Climate Change Movement Goes To Court — Will Judges Ban Fossil Fuels?

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

Things are not going well at all for the global warming crusaders. Despite hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on green energy over the past decade, the world and America used more fossil fuels than ever before in history last year.

The electric vehicle movement is stalled out, solar and wind power are both still fringe forms of energy, and the green candidates got crushed in recent elections in Europe because voters are sick of the higher prices associated with green policies.

So, having struck out with consumers, businesses and at the ballot box, the greens now are moving on to the courts. The climate-change industrial complex has now joined forces with trial lawyers to advance their war on fossil fuels.

One of the more absurd lawsuits happened in Hawaii.

There, a group of 13 teenagers — honest, I’m not making this up — sued Hawaii’s government over its use of fossil fuels. Environmental law firms Our Children’s Trust and Earthjustice claim that Hawaii’s natural resources are imperiled by CO2 emissions. Even if that were true, shouldn’t they be suing China?

The settlement will require the state to eliminate fossil fuels from its transportation system by 2045, and also formally recognizes the right to file future lawsuits against other parties.

Democratic Gov. Josh Green even stood next to the young plaintiffs as he read a statement claiming, “This settlement informs how we as a state can best move forward to achieve life-sustaining goals.”

There is so much that is wrong about this decision. How did a bunch of teenagers possibly have standing to sue? What possible harm have they suffered from fossil fuels?

The irony is that this island paradise in the Pacific — whose primary industry is tourism — is going to collapse without fossil fuels. With no jets and cruise ships allowed, will tourists and business travelers have to arrive by sailboat?

But this new technique of using lawsuits to advance the anti-fossil fuels movement has spread to other states. Last August, a judge ruled that GOP-dominated Montana violated its constitution when it approved fossil fuel projects without taking climate change into account.

After recent flooding in Vermont, green activists sued the state for not abolishing fossil fuels.

Massachusetts is suing Exxon Mobil for adverse weather conditions.

There are now 32 cases filed by state attorneys general, cities, counties and tribal nations against companies including Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell. The lawsuits claim that the industry tried to undermine scientific consensus about the crisis.

Here’s what’s so frightening about these sham lawsuits from trial lawyers who hope to turn oil companies into cash cows similar to the tobacco lawsuits 20 years ago: The end game of lawsuits against states and oil and gas companies for using or producing energy because of alleged damage to the environment could bring about abolition of fossil fuels through the back door of the nation’s courthouses.

But what none of these judges or litigators take into account is the catastrophic economic effects of not using fossil fuels. As an example, the Left wants to abolish air conditioning, which requires electricity, which mostly comes from fossil fuels. But air conditioning saves tens of thousands of lives a year. What about the millions of jobs that would be wiped out with no fossil fuels? How many thousands of Americans would die in hospitals, or assisted living centers, or day care centers, or schools if the lights go out with no fossil fuel power plants?

Fossil fuels have saved millions more lives over the last century than they take. They make Americans much richer and safer and happier and healthier and more mobile. Meanwhile, there is no evidence backing up the absurd claim by teenagers that if Hawaii stopped using fossil fuels, the state’s weather conditions would improve.

Will judges take that into consideration when they try to rob Exxon and coal companies of their profits for the sin of making life on earth much better?

Stephen Moore is a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a senior economic advisor to Donald Trump. His latest book is: “Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy.”

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/Supreme Court of the United States)

Up Next

Huge Percentage of EV Owners Want to Go Back to Normal Cars, Study Finds

Don't Miss

Google Doesn’t Want You To Know The Truth About Heat Waves And ‘Climate Change’

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Over 25 Canadian cities support initiative designating December as Christian Heritage Month

Daily Caller / 10 hours ago

Joe Rogan Tells Elon Musk He ‘Changed’ History By Buying Twitter, Calls Out Previous Government Interference

Fraser Institute / 10 hours ago

U.S. election should focus or what works and what doesn’t work

Alberta

Alberta calling for federal election! Premier Smith demands feds scrap dangerous oil and gas production caps

Published on November 4, 2024

Government of Alberta

Premier Danielle Smith, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Rebecca Schulz and Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean issued the following statement on the proposed federal oil and gas production cap:

“This production cap will hurt families, hurt businesses and hurt Canada’s economy. We will defend our province, our country and our Constitutional rights.

“Make no mistake, this cap violates Canada’s constitution. Section 92A clearly gives provinces exclusive jurisdiction over non-renewable natural resource development yet this cap will require a one million barrel a day production cut by 2030.

“The evidence is overwhelming. Three reports from reputable firms have shown that these regulations will sucker-punch Canada’s economy, a million barrels cut every day according to S&P Global, $28 billion a year in lost GDP according to Deloitte, and up to 150,000 lost jobs according to the Conference Board of Canada.

“The losses to GDP mean billions a year will disappear from the economy. Billions that won’t be going towards new schools, hospitals and roads, all for a reckless ideological scheme that will not reduce global emissions.

“Ultimately, this cap will lead Alberta and our country into economic and societal decline. The average Canadian family would be left with up to $419 less for groceries, mortgage payments and utilities every month. Canadian parents and workers will suffer while Justin Trudeau outsources the duty to provide safe, affordable, reliable and responsibly produced oil and gas to dictators and less clean producers around the world. We could be the solution. Instead, Ottawa would rather sacrifice our ability to lead.

“Tweaks won’t work. This cap must be scrapped. Alberta’s government is actively exploring the use of every legal option, including a constitutional challenge and the use of the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act. We will not stand idly by while the federal government sacrifices our prosperity, our constitution and our quality of life for its extreme agenda.”

Energy

Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams

Published on November 3, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jock Finlayson

The federal government’s plan to make all electricity generation in Canada carbon-free by 2035 is impractical and highly unlikely, given physical, infrastructure, financial, and regulatory realities. So says a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Canada’s federal government has set an ambitious, and, frankly, unrealistic target of achieving complete carbon-free electricity in ten years,” said Jock Finlayson, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of Implications of Decarbonizing Canada’s Electricity Grid.

The study finds that in 2023, nearly 81 per cent of Canada’s electricity came from carbon-free energy sources, including hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. But to replace the remaining 19 per cent which uses fossil fuels, in the next 10 years, would require constructing the equivalent of:

• Approximately 23 large hydroelectric dams, similar in size to BC’s Site C, or 24 comparable to Newfoundland and Labrador’s Muskrat Falls, or;

• More than four nuclear power plants similar in size to Ontario’s Darlington power station, or 2.3 large scale nuclear power plants equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Power, or;

• Around 11,000 large wind turbines, which would not only require substantial investments in back-up power systems (since wind is intermittent) but would also require clearing 7,302 square kilometers of land—larger than the size of Prince Edward Island—excluding the additional land required for transmission infrastructure.

Currently, the process of planning and constructing major electricity generation facilities in Canada is complicated and time-consuming, often marked by delays, regulatory challenges, and significant cost overruns.

For example, BC’s Site C project took approximately 43 years from the initial planning studies in 1971 to receive environmental certification in 2014, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.

What’s more, the significant energy infrastructure listed above would only meet Canada’s current electricity needs. As Canada’s population grows, the demand for electricity will increase significantly.

“It is not at all realistic that this scale of energy infrastructure can be planned, approved, financed and built in just 10 years, which is what would be required merely to decarbonize Canada’s existing electricity needs,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute and study co-author.

“This doesn’t even account for the additional infrastructure needed to meet future electricity demand. Decarbonizing Canada’s electricity generation by 2035 is another case where the government has set completely unrealistic timelines without any meaningful plan to achieve it.”

This essay examines the implications of decarbonizing Canada’s electricity grid by replacing existing fossil fuel-based generation with clean energy sources.
In 2023, clean energy sources—including hydro, nuclear, and wind—produced 497.6 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, accounting for nearly 81% of Canada’s total supply, while fossil fuels contributed 117.7 TWh (19.1%). To replace this fossil fuel generation with hydro power alone would require about 23 large projects similar to BC’s Site C or 24 like Newfoundland & Labrador’s Muskrat Falls. Using nuclear power would necessitate building 2.3 facilities equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Power or 4.3 similar to Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
The process of planning and constructing electricity generation facilities in Canada is complex and time-consuming, often marked by delays, regulatory hurdles, and significant cost overruns. For example, the BC Site C project took approximately 43 years from the initial feasibility and planning studies in 1971 to receive environmental certification in 2014, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.
Land requirements for new electricity generation facilities are also significant; replacing 117.7 TWh of fossil fuel-based electricity with hydro power, for instance, would need approximately 26,345 square kilometers, nearly half the size of Nova Scotia.
The slow pace of regulatory approvals, high and rising costs of major energy projects, substantial land requirements, and public opposition to project siting all cast doubt on the feasibility of achieving the necessary clean electricity infrastructure in the coming decade to fully replace fossil fuels in Canada.