Editor's Note: This column has been edited to include more context for the Shell case.
America has long considered Europe an exemplar and leader in cultural and political thought. We’ve frequently cited European laws, policies and viewpoints as guidance for how the United States should change or behave on multiple issues.
Even after the USA eclipsed the Euro continent economically, militarily and (some say) culturally this past century, we have generally continued to do this. In recent years, we’ve even done so on energy policy, in response to claims that Earth’s climate is changing dangerously due to man's activities.
We’ve done it despite witnessing how German, British and European electricity prices have skyrocketed, industries have lost millions of jobs, and people cannot afford to heat their homes properly, because of those climate and energy policies.
President Obama unilaterally followed Europe in signing the Paris climate treaty, obligating America to stop using abundant, reliable, affordable fossil fuels; switch to expensive, unreliable, weather-dependent wind and solar power for electricity generation, transportation, manufacturing and defense; pay “developing countries” tens of billions a year in “reparations” for climate change; and let UN and foreign politicians and bureaucrats exert control over America’s future.
Trump withdrew the USA from the pact. President Biden re-subjugated us. Trump plans to pull us out again – but should also send the treaty to the Senate for prompt attention, debate and likely rejection under our Constitution’s “treaty clause” (Article II, Section 2), as should have been done years ago.
That would be a major step in meeting his pledge for renewed commonsense regulation, energy dominance and resurgent economic vitality.
Meanwhile, a week after Mr. Trump’s reelection as President, a legal ruling at The Hague shows European views on energy policy may likewise be moving back toward common sense.
On November 12, The Hague’s Appeals Court judges overturned a May 2021 District Court order requiring that Shell Oil Company accelerate its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction levels by 45% by 2030, versus the company’s overall 2019 GHG emissions.
The 45% ruling reflected Paris Agreement goals and would have applied to Shell’s direct and indirect operational emissions (drilling, production, refining and pipelines), as well as total emissions by its oil and natural gas retail customers worldwide. If the lower court opinion had stood, Shell would have been compelled to more than double its “net carbon intensity” reductions beyond its existing pledge.
The appellate judges refused to impose any specific reduction targets for Shell, citing the company’s substantial emissions reduction efforts, plus insufficient scientific consensus around GHG reduction percentages needed by individual energy companies.
Unfortunately, they still held that Shell had a general legal duty to curb the effects of supposed manmade climate change. How that might happen – amid rapidly growing GHG emissions by China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and other rapidly developing countries – the judges did not say. That reality, and the soaring prices and job losses, are driving Europe’s rising anger over energy and climate policies.
Other than “red counties” and the new Trump Administration, is America moving toward common sense? The jury is still out, as 30-plus U.S. state and local climate lawsuits are pending. However, there is at least one bright spot among all that litigation.
In July, a circuit court in Maryland dismissed the City of Baltimore’s lawsuit alleging violations of Maryland’s nuisance, trespass and deceptive marketing laws by multiple energy companies. Judge Videtta Brown ruled that emissions produced outside Maryland were beyond the authority of state law.
She also called the city’s efforts to hold energy companies accountable for supposed misinformation an attempt “to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.”
This was the third climate lawsuit against energy companies dismissed (New York City’s in 2021) or narrowed in scope (Delaware’s earlier this year), with claims deemed largely preempted by federal law.
Judge Brown’s analysis reflects pro-industry arguments presented by 19 state attorneys general, alleging before the Supreme Court that lawsuits spearheaded by Connecticut, California, New Jersey, Minnesota and Rhode Island attempt to regulate energy and commerce across all 50 states.
It’s noteworthy that states with the greatest focus on climate change and wind, solar and battery power already have the most expensive residential electricity in America’s Lower 48. At 13.9¢ per kilowatt-hour, Maryland is well behind California (19.9¢), Massachusetts (21.1¢) and Connecticut (21.6¢), but pricier than Louisiana (9.4¢), Tennessee (10.8¢) and 32 others.
Despite Maryland’s legal bright spot, however, the other 30-plus cases are charging ahead – because green activists have rigged court systems in their favor.
Activists at the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) have helped “educate” more than 3,000 judges on how to understand the “facts” of climate change as related to legal issues. Even more disturbing, CJP’s materials were crafted by activists who advise state attorneys general and municipalities in these cases and/or support their claims through legal briefs.
It’s all part of a coordinated “think global, sue local” strategy – except no thought is given to global GHG emissions from China, India or other developing countries. It also hampers efforts to develop reliable, affordable, accessible coal, oil and gas; and easier for state and local governments to mandate and subsidize expensive, intermittent, environmentally destructive wind, solar and battery electricity.
These cases permeate liberal state politics and affect American consumers nationwide.
Liberal state politicians want “green, renewable” electricity but know it’s expensive. To make it seem cheaper, they support tax-funded and deficit-increasing subsidies – and states and municipalities that drag energy companies into $5-trillion tobacco-style legal settlements, to help pay for an ultimately $100-trillion pseudo-renewable energy infrastructure.
Of course, consumers across America will eventually foot this bill via rate hikes and higher taxes – along with lost jobs, lower living standards and blackouts – to support alarmist policies and the “privilege” of having unreliable “green” power for an all-electricity society.
Climate fearmongers think voters and consumers are powerless to stop this, since the process is playing out in state courts, where climate realist views and votes don’t count.
However, President-elect Trump has numerous energy and climate options at his disposal. Perhaps more important, the US Supreme Court has signaled an interest in hearing two climate cases: City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco and Alabama v. California.
The court could rule that energy companies are not legitimate lawsuit targets for the “climate crime” of producing what America and humanity need to survive and thrive. It may also say federal courts have jurisdiction in these cases, and are the proper venue, because fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are interstate, regional, national and international in nature – and no state, much less any municipality, has jurisdiction or authority to impose narrow, provincial interpretations of law, science and commerce on the rest of the country and world.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will follow the Hague’s common sense in hearing these cases and ruling in favor of fossil fuel energy that truly is the foundation of health, welfare, prosperity and security.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.