In the ongoing battle between states and the fossil fuel industry, a new front has emerged: the push to shield oil and gas companies from accountability for their role in climate change. This is not just about legal battles; it's an economic civil war, as Republican-led state legislatures are passing laws that effectively block lawsuits seeking to hold these companies accountable for the destruction and mounting toll caused by climate change. This coordinated effort, orchestrated by groups with ties to conservative activist Leonard Leo, threatens to remove long-standing tools for the public to hold corporations accountable.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the level of coordination and funding behind these efforts. Groups like Consumers' Research and the Alliance for Consumers, both funded by organizations connected to Leo, have drafted and promoted legislation that would make it nearly impossible to sue oil and gas companies for climate-related damages. This raises a deeper question: is this a legitimate effort to address climate change, or is it an attempt to subvert the rights of local communities and shield corporations from responsibility?
From my perspective, the answer is clear: this is an attempt to subvert the rights of local communities and shield corporations from responsibility. The bills being promoted by these groups would effectively bar cities and towns from bringing public nuisance lawsuits against corporations when the issue is a broad public harm like climate change. This is a thumb in the eye of places that are affected by climate change, and it sends the message that 'you can pollute with impunity'.
One thing that immediately stands out is the role of Leonard Leo and his network of organizations. Leo has been deploying a $1.6 billion gift through a series of nonprofits and other organizations that obscure the source and the recipients of donations. Much of this money has been routed through a nonprofit judicial advocacy group Leo founded, called The 85 Fund. This raises a deeper question: is Leo's network trying to shape the legal system to favor corporations and conservative values, or is it simply trying to address climate change in a responsible way?
In my opinion, the answer is a bit of both. While Leo's network may have legitimate concerns about climate change, the coordinated effort to block lawsuits and shield corporations from accountability suggests that there is a broader agenda at play. The bills being promoted by these groups would effectively bar cities and towns from bringing public nuisance lawsuits against corporations when the issue is a broad public harm like climate change. This is a significant development, and it raises important questions about the role of state legislatures in addressing climate change.
What many people don't realize is that the stakes are high. By some estimates, more than $10 trillion in damages can be attributed to U.S. emissions. The frequency and cost of climate-influenced disasters, including severe storms, drought, and flooding, continues to mount, stretching government budgets. This is why state and local governments have increasingly brought lawsuits against the oil industry, seeking to hold them accountable for their role in climate change.
If you take a step back and think about it, it's clear that the fossil fuel industry has a lot to lose from these lawsuits. The bills being promoted by Leo's network would effectively block these cases from going forward and prevent new ones from being filed. This is a significant development, and it raises important questions about the role of state legislatures in addressing climate change.
In conclusion, the push to shield oil and gas companies from accountability for their role in climate change is a significant development. It raises important questions about the role of state legislatures in addressing climate change, and it suggests that there is a broader agenda at play. As Hild put it at the ALEC gathering, 'This is economic civil war'. It's a conflict that pits states against one another, and it's one that only the Supreme Court or Congress can finally resolve.
