By Christopher Garbacz
In two previous articles at American Thinker (here and here), I have suggested filing a climate change class action lawsuit to determine if the planet is in danger of total destruction from anthropogenic climate change and to assess dollar damages if the court concludes there is no danger. This essay examines examples of situations that might justify a lawsuit.
Defendants would be the usual suspects in government, universities, foundations, Green non-profits, renewable corporations and their lobbyists, and corporations. Greens have filed such lawsuits against governments for moving too slowly to implement the Green Agenda and against corporations for promoting disinformation about the Green Agenda.
Greens have been unsuccessful with these lawsuits because they cannot prove damages. After all, a computer model from the UN IPCC does not prove damages.
However, it is quite clear that the Green Agenda has damaged and will damage numerous business entities and it’s possible to reach a reasonable estimate of dollar damages.
ExxonMobile, which invests in “green” energy, provides a good example of what a suit could look like. According to ExxonMobile:
ExxonMobile is planning a hydrogen production plant and one of the world’s largest carbon capture and storage projects at its integrated refining and petrochemical site at Baytown, Texas, supporting efforts to reduce emissions from company operations and local industry. … this project can play an important part in achieving America’s lower-emissions aspirations
Reducing up to 30% of CO2 at the plant alone would cost $1 billion or so and that doesn’t consider the company’s other “green” schemes. Pensions & Investments Research Consultants (PIRC), a British proxy adviser, has been urging shareholders to vote against five directors, including ExxonMobile’s chairman, Darren Woods, for wasting money through these Green investments.
Obviously, “achieving America’s lower-emissions aspirations” isn’t needed if the UN IPCC model doesn’t prove future damages from higher “earth temperatures.” Therefore, the investment resources committed to this project and similar past and ongoing projects are unnecessary expenditures and directly harm shareholders.
While the PIRC does not call for vetting the UN IPCC modeling, this would seem to be an excellent opportunity to do so. If ousting the CEO and the directors is not successful, shareholders could go to court and make their case against the Green Agenda. Numerous other corporations could face similar suits.
The Texas electric blackout kerfuffle of February 2021 is another example of another costly, even deadly, Green agenda item:
Nobody yet knew just how widespread the blackouts would become—that they would spread across almost the entire state, leave an unprecedented 11 million Texans freezing in the dark for as long as three days, and result in as many as seven hundred deaths. But neither could the governor, legislators, and regulators who are supposed to oversee the state’s electric grid claim to be surprised. They had been warned repeatedly, by experts and by previous calamities—including a major blackout in 2011—that the grid was uniquely vulnerable to cold weather.
All kinds of excuses have been made for grid failure. Still, backing away from fossil fuel and heavily depending on wind, this never would have happened. How much is a life worth?
The North American Electricity Council (NERC) has warned that rolling blackouts around the country are likely this summer. The reason is that renewables have replaced fossil generation in many states. Renewables only work part of the time so backup power (read: fossil fuel) is required for a reliable electric grid. Too much fossil fuel has already been taken offline because of the Green Agenda to save the planet. This would make for an excellent class action lawsuit as suggested.
Foundations and universities that the left captured can be sued too for essentially misappropriating funding to the Green Agenda cause that is not scientifically proven. Board members could right the ship internally but, if necessary, suits could be filed.
Renewable proponents could be challenged in public service commission hearings around the country. Intervene and provide testimony on the science of the UN IPCC modeling. This has never been done, though it seems so logical to insist on verification.
President Biden admits that his administration wants to destroy fossil fuels and replace them with renewable energy. The only reason to do so is the unfounded claim that the world will be destroyed otherwise. If this reason can be debunked with climate change class action lawsuits, America and the world will greatly benefit. It’s easy to think of many other possibilities for such lawsuits.
How do you turn the Green Agenda on its head? Say “Class action lawsuits will save the planet.”
Christopher Garbacz (cgarbox@gmail.com) was professor of economics for 25 years.
Originally published by the American Thinker. Republished with the permission of the author.