Environmental Groups Set Sights on Colorado Climate Lawsuit
A coalition of left-leaning environmental organizations is intensifying its focus on a significant lawsuit in Colorado, aiming to pave the way for more climate change-related legal actions.
Recently, at least 20 new “friend of the court” briefs were submitted in the case of Suncor Energy Corp. v. Boulder County Board of County Commissioners. This case is essential as it may determine if local governments can file claims based on state tort laws, which could have broader implications. Various climate-focused groups and legal entities have come together to support Boulder, adding their voices to a growing list of cases against fossil fuel companies.
O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, commented on the matter, suggesting that the left aims to leverage the judicial system to realize their policy objectives. He expressed a concern that conservatives need to recognize this sooner rather than later to avoid unwanted outcomes, like living in a state reminiscent of policies enacted by Gavin Newsom.
Boulder County and the City of Boulder initially brought legal action against Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in 2018, seeking damages under Colorado’s tort law on the grounds that these companies contributed to climate change. The fossil fuel companies argue that state tort laws shouldn’t apply to them since their emissions cross state and national borders, emphasizing that federal law should govern the issue.
If climate activists succeed in this case, it could revitalize the environmental movement’s legal efforts, which have faced notable defeats in other prominent lawsuits, such as Lighthizer v. Trump and Baltimore Mayor and City Council v. BP.
In Lighthizer v. Trump, a group of young plaintiffs contested three climate executive orders from the Trump administration, but their case was dismissed by a federal judge due to lack of standing. Meanwhile, in the Baltimore case, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of climate-related lawsuits against oil and gas companies, ruling that state tort laws do not hold for damages related to global greenhouse gas emissions.
When Justice, a nonprofit emphasizing accountability, also weighed in, pointing out that there is no unique constitutional provision to combat interstate pollution.
Meanwhile, some analysts, like David Blackmon, remain skeptical about the effectiveness of the Suncor case. He noted that the arguments presented in the Boulder brief echo multiple failed attempts in both state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court. He remarked on the futility of hoping for a reversal given the dismal record of such cases.
Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit advocating for youthful voices in climate litigation, submitted a brief on behalf of eight youths from Boulder County, highlighting their direct exposure to fossil fuel pollution and climate change’s effects.
Skinner remarked that the motives behind these lawsuits aren’t purely financial; instead, they seem aimed at crippling the energy sector that activists oppose while funding initiatives they favor. This ideological push seems fueled by specific donor interests, reflected in the briefs filed.
Interestingly, the case has attracted attention from prominent law professors, including Harold Hongju Koh from Yale and Michael Berger from Columbia. They argue against claims made by energy firms that foreign policy concerns should negate state lawsuits like Boulder’s, asserting that there’s no clear contradiction in Colorado’s climate policy that would warrant such preemption.
In a rather striking opinion, Berger suggested that the implications of this case are significant, emphasizing that it’s a crucial turning point in the ongoing legal struggles surrounding climate change.
This debate seems underscored by a broader concern regarding how the left engages with the foundations of the U.S. constitutional system. Skinner highlighted that there appears to be a deliberate effort to undermine established legal structures to achieve policy goals, which he views as contrary to conservative values.
As this complex legal situation unfolds, many observers are left wondering where it will ultimately lead. One potential outcome could be a defining moment for climate litigation, either bolstering or further undermining attempts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.
In conclusion, there is a feeling that, despite the fervor surrounding the Boulder case, past experiences leave some feeling that the likelihood of a favorable ruling for climate advocates remains uncertain. As one analyst candidly put it, there’s a hope that the Supreme Court might finally put an end to what some consider a fruitless legal battle.
