Climate lawfare’s back-channel campaign, and how you’ll pay the bill
The article argues that climate activists have pursued lawsuits against energy companies after federal courts rejected an earlier route, and says newly released emails show efforts to influence judges through climate seminars and legal reference materials. It focuses on the Supreme Court case Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, where Boulder seeks to make two companies pay for climate change impacts under state nuisance law.
The article says Paul Hanle, founder of the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, wrote that seminars for “key judges” could affect case outcomes; it says at least 140 federal judges attended them. It also describes Michael Burger’s behind-the-scenes contributions to a proposed climate chapter for a federal science manual, which was later withdrawn. The piece contends that climate plaintiffs face difficulties linking particular local harms to individual companies, noting that about 90 per cent of emissions occur outside the United States.
In short
- Boulder’s climate lawsuit against two energy companies reached the Supreme Court.
- Newly released emails describe efforts to educate judges on climate science.
- The article disputes whether plaintiffs can link local harms to specific companies.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the lawsuits argue that companies which knowingly contributed to climate change should be answerable for foreseeable local harms, and that state nuisance law may offer communities a remedy when other avenues have failed. They can also argue that judicial seminars and legal reference materials help judges understand complex climate science and law; the materials’ withdrawal and the reported outreach do not by themselves show that any judge was improperly influenced.
The case against
Critics argue that assigning local climate costs to particular companies is legally and practically difficult when emissions come from many sources, most outside the United States, and that such cases risk imposing broad policy choices through litigation rather than legislation. They also contend that seminars for judges and behind-the-scenes input into reference materials warrant scrutiny because even an appearance of advocacy could undermine confidence in judicial impartiality.
Explained simply
Climate change lawsuits seek to hold energy companies legally responsible for harms linked to greenhouse gas emissions. In one such case, Boulder County, Colorado, is asking courts to make Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil pay for local impacts, using state law on public nuisance. The companies dispute the claim.
The cases raise questions about which courts and laws should handle climate-related claims, and what evidence is needed to connect a particular company’s emissions to a local harm. Much of the world’s emissions comes from outside the United States, adding to the challenge of establishing responsibility.
The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project has held climate seminars for judges, and legal scholar Michael Burger contributed to a proposed climate chapter for a federal science manual. The debate over these activities centres on how judges receive information and whether it could affect cases; the chapter was later withdrawn.
Business Climate Companies Elections Politics Science World