Climate Lawsuits May Be Disguised carbon Tax, Attorney Warns
WASHINGTON – Climate lawsuits targeting energy companies could function as a de facto carbon tax, potentially bypassing the legislative process and shifting the financial burden of climate change onto the fossil fuel industry, according to attorney Paul Isaac. The claims come amid a surge in litigation filed by states, cities, and counties seeking to hold energy companies accountable for the impacts of climate change.
These lawsuits, often based on public nuisance or negligence claims, aim to recoup costs associated with climate-related damages like sea-level rise and extreme weather events. Isaac, representing several energy companies, alleges that the sought-after damages are effectively a penalty for producing and selling fossil fuels – a function typically achieved thru carbon taxation. “What these lawsuits are attempting to do is impose a carbon tax through the courts, rather than through the democratic process,” Isaac stated in a letter to the Center for Judicial Programs (CJP) and the environmental Law Institute (ELI).
The legal strategy hinges on influencing judges through educational resources provided by organizations like CJP and ELI, which offer continuing education on climate science and its legal implications. Isaac’s letter alleges a nature study funded by ELI and used in CJP’s judicial education materials contains flawed data used to bolster climate litigation claims.
Both CJP and ELI have consistently denied influencing judges or supporting litigation, asserting their role is solely to provide educational resources to the legal community. “CJP does not participate in or provide support for litigation. Rather, CJP provides evidence-based continuing education to judges about climate science and how it arises in the law,” Environmental Law Institute spokesman Nick Collins told Fox News Digital in September. He further denied ELI funded the nature study at the center of Isaac’s concerns.
The outcome of these lawsuits could have notable financial implications for energy companies and potentially reshape the landscape of climate policy. If accomplished, the legal precedent could open the door to further litigation and establish a new avenue for addressing climate change costs outside of traditional legislative frameworks.
Fox News Digital reached out to CJP and ELI for additional comment on Friday but did not immediately receive a reply.
