OPINION:
Over the last few months, we have seen several destructive incidents by militant climate activists, all designed to draw attention to their cause.
In Sweden, a group threw paint on a priceless Monet painting. In England, another interrupted the famed Wimbledon tennis tournament by charging the court and throwing debris all over it.
Recently in Multnomah County, Oregon, local leaders wearing pantsuits and ties rather than “No More Oil” shirts filed suit against 17 energy companies for allegedly causing a 2021 heat wave that they claim led to the deaths of over 80 people.
And in Montana, the case of Held v. Montana has been filed. Activists persuaded 16 children to take turns attesting to the ways their lives had been disrupted by these companies by “dangerously increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, increasing droughts and extreme weather events, increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, increasing glacial melt, and causing numerous adverse health risks, especially to children.”
Despite left-wing media’s fixation on these cases, the result of each will surely be the same — a colossal waste of time, resources and taxpayer money.
Consider the fact that many years have passed since former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the polar ice caps would be ice-free by 2013. It has been over five years since Greta Thunberg, another famous climate activist, promoted an article claiming that climate change would “wipe out humanity” if the world didn’t abandon fossil fuels within half a decade.
Like the dozens of previously introduced climate change lawsuits against the federal government, automobile manufacturers and energy companies, this round is again built upon foundations of misinformation, baseless ideological talking points, and scare tactics.
They will run into the same three insurmountable problems that doomed previous litigation. The first is legal, the second is structural and the third is scientific.
The current lawsuits allege that burning hydrocarbon fuels leads to greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. The Oregon suit, for example, alleges that the energy companies “rapaciously sell fossil fuel products and deceptively promote them as harmless to the environment.”
To receive compensatory damages, however, a plaintiff must prove direct causation between the actions of the defendant and the harm the plaintiff has suffered. As far back as 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency was sued, with the plaintiff alleging that global warming and carbon dioxide could cause future injury. The court dismissed that case, noting that “a plaintiff seeking relief in federal court must allege, and ultimately prove, that he has suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.”
Does anyone seriously believe that the Oregon or Montana plaintiffs in the current cases can prove that oil companies have “direct causation” for climate destruction?
Even if they could (and they can’t), the courts are not the proper forum to address the issue.
Under the U.S. system of government, it is the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, that is designed to resolve political questions. This is why, in another case, a federal judge in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was sympathetic to the climate activists’ cause determined that courts are not the proper venue to address this political and policy determination.
“Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power,” Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote. “Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.”
Then there remains the scientific question for the eco-zealots as well.
Despite claims that the “science is settled,” hundreds of prominent climate scientists still debate whether climate change is man-made, what its real impact is, and even whether warming is happening at all. These scientists do not get the headlines or the generous federal grants distributed by the EPA.
The left continues to assert it has a “scientific consensus,” but facts and legitimate questions remain stubborn things.
Warmists are unable to answer why the planet has gotten colder every year since 2017. If Big Oil’s anti-consumer, anti-environment tactics are only getting worse year after year, then why are we experiencing a global pause in this warming cycle?
Finally, there is a very important question — what is the endgame for these climate activists?
We have already seen the impact of new Biden-imposed restrictions on hydrocarbon production and transportation on American industries and families. Energy prices have increased by roughly 40%. Increased fuel prices are a major driver of inflation. When trucks and trains pay more to haul our food, we pay more for groceries.
Hydrocarbon fuels don’t just drive our economy; they are also used to make hundreds of everyday goods. Bicycle tires, electrical tape and iPhones are all manufactured with petroleum products. Climate activists have never been asked to address the question of what would happen should they actually succeed in outlawing oil production.
To meet the activists’ targets, some estimates suggest global emissions must be cut by a whopping 43% by 2030. As one author put it, “a reduction of this amount would tailspin the world into economic collapse, resulting in wars, famine, deforestation, and societal failure and even the near-extermination of humans.”
The spate of nationwide climate lawsuits we’re seeing is similar to the climate activists who are tossing paint on valuable paintings. They are just attention-grabbing stunts. They’re costing taxpayers and ratepayers millions while accomplishing nothing.
• Gil Gutknecht is a former member of Congress who served as vice chair of the House Science Committee.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.