Supreme Court Weighs Energy Policy and Weather Damage Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating whether local governments have the authority to shape national energy policy by requiring oil and gas companies to cover weather-related damages they allege are linked to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from their products. The constitutional aspects of the case—revolving around state versus federal powers—are significant, but, honestly, the scientific basis for these claims appears questionable.

In the case of Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and City of Boulder v. Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil, which leads a dozen similar lawsuits, fossil fuel producers are held responsible for adverse weather events. These lawsuits seem to represent a coordinated effort to financially cripple energy companies and impose a harsh “green” agenda on society.

On Monday, attorneys representing the oil and gas sector argued in the Supreme Court that the Constitution prevents state and local governments from pursuing such legal actions, emphasizing that only the federal government should wield that authority. One lawyer suggested that if these lawsuits proceed, it would allow around 90,000 local municipalities to effectively dictate energy policy at the national level.

It’s hard to believe that local governments should be the ones deciding if coal, oil, and natural gas producers can continue their operations, which are so integral to modern life. More importantly, the dramatic assertions about a climate crisis that could lead to a flood of lawsuits seem to be more about fear than actual science.

A report published in August by the CO₂ Coalition, titled Colorado and Climate Change: Colorful Colorado Greener Than Ever, found no evidence of a climate crisis in Colorado—conclusions similar to those we’ve reached in other regional assessments.

Historical data shows that temperatures in Colorado have varied, as expected, since the late 1800s. While there’s been a slight increase since the mid-1970s, it’s primarily due to nights becoming less chilly rather than days getting hotter. In fact, current temperature averages are comparable to those seen in warmer decades in the past. The number of days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit has actually decreased since the 1930s, the time of the notorious Dust Bowl, and nights hitting zero degrees have also dropped since the 1920s.

Looking at annual precipitation, Colorado experiences considerable year-to-year fluctuations without a clear long-term decreasing trend. Recent levels are in line with those from previous decades. Some dry spells since 1999 can be attributed to Pacific Ocean patterns like El Niño and La Niña. Furthermore, flood occurrences do not show a distinct worsening trend beyond a few atypical years, and records indicate that wildfires, tornadoes, and winter storms are not increasing in number or intensity.

In essence, despite claims about weather-related damages tied to fossil fuel usage, natural phenomena have not shown significant changes compared to pre-SUV and large-scale power plant times.

If Colorado were experiencing severe weather impacts, agriculture would likely be affected. Contrary to that, crop yields are on the rise both in Colorado and globally. This improvement can be attributed, in part, to longer growing seasons resulting from modest warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century, combined with agricultural advancements and higher levels of atmospheric CO₂.

CO₂ is not a harmful pollutant; it’s a trace gas crucial for plant photosynthesis and overall life. Increased levels of CO₂ enhance plant growth and their resistance to drought. Around 70% of the global greening noted by NASA satellites is due to this fertilization effect from CO₂. In fact, greenhouses are known to boost CO₂ levels to improve crop productivity.

Regarding the warming attributed to CO₂, U.S. emissions are estimated to influence temperatures by about 0.13 degrees Celsius from 2025 to 2100, with Colorado’s share being approximately 0.0021 degrees. These differences are negligible—almost indistinguishable—ensuring that no damage claims could reasonably be substantiated, let alone lead to consequences detrimental to international companies and national economies.

Boulder is pursuing a financial judgment, which could triple damages, to support health programs, “green-fit” infrastructure, and general climate efforts. Multnomah County in Oregon is seeking as much as $51 billion through a similar lawsuit. Some lawyers involved in the Colorado case have characterized this approach as a new tax on both oil companies and consumers, while estimates of total financial exposure run into the trillions for those associated with the plaintiffs.

A ruling favoring the oil and gas companies wouldn’t strip states of their authority over internal matters. Instead, it would halt localities from using monetary damages as a replacement for sensible energy policy.

Regardless of personal views on the climate crisis, we need to address those concerns following the well-reasoned principles of both the Constitution and scientific investigation.