- Environmental nonprofits and foundations are accused of using lawsuits, funded through undisclosed "dark money," to pressure fossil fuel companies.
- Law firm Sher Edling has drawn scrutiny for pursuing climate litigation funded in part by anonymous donor networks.
- Roughly 40 similar climate-liability lawsuits have been filed nationwide by states, counties, and cities against energy companies.
- The Supreme Court unanimously rejected one climate lawsuit against Chevron and will soon hear another major case, Suncor v. Boulder.
- Several states and a congressional bill are pushing back against what critics call "climate lawfare."
A network of environmental nonprofits and philanthropic foundations is using lawsuits as a weapon against fossil fuel companies while keeping their own funding sources hidden from public view, according to a guest column making the rounds this week.
The column, originally written by Stephen Heins for The Word Merchant, contends that groups linked to the Rockefeller family, the European Climate Foundation, and other major donors have turned to what critics call "climate lawfare"—using courts to achieve policy goals that could not win at the ballot box.
Lawsuits against energy producers rely on anonymous funding
Heins' column points to coordinated legal campaigns where state attorneys general and nonprofits have filed lawsuits against oil giants, often backed by millions of dollars from what he describes as "dark money" sources. The law firm Sher Edling has reportedly collected tens of millions of dollars from such anonymous funding streams to pursue multi-state tort claims against traditional energy companies.
In a separate piece published by The Washington Examiner, writer Frank Lasee notes that roughly 40 nearly identical climate-related lawsuits have been filed across the country by states, counties, and cities. Congressional investigators have documented that Sher Edling received close to $3 million funneled through the Collective Action Fund and the New Venture Fund, organizations that are not required to disclose their donors, Lasee reported.
According to Heins, the European Climate Foundation continues to funnel anonymous donations to lobbying groups and legal activist organizations such as ClientEarth, which challenge energy and infrastructure projects under the banner of climate justice.
Column says legal campaigns worsen energy poverty in Africa
The guest column argues that the consequences of these legal campaigns extend far beyond developed nations. In Africa, where hundreds of millions of people lack reliable electricity, Heins writes that NGOs "routinely block fossil fuel and nuclear projects through legal pressure, treating the continent like a perpetual ward."
Heins argues women bear the brunt of these policies, since cooking smoke from burning wood and other biomass is tied to millions of deaths each year. Without electricity from the grid, he writes, women are left to perform exhausting manual labor just to meet everyday needs.
The piece criticizes what it calls "anti-humanism on a global scale," arguing that Net Zero targets demand sacrifices that disproportionately burden the developing world.
Supreme Court ruling may signal limits on climate litigation strategy
In related developments, the Supreme Court recently delivered what some analysts see as a setback to climate lawfare efforts. According to a report by Tyler O'Neil in The Daily Signal, the court unanimously ruled against Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, in a case that sought to penalize Chevron for actions the company took during World War II under federal orders.
O'Neil notes that Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the unanimous court, explaining that Plaquemines Parish had filed 42 state-court lawsuits against oil and gas companies under a 1978 state law. The ruling allowed Chevron to move the case from state to federal court.
Another test is coming: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving Boulder, Colorado, which sued Suncor Energy for alleged climate-related harms under state law. O'Neil quotes David Bookbinder, who served on Boulder's legal team at lower stages of litigation, describing the effort as "an indirect carbon tax."
Lasee reports that several states are pushing back against climate litigation. Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Iowa have passed laws barring climate-damage claims from their courts. In Congress, Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming introduced the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act, which would end retroactive climate-liability lawsuits.
Rather than settle energy policy through 40 separate courtrooms, critics say, these questions belong before voters and the lawmakers they elect. Until donor rolls are made public and courts stop entertaining lawsuits dressed up as policy-making, Americans will keep paying the price for a fight most of them never agreed to join.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
