• Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
Editor's Pick

Climate lawfare is running into a powerful force liberals didn’t expect

by February 10, 2025
written by February 10, 2025
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Judges around the country are making quick work of climate lawfare, a welcome development following the U.S. Supreme Court declining to confront the issue earlier this year.  

In recent months, three judges in Maryland and New York have dismissed climate-change lawsuits from public litigants who accuse energy companies of harming communities through emissions and concealing those harms from the public. Their decisions suggest an emerging consensus that federal law does not permit these kinds of claims, which fail on their own terms in all events.  

More than two dozen cities and states have filed nearly identical climate-change lawsuits, creating significant risk for energy companies and consumers who enjoy the quality of life cheap and abundant power provides. 

The plaintiffs pleaded state law claims accusing the defendants of creating a public nuisance and deceiving the public. The energy companies have raised a variety of defenses. Their principal defense is that the climate claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act, which assigns emissions regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency, with limited carve-outs for states that do not apply in the instant cases.  

Taken together, the recent decisions clarify the fundamental political goals of climate litigants. In dismissing the city of Baltimore’s climate lawsuit, Judge Videtta Brown explained that a successful state law climate claim ‘would operate as a de facto regulation on greenhouse gas emissions,’ echoing the like conclusions of the Second and Ninth U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.  

The reason for that is obvious. In these cases, the energy providers face liability unbound. The prospective damages are so high that the defendants would fundamentally alter their business practices. That is the policy outcome the plaintiffs intend, which makes the preemption issue straightforward.  

Indeed, U.S. District Judge William Alsup speculated that climate lawfare threatens the continued viability of fossil fuel production altogether. When dismissing Oakland’s climate change lawsuit in 2021, Alsup wrote that the damages sought ‘would make the continuation of defendants’ fossil fuel production ‘not feasible.’’ 

Public reporting about the origins of the climate nuisance, fraud and misrepresentation cases fills out the picture. News accounts establish that a skillful network of academics, lawyers, celebrities and leftwing foundations are at work behind the scenes, at once incubating new legal theories and lining up financing. These facts aren’t necessarily germane for a court, but reasonable onlookers should not be obtuse about what’s going on here.  

Apart from the preemption issues, a Jan. 14 decision in New York clarifies that climate deception suits don’t meet the requirements of a misrepresentation tort. As above, the reason is obvious.  

‘The connection between fossil fuels and climate change is public information,’ Judge Anar Rathod Patel wrote in dismissing the second of New York City’s climate change lawsuits. Courts have determined that ‘a reasonable consumer cannot have been misled’ when the plaintiff does not identify salient facts that the defendant alone possessed.  

The climate misrepresentation claims rest on a contradiction. The plaintiffs maintain that the public is broadly aware of climate change, and that ‘climate anxiety’ shapes economic and political choices. But those same consumers have supposedly been deceived by the energy companies and kept in the dark about the connection between fossil fuels and a changing climate. As Patel wrote, the plaintiffs ‘cannot have it both ways.’  

Rebranding extreme social engineering as environmental or consumer protection is an old liberal trick. Ironically, the pioneer of this tactic, Ralph Nader, contributed to the current climate policy problem with his successful ‘pro-consumer, pro-safety’ crusade against nuclear power in the 1970s.   

I am not sure that the Supreme Court is clear of climate lawfare. While most courts confronting the late wave of climate lawsuits have dismissed them, a few have allowed them to proceed to discovery and trial. The existing split in authorities thus seems like to grow. And the plaintiffs need only prevail in a handful of cases to extract the changes they seek. But it is surely positive for consumers and for the rule of law that the prevailing trend is against the plaintiffs. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Trump says he is pulling security clearances for people he does not ‘respect’
next post
5-figure ad buy urges states to crack down as China floods market with illicit vapes: ‘Trump was right’

related articles

Hawley blasts FDA approval of new abortion drug,...

October 2, 2025

Trump’s DOGE savings dwarfed by Medicare, Social Security...

October 2, 2025

FLASHBACK: James Comey urged officials to always prosecute...

October 2, 2025

The agency staff Vought might recommend cutting and...

October 2, 2025

Reagan-appointed judge, once rebuked by Supreme Court, continues...

October 2, 2025

‘Real consequences’: Food aid, flood insurance, FEMA funds...

October 2, 2025

Trump must triple severely outdated nuke arsenal to...

October 2, 2025

White House says federal layoffs could hit ‘thousands’...

October 2, 2025

Johnson shuts door on negotiating shutdown deal as...

October 2, 2025

Democrats refuse to budge over Obamacare fight as...

October 2, 2025
Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News, And Articles.


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Latest News

  • ‘Mass surveillance’: Conservatives sound alarm over Trump admin’s REAL ID rollout

    April 17, 2025
  • Federal judge blocks Trump admin from firing 2 Dem members of privacy oversight board

    May 22, 2025
  • Senate Democrats speak all night against Trump OMB nominee, delaying confirmation vote

    February 6, 2025
  • Super Micro stock surges

    November 19, 2024
  • Saudi Arabia contradicts Trump, vows no ties with Israel without creation of Palestinian state

    February 5, 2025

Popular Posts

  • 1

    Secret Service admits leaning on ‘state and local partners’ after claim it ignored Trump team’s past requests

    July 21, 2024
  • 2

    Five more House Democrats call on Biden to drop out, third US senator

    July 19, 2024
  • 3

    Elon and Vivek should tackle US funding for this boondoogle organization and score a multimillion dollar win

    December 4, 2024
  • 4

    Forex Profit Calculator: Maximize Your Trading Potential

    July 10, 2024
  • 5

    Biden calls to ‘lower the temperature’ then bashes Trump in NAACP speech

    July 17, 2024

Categories

  • Economy (829)
  • Editor's Pick (6,247)
  • Investing (634)
  • Stock (935)

Latest Posts

  • Ukrainian designer predicts Zelenskyy will wear military suit for high-stakes Trump meeting

    August 18, 2025
  • Apple has survived Trump’s tariffs so far. It might raise iPhone prices anyway.

    September 4, 2025
  • Apple is partnering with Alibaba for AI in China: here’s why

    February 12, 2025

Recent Posts

  • Anonymous GOP senator concerned about Grassley, 91, reclaiming key Judiciary Committee chair: report

    October 22, 2024
  • Putin ‘doesn’t want peace,’ EU chief diplomat warns ahead of Trump, Zelenskyy deal

    February 28, 2025
  • AT&T, other phone companies sued over stolen nude images could face liability after court ruling

    July 30, 2024

Editor’s Pick

  • Why is Jim Cramer optimistic on McDonald’s despite Q2 weakness?

    July 30, 2024
  • Congressional Republicans face bruising battle to avoid government shutdown

    July 21, 2025
  • ‘Ideological balance’: Supreme Court’s conservative majority to stay no matter who wins election, experts say

    October 25, 2024
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Disclaimer: moneyrisetoday.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2025 moneyrisetoday.com | All Rights Reserved

Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock