HEADLINE: “Backlash Builds Against Ginned-Up Climate Lawfare by Rockefeller and Other Special Interest NGOs”, by Kyle Kohli
Amid a flurry of recent setbacks in court, Rockefeller-funded groups have turned to a new, even more radical legal strategy to keep their climate lawfare campaign alive: advancing a wrongful death…”
Backlash Builds Against Ginned-Up Climate Lawfare by Rockefeller and Other Special Interest NGOs
AUG 28
Guest Post by Kyle Kohli from Energy In Depth.
Amid a flurry of recent setbacks in court, Rockefeller-funded groups have turned to a new, even more radical legal strategy to keep their climate lawfare campaign alive: advancing a wrongful death case that seeks to hold oil companies responsible for extreme weather.
The death of a Washington woman during the state’s 2021 heatwave was a tragedy for her family, and it has become the basis of a lawsuitfiled by her daughter in May that alleges seven energy companies bear responsibility.
But new reporting shows that the case was not only the family’s legal effort. Instead, it was initiated and shaped by activist groups as part of a broader campaign against the oil and gas industry.
The Masterminds Behind the Movement
At the time of the lawsuit’s filing, The New York Times reported that the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) approached Misti Leon, who had lost her mother due to heatstroke, with the idea to bring a wrongful death suit on behalf of her mother’s estate:
“Ms. Leon was first approached in late 2023 by a nonprofit group, the Center for Climate Integrity, which helps assemble and promote cases against big oil and gas companies.” [Emphasis added]
But records obtained by The Washington Free Beacon reveal that CCI went further than advising Leon – they drafted the complaint themselves. Metadata from the filing identifies senior CCI attorney Noami Spoelman as the author.
Court filings also reveal that just two days before the lawsuit was filed, Leon signed control of her mother’s estate over to Sarah Myhre, a climate activist and the Director of Partnerships at Democracy Forward with a background “in the field of climate accountability and litigation.“
While Democracy Forward, a well-resourced legal nonprofit, told the Free Beacon it has “no involvement in Leon’s case,” the group has been active in supporting climate lawsuits elsewhere.
Public records show the group was in close communication with California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office following the state’s 2023 climate suit, celebrated the lawsuit’s filing, and the group joined a private activist briefing organized by CCI and the California DOJ a month later.
Critical Context Missing
This week, Time Magazine profiled the lawsuit, presenting it as a precedent-setting attempt to hold oil companies accountable for an individual death. The piece quoted climate litigation allies such as Ben Franta, associate professor of climate litigation at Oxford, but did not note that Franta is a long-time, self-proclaimed anti-oil and gas activistthat is deeply tied to the broader climate litigation movement and has conducted research explicitly intended to support the litigation.
Moreover, further reporting from the Free Beacon revealed a detail absent from both the complaint and the recent Time profile: Leon had a pre-existing condition.
Her death certificate lists hypertensive cardiovascular disease as a contributing factor, and doctors interviewed by the outlet suggested this condition could have increased her vulnerability to heat stress – particularly given she had recently undergone bariatric surgery and was on a restrictive diet.
As Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons explained:
“A body temperature as high as 110 is extremely unlikely without impairment in the body’s temperature-regulating mechanism.”
These omissions raise important questions about whether the lawsuit and related media coverage present a full and accurate medical context, or whether critical details have been omitted in ways that shape public perception of the case.
Backlash Builds
Unsurprisingly, that selective framing is fueling criticism among experts who see the lawsuit as a misguided escalation of the litigation campaign.
Writing in Legal Insurrection, environmental health and safety professional Leslie Eastman warned that limiting fossil fuel production would leave people even more exposed to extreme weather:
“The fossil fuels the energy companies can’t extract, transport, and sell today may make both summers and winters more expensive and potentially lethal tomorrow.”
And Jason Issac, the CEO of the American Energy Institute, told The Washington Free Beacon:
“Their [activist groups] goal isn’t justice, it’s to bleed energy companies dry and funnel the proceeds into radical environmental projects. These ‘climate homicide’ claims are absurd, and the public deserves to know who’s really pulling the strings.” [Emphasis added]
Bottom Line: While this lawsuit marks a new front in the climate litigation campaign, the playbook and players are not. Activist groups continue to test the limits of the courts in the pursuit of their anti-industry lawfare agenda.
#EIDclimate #Climate #ClimateChange #KyleKohli #EnergyInDepth #ClimateLawfare #CenterForClimateIntegrity