why developing nations such as China and India, which need fossil fuels to lift billions from poverty, disease, and despair, stood firm at the recent United Nations climate conference in Belém, Brazil (COP30), which ended with little more than rhetoric. Oil, natural gas, and coal still provide 80 percent of global primary energy. China and India build new coal-fired power plants monthly; China emits one-third of global greenhouse gases, more than all developed nations combined.
These countries recognize that the real harm comes from banning affordable energy, relying on unreliable renewables, and blocking essential petrochemical products — not from alleged manmade climate change.
That’s why President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, revoked costly regulations rooted in overhyped “climate crisis” claims, and boosted American oil and gas production to record levels.
The Supreme Court said clearly that federal bureaucrats cannot issue major rules without clear congressional approval and cannot make “reasonable interpretations” of ambiguous laws that balloon regulatory powers or costs.
Yet, these local lawfare efforts try to end-run all that. That’s precisely why the Supreme Court announced in February that it will hear appeals from Suncor and ExxonMobil, which seek to terminate the Colorado case and similar local climate actions.
A decisive ruling to halt this lawfare overreach can’t come soon enough.
This article originally appeared at DC Journal
On the other hand, the tally for my reparations payments from the Sierra Club and other misused nonprofit orgs and foundations is ticking higher with each passing day.
Claiming these are “civil suits”, when they are being done by governments, is ridiculous. It is an attempt to regulate interstate commerce, which is
reserved for the Federal government.
Or in this case, the federal courts. Since the courts no longer seem to care what the constitution or the laws that have been passed actually say.
Based on the outcomes of Federal court decisions, our judicial branch would historically grade out around a “D” in terms of upholding the Constitution.
Over the last few decades the socialists have been very successful in getting the courts to give them everything they can’t get through the political process.
These days, it seems like the only purpose for the legislative and executive branches, is to appoint judges. Then the judges run everything.
As soon as they can figure out a way to let judges appoint their successors, we can get back to the feudalism that socialists are so fond of.
Could Suncor Energy, ExxonMobil etc countersue arguing that the complainants are seeking Constitutional violations made law, not only for (Democrat) cities and counties to be permitted to independently dictate matters of interstate commerce etc, but also the right to deny citizens access to the energy and technology providing the basis to modern existence, thereby either forcing said citizens back to a premodern existence (no electricity, no transportation other than walk, horse, or bike), or to only permit a modern existence at prohibitive cost to the vast majority since those residents will be the ones paying the billions for alleged harms.
Yes no doubt the complainants will argue wind, solar, and unicorn farts provides sufficient power, that CCP EVs are cheap and trustworthy alternatives to ICEVs, but spouting doctrine and dogma when it self evidently is incorrect will not work outside an echo chamber.
So long as the court deciding the matters isn’t captured by ideological interests …
Perhaps they should counter sue for barratry and, if it can be done, false witness. There is no evidence the the supposed harms of increasing floods, droughts fires and so forth even exist as can be learned from simple literature reviews or even Google searches. The case is comparable to a man suing another for an accidental injury when there is no evidence at all that he is or was injured or the claimed accident even occurred. Should not the claimants lawyers be disbarred as well?
I am still awaiting the explanation of how one can tell which CO2 molecule was released (directly or indirecly).
It’s a case of the smoking gun.
About time the fossil fuel companies grew some…
…. and immediately cease all deliveries of fossil fuels to states or local governments bringing these stupid lawsuits.
Makes sense to me.
Get a court order first so as to be immune from damage claims.
The ClimateCult will go away like the witch hunts — hopefully faster.
If the last few weeks has shown anything is that those promoting these sort of lawfare will be the first against the wall if they ever got what they wanted.
The most prominent question to all politicians during our little oil crisis was how did you not stockpile more oil in a strategic reserve not oh that is good oil is scarce and will save the planet.
I would say the whole climate agenda has been set back years because people are now very aware what a world without oil would look like.
Other than a few squeamish lefties I doubt many would have cared if Iranian infrastructure was removed off the map to get the oil moving again which should give them a good indication of what will happen to them if they tried to lawfare oil use out of existence.
Biden drained the reserves to keep gas prices low during the 2022 midterms. Refilling them after the midterms was never a priority.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it was watching the price so that the replacement oil cost the same or less than the depleted oil.
You are assuming that the anti-fossil fuel folk are capable of logical thought.
Give it up enviroloons as we’re all doomed to give up breathing anyway-
The Earth has already passed a point of no return
Stiff upper lip don’t panic stay calm for the sake of the kiddies and have the koolade ready
Wow, That’s only about 50 million generations in the future :<)
“This water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas, will intensify global warming by trapping more heat in the atmosphere.”
What happened. CO2 is the climate “control knob?”
What happened to water vapor forming clouds?
“This effect will accelerate an irreversible feedback loop called the “runaway greenhouse effect” due to the complete evaporation of the oceans, which will turn Earth into an environment incompatible with life as we know it, according to Wikipedia.”
Ah. Wiki, the font of all knowledge and wisdom. /s
I am so glad to see our old friend, “runaway greenhouse effect” back in mainstream! /s
“The Earth has crossed the tipping point beyond which it can no longer sustain its oxygen levels in the long term, triggering an irreversible atmospheric decline driven by increased solar luminosity.”
Didn’t NASA show us that the planet is greening? Do not plants produce O2 from CO2?
I had to stop reading. My brain crossed a tipping point – irreversible loss of neurons, from reading that nonsense.
I mean we will all be dead by 2050. Just ask Greta!
The same CO2 that couldn’t stop a GLACIATION at TEN TIMES today’s levels is going to turn the Earth into a big microwave.
Effing morons.
It’s all about control.
These eco-extremists will resort to every stunt in the book to advance their agendas, and whether they undermine living standards of the huge majority that scoff at their antics doesn’t bother them in the least. That’s the main sign of their desperation and that’s the reason that tax-paying consumers should be vigorously resisting any of their proposals.
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW, the never-ending bullshit that never reached bottom.
This is leftist propaganda that make these people miserable and insane.