AG Bonta’s Climate Lawsuit Escapade Will Hurt Californians

Like many Californians, I can’t help but be concerned about the spate of extreme weather our state has been facing. The scope and severity of droughts that threaten our water supply and wildfires that endanger lives and property appear to be growing, posing risks to our economy, public health, infrastructure, and the natural splendor that makes California so special.

Local elected officials have naturally stepped in to help address such challenges, but unfortunately, they appear to be taking the wrong approach. Instead of calling on Sacramento to address the environmental regulations that have led to mismanagement of our coasts, water resources, and forests, several California cities and counties in addition to the state Attorney General’s office have instead filed meritless climate lawsuits against energy producers.

The basic argument is that these companies created a public nuisance through their production and sale of oil and gas, and they should therefore be held liable for alleged climate change related damages related to the extraction of this resource vital to everyday life. To take a step further, California Attorney General Rob Bonta even admitted a goal of the litigation is saddle energy companies with higher costs; the result would make legal oil and gas products more expensive for everyone. As a former Mayor, I understand why some local governments may find this a tempting way to “do their part” to address what they believe to be a climate crisis and secure a large payday in the process, but I would caution that this strategy is misguided and will ultimately backfire.

For starters, proving the liability claims will be an impossible legal battle and will waste time and resources that could otherwise be dedicated to more productive infrastructure resiliency efforts. Judicial precedent has firmly established that the emissions are global by their very nature and have been generated by countless collective activities across the world over many decades. Attempting to assign specific blame and precise damage valuations to individual companies runs counter to this scientific reality and legal convention. That’s why previous attempts at similar lawsuits at the federal level by San Francisco and Oakland were ultimately dismissed by the Northern District of California court in 2018 and why pursuing more such cases now could very well meet the same fate.

But even in the unlikely event that these long-shot lawsuits somehow prevail, they would not do anything to address what plaintiffs claim are the root causes of climate change. They would also have a significant adverse economic impact in the process.

By the estimation of those that support these lawsuits, only a rapid, concerted transition to clean energy sources and more sustainable practices will solve that underlying problem of climate change. But the energy companies they are targeting have made some of the most significant investments in these technologies. Bankrupting an industry that supports over 1 million jobs and generates over $217 billion in economic activity in the state, meanwhile, would devastate local economies and that of the state overall.

What I find most troubling about this litigious posture though is that it distracts from more practical and immediate steps that should command the focus of local leaders. While the cities and counties engaging in such lawsuits claim that the massive monetary judgements they seek from energy companies are necessary to boost resilience in response to worsening climate impacts, ample federal funds are already available right now to help California communities with such efforts.

In the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021, Congress has authorized billions of dollars in grant programs for projects to protect coastal communities, promote water conservation and efficiency, and improve wildfire prevention and response. But local governments have so far failed to make full use of this vital support, leaving far too much money unclaimed by failing to apply for these grants. This undermines the argument that lawsuits are the only or even the best avenue to secure funding for resiliency efforts and calls into question the true intention of these actions.

Far from the politics of Washington or even Sacramento, local leadership at its core is about accomplishing concrete objectives for constituents and directing public resources where they will make the most difference. Such lawsuits against energy producers, by contrast, are an ineffective distraction from the important, yet often unrecognized policy work that is done by county councils and in city halls across the state to make communities more resilient. Lawsuits are simply not an effective tool for driving such policy agendas, and fanciful legal escapades will only squander scarce time and money.