Climate lawfare campaign dealt blow in South Carolina

A judge on Wednesday dismissed the City of Charleston’s lawsuit against two dozen energy companies, saying the court does not have authority under South Carolina law to move forward with lawsuits that make sweeping allegations about climate change.

Judge Roger Young of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas said lawsuits alleging oil and gas companies negatively affect the climate could open floodgates to lawsuits being brought over any weather activity and could lead to a “list of potential plaintiffs” that is “unbounded.” 

“Already, scores of states, counties, and municipalities have sued a hodgepodge of oil-and-gas companies for the alleged weather-related effects of climate change,” Young wrote in an opinion. “If these lawsuits were successful, municipalities, companies, and individuals across the country could bring suits for injuries after every weather event. The list of potential plaintiffs is unbounded.”

CLIMATE LAWFARE IN BLUE-STATE COURTS COULD HURT US ENERGY CONSUMERS, EXPERT SAYS: ‘HUGE EFFECT’

The judge’s decision was made with prejudice, meaning the lawsuit cannot be brought again. But Charleston could appeal the decision.

The city first brought the lawsuit in 2020, alleging the energy companies and the pipeline were a nuisance and did not adequately warn about the effects fossil fuels have on the climate. The city said the defendants should owe damages for what it said was increased flooding, damaging storms, higher temperatures and ecosystem disruptions.

Environmentalists and climate change advocates have brought lawsuits across the country, such as those challenging emissions caused by the trucking industry, to impose restrictions on fossil fuels and promote alternative forms of energy. Opponents of those efforts praised Young’s decision Thursday.

‘CLIMATE CULT’ ON NOTICE AS LAWMAKERS PUSH TO LET FEDS HOP BLUE-STATE ROADBLOCKS TO ‘US ENERGY DOMINANCE’

Spero Law’s Christopher Mills, a constitutional law expert who previously clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, called the dismissal of the lawsuit “unsurprising.”

“Judge Young followed the clear consensus of courts across the nation, which have agreed that state tort law is not the right avenue to address the complex issue of global climate change,” Mills said. 

“It would be a shame if the city continued to lend its name to this meritless quest by West Coast trial lawyers to deprive Americans of vital energy resources. In fact, as Judge Young explained, the city’s theory would make itself liable, since it has ‘long used and continue[s] to use fossil fuels for myriad purposes — and built and maintained nearly all the roads and bridges that make fossil-fuel-powered transportation possible.’”

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, said in a statement the lawsuit was part of an “ESG-driven” operation, a reference to the practice of investing based on political agendas.

“Courts should not be weaponized to blame American energy producers for the global and eternal phenomenon of a changing climate,” Isaac said. “This case was part of a coordinated, ESG-driven campaign to shake down energy companies and impose climate policy through litigation rather than legislation. The judge was right to throw it out.”