“Climate Cash Grab: The Truth Behind Big Oil Lawsuits Exposing the Money and Motives Behind the Legal Attacks on Fossil Fuels” DR. MATTHEW WIELICKI
“ In both lawsuits, the strategy is to shift financial liability for climate change from public to private sector by targeting oil companies, using the courts as a battleground for climate activism.”
Common Themes in the Lawsuits
Both lawsuits accuse major oil companies of fueling climate disasters by withholding information about the environmental risks posed by fossil fuel consumption. The New York case, as detailed in The Guardian, claims that these companies are responsible for damages related to heatwaves, flooding, and extreme weather events. Similarly, Chicago’s lawsuit filed earlier in 2024, points to climate-related events like flooding, extreme heat, and shoreline erosion, claiming that these disasters were exacerbated by the fossil fuel industry’s failure to act and alleged deception.
Both cases draw from the same climate change narrative, that oil companies are responsible for extreme weather events due to their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These lawsuits aim to hold oil companies financially accountable for the rising costs of climate-related damage, framing their legal claims as a way to shift the burden of costs from local governments to corporations. However, as in Chicago’s case, the outcomes of these lawsuits remain unclear, as they have faced procedural delays and have yet to produce tangible settlements or verdicts.
Parallel Strategies and Lawfare
Both the New York and Chicago cases are part of a broader lawfare strategy, a legal campaign designed to cripple the fossil fuel industry through an onslaught of lawsuits while funneling money to advocacy groups and renewable energy sectors. These lawsuits are not isolated incidents but are part of a coordinated effort by well-funded legal groups, including Public Citizen, Fair and Just Prosecution, and other advocacy networks funded by donors like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
In both lawsuits, the strategy is to shift financial liability for climate change from the public to the private sector by targeting oil companies, using the courts as a battleground for climate activism. The lawsuits also aim to compel fossil fuel companies to pay for climate adaptation measures, everything from flood defenses to cooling infrastructure in cities. But as we’ve seen in Chicago’s case, these lawsuits often get bogged down in legal complexities.
The Bigger Picture: Funding, Motives, and Outcomes
The financial motives behind these lawsuits are clear when examining the groups backing them. In both the New York and Chicago cases, legal advocacy organizations funded by progressive donors have a vested interest in undermining the fossil fuel industry. Groups like Public Citizen are backed by foundations with financial stakes in renewable energy industries, creating conflicts of interest that undermine their claims of fighting for environmental justice…
Subscribed
Fair and Just Prosecution, which trains progressive prosecutors to bring lawsuits against oil companies, is funded by organizations with ties to Tom Steyer, a billionaire investor in renewable energy. Steyer’s NextGen America has been actively involved in lobbying for climate action, and his financial interests align perfectly with the push for lawsuits that aim to phase out fossil fuels. This raises serious conflict of interest concerns, as the very groups advocating for legal actions against oil companies are also profiting from the rise of green energy.
Misleading Claims About Hurricanes and Heatwaves
The narrative that oil companies are directly responsible for an increase in extreme weather events is not only misleading but also scientifically questionable. Hurricanes, for example, have not increased in frequency or intensity, as I have shown in my previous work. Data from the IPCC and other scientific bodies indicate that the proportion of major hurricanes in the Atlantic today is no higher than it was in the 1920s or 1960s, despite significant increases in CO2 levels.
Similarly, while The Guardian article cites extreme heatwaves in New York as a consequence of climate change, data from the National Climate Assessment shows a decrease in the number of extremely hot days (over 95°F) in large parts of the U.S., including the Northeast (and New York) and Midwest. This undermines the central claim of these lawsuits, that fossil fuel companies are responsible for extreme heat and other climate disasters. The truth is, that climate variability is a complex phenomenon influenced by many factors, and these lawsuits oversimplify the science in order to push an agenda.
The True Costs: Higher Prices for Consumers
One of the most overlooked consequences of these lawsuits is their impact on everyday Americans. By targeting the fossil fuel industry, these legal actions will inevitably raise the cost of energy, transportation, and consumer goods. Fossil fuels are not only essential for energy production but also for manufacturing products like plastics, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers. If oil companies are forced to pay massive settlements or reduce production, the costs will trickle down to consumers, leading to higher prices for everything from gasoline to groceries.
The real winners in these lawsuits are the lawyers and advocacy groups involved in the litigation. The renewable energy companies that stand to gain from the downfall of fossil fuels also stand to benefit, as they will face less competition in the energy market. Meanwhile, the public is left with higher energy costs and no tangible improvements in climate outcomes. Even if these lawsuits were successful, they would do nothing to change the climate. Global energy demand will continue to rise, and countries will continue to rely on oil and gas for decades to come.
Conclusion: A Cash Grab Disguised as Environmental Justice
Ultimately, the lawsuits brought by New York and Chicago are part of a broader political and financial agenda that seeks to cripple the fossil fuel industry while enriching renewable energy investors and advocacy groups. These lawsuits do little to address the root causes of climate change and instead serve as a cash grab, benefiting lawyers and advocacy groups at the expense of the general public.
The real victims of these lawsuits are not the oil companies, but everyday Americans, who will face higher prices for energy and consumer goods as a result. While these lawsuits purport to seek environmental justice, they are more accurately described as lawfare tools used to push a green energy agenda under the guise of legal activism. It’s time to recognize these lawsuits for what they truly are: a political ploy designed to redistribute wealth rather than a meaningful solution to real environmental concerns.
