A landmark climate lawsuit, potentially headed for the Supreme Court, is revealing a startling strategy: a calculated attempt to impose a “backdoor carbon tax” on Americans. The revelation came from a key figure previously involved in the case itself, exposing a complex web of legal maneuvering and ideological goals.
During a recent legal forum, attorney David Bookbinder laid bare the core intention – to raise costs on energy companies, costs inevitably passed down to consumers. He openly admitted the case represents a “convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” conceding that a direct tax is unlikely to pass Congress. This isn’t about environmental protection, he suggested, but about controlling energy consumption through financial pressure.
The case originates in Boulder, Colorado, where Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil are accused of downplaying the risks of fossil fuels. Conservative lawmakers warn of dire consequences, predicting the lawsuit could cripple the American oil industry and jeopardize national security. The stakes are immense, extending far beyond the courtroom.
Bookbinder’s comments paint a picture of a broader strategy: to effectively take over the energy industry, not by eliminating it, but by reshaping its assets. He described a scenario where oil and gas production continues, but under new ownership – creditors who would prioritize different outcomes. This raises questions about who truly benefits from such a shift.
The lawsuit’s proponents frame it as a fight for environmental justice, holding companies accountable for allegedly misleading the public. Boulder’s mayor celebrated a recent court decision as a step towards “justice and the resources we need to protect our future.” But beneath the surface, a different narrative is emerging – one of economic control and ideological influence.
Adding to the complexity, concerns are mounting about the role of organizations like the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). Accusations of “lawfare” are growing, with critics alleging that CJP is actively working to influence judges presiding over climate cases. The group denies these claims, insisting it merely provides educational resources.
However, evidence suggests a more active role. Archived communications reveal judges and CJP employees exchanging information on climate studies, sharing updates on cases, and encouraging further engagement. This raises questions about the impartiality of the judiciary and the potential for a predetermined outcome.
The debate isn’t simply about climate change; it’s about power, control, and the future of the American energy landscape. As the Supreme Court considers whether to take up the case, the nation faces a critical decision with far-reaching implications for its economy, security, and the everyday lives of its citizens.
The core issue boils down to this: should policy decisions be made by elected representatives, accountable to the people, or through the courts, driven by a specific agenda? The answer will shape not only the energy industry but the very foundation of American governance.
