Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a proposal made by Montgomery County Democratic Representative Joe Webster to study the cost of Pennsylvania’s climate change. [emphasis, links added]
The bill – HR 90 – sponsors a program that requires the Pennsylvania United State Government Commission to study measures to combat future climate change in Pennsylvania and analyze the impact of future global warming on the state’s “natural, architectural and social environment.”
The bill may sound harmless enough, but Rep. Webster's media blitz touted the proposal in support of Pennsylvania's climate lawsuit just days after a public event hosted by famous billionaire-funded activistraise questions about the organization's legal agenda that continues in the state.
Pennsylvania's climate litigation campaign is coordinated by billionaire-funded activists
Rep. Webster's bill was ahead of the February event supported by Heinz's donation to the Environment “Group Against Smoke and Pollution-Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh” (GASP-PGH), Corporate Accountability, Rockefeller-funded Environmental Group Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) and a coalition of relevant scientists.
CCI, the main radical organization supporting climate litigation, has clearly recognized Climate litigation is nearly impossible unless the court can locate and locate the impact of global greenhouse gas emissions.
to this end, CCI has poured resources into biased “climate cost” studies to tailor it to court.
These studies are designed to show the economic impact of climate change until the regional level of Congress.
Climate cost studies used by activists create evidence for national climate litigation
Similar “climate cost” studies were explicitly designed by climate plaintiffs and used for climate plaintiffs.
For example, The city of Boulder signed the group's resilience analysis, conducting a week's study of climate expenses before Boulder filed a climate lawsuit against oil and gas companies.
The taxpayer-funded study will continue to be cited in the City of Colorado case.
The same group appears to be trying to replicate this model in Pennsylvania. In 2023, Resilience Analysis and CCI published similar climate cost reports in Pennsylvania.
Later, in April 2024, CCI collaborated with GASP-PGH to host a public event titled “What is the climate change that makes Allegheny County cause and who should pay?” to facilitate their discovery.
Whether CCI and its partners can also participate in the proposal of Rep. Webster remains to be seen. The bill does not exclude the development of research on potential climate costs with external parties,explain:
“…In order to prepare for research, the Joint State Council shall contact experts and other stakeholders in the subject area as needed to contribute to the research…”
No climate cost study proposed by the Pennsylvania Legislature should be conducted with external interests, especially if these interests are directly consistent with climate plaintiffs.
PA continues to reject more climate laws
New CCI activity in Pennsylvania shows Activists obviously don’t get the message that climate laws won’t find a popular audience in energy-rich countries.
As energy deepens, the state's only climate lawsuit filed by Bucks County in 2024 has been severely criticized for its closed review before it was filed.
Just two weeks after the lawsuit was announced, Republican County Commissioner Gene Digirolamo even quit his support:
“I've considered this in the last seven or eight days,” Digirolamo said. “At this point, I want to withdraw my support for the lawsuit.”
Last April, when the CCI filed a letter to the Allegheny County Council in hopes of recruiting new plaintiffs, the Alliance of Manufacturing and ILO sent an open letter to the Council, blowing up potential lawsuits:
“Basically, activists don’t care about the impact on Pennsylvanians; the state is just one stop at the domestic road show. There is no need for lawyers to know that filing a lawsuit will not address climate change.
It won't prevent natural disasters or repair old infrastructure. But it will drive Pennsylvania’s energy costs, waste taxpayers’ money, and demonize an industry that is an important economic driver for our country.. ”
The plaintiffs and activist approach was even rejected by Pennsylvania Attorney General Eugene DePasquale, who condemned climate law in a debate:
“[Climate litigation] Not the direction I want to go. Look-I am a career energy source in Pennsylvania. That [seeking repayment from energy companies for climate change] It's a policy issue. This is something from the government and the legislature Obviously, if Congress wanted to do something like this…just punishing the company wouldn’t take us there. ” (Added emphasis)
Outside Pennsylvania, momentum and case law are not favored by climate activists.
In recent months, state judges in Baltimore, New York City, Annapolis and Anne Arundel counties have dismissed similar climate lawsuits, citing the lawsuits that are inappropriately designed to regulate global emissions.
Bottom line
The “Climate Cost” report, backed by activists, is not an impartial study, but a PR tool tailored for activists and plaintiffs.
And, considering the rapid and strong opposition from Bucks County Pennsylvanians have made it clear that in the state of natural gas production, unpopular climate lawsuits.
It's time for CCI and its partners to receive the message.
Read more in the climate of Eid
