Former President Donald Trump says if elected, he will unleash energy production like the U.S. has never seen. A move liberals in the climate community oppose.
But whether Trump wins the election or not, the number of lawsuits regarding climate change is about to increase.
That according to a report by legal watchdog group Alliance For Consumers (AFC).
The reports detail how liberal environmental groups, like the Environmental Law Institute, have reached out to over 2,000 judges and “educated” them on the topics of climate and the law.
AFC says they are trying to persuade judges that environmentalist plaintiffs are the good guys and fossil-fuel companies are the bad ones.
The reports also say these groups have millions of dollars ready to be spent on legal maneuvers.
“It’s nothing more than climate activism coming to a local courtroom near you.
The Alliance for Consumers sent a letter to Governor DeSantis warning of the potential backlogs Florida courts could see from lawsuit after lawsuit from environmentalist plaintiffs.
AFC says these groups will present frivolous lawsuits against Florida energy companies where they will demand sweeping reparations for climate change.
For example, if a Florida energy producer like Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) wants to expand energy production using burning coal and petroleum, climate activists are prepared to rig the courts, accusing power companies like JEA of “knowingly” harming the environment.
AFC’s report notes that these climate groups will claim that expanding energy services will lead to hotter weather and rising sea levels along Florida’s coast.
“If energy producers are hammered with more and more lawsuits demanding reparations from the state and federal levels, that cost will be shifted onto consumers. An increase in energy costs raises the price of just about everything,’ said AFC. “Yes, energy producers and other industrial companies should be held accountable when they break the law. No, they should not pay the state (Florida) reparations for global temperature shifts. And, no, judges across America should not be trained to assume that environmentalist plaintiffs are backed by “authoritative, objective, and trusted” climate science — and nothing else.”
Author
