California’s Climate Lawsuit Ignores Energy Reality

As gas prices in California continue to skyrocket, residents in the state are beginning to ask, who is really “gouging” at the gas pump?  The answer, it seems, points more to the state legislature than the California oil industry, as leaders in Sacramento press ahead with an anti-energy crusade even as their own policies backfire.

On one hand they’re increasing the cost of energy by levying the highest gas taxes in the country at $0.70 to $1.50 a gallon, pushing legislation to extort millions from energy companies through a new “greenhouse gas superfund program,” and encouraging lawsuits that would funnel even more money from these producers into “climate” funds. On the other hand, they are preparing to spend up to $200 million to prop up a gasoline refinery to prevent price spikes. This double standard reveals a larger truth: California still depends heavily on oil and gas and struggles with some of the highest energy costs in the country, but now wants to drive those costs even higher by making American energy companies pay for global emissions far beyond any state’s control.

That contradiction is at the heart the latest climate change courtroom push by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. In 2023, he filed suit to hold major energy companies responsible for the alleged impacts of greenhouse gas emissions upon California and to establish a multimillion-dollar “climate abatement” fund. The case is still ongoing today, yet the facts about U.S. emissions, California’s own energy policies, and basic constitutional limits reveal why it is meritless and counterproductive litigation that should be ended.

For starters, efforts to use the judiciary to create climate policy are far outside the authority of the courts. That’s why similar state-level lawsuits have been dismissed across the country—including in New Jersey, New York City, and Maryland—because greenhouse gas emissions are inherently global and suing over interstate or international pollution conflicts with federal law. In January, for example, when a Maryland state court threw out a case brought by Annapolis and Anne Arundel County that was nearly identical to that of California, the judge found that the Constitution “does not allow the application of state court claims like those presented” in the case.

California’s lawsuit also exposes the hypocrisy of state leaders who have long encouraged oil and gas development and now argue that energy companies deceived them about greenhouse gasses and climate change. Just a few weeks ago, for example, news reports revealed that Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers were negotiating with energy companies to boost oil production in Kern County to avoid an energy crunch. The state’s own statutes further reflect this double-speak with Public Resources Code Section 3106 outlining the role of an energy supervisor that shall “encourage the wise development of oil and gas resources.” California has continued to promote these activities for decades, undermining any claim it was misled into fossil fuel dependence.

The Golden State’s heavy reliance on foreign oil and the United States’ shrinking share of global emissions, meanwhile, expose how weak the state’s legal and moral claims really are. While California officials rail against domestic energy producers, research from the Pacific Research Institute shows the state’s top three foreign oil suppliers—Iraq, Guyana, and Brazil—emit up to three times more carbon per barrel than oil extracted from the U.S. Gulf of America.

This directly undermines California’s climate narrative, especially given that the United States now accounts for only about 12 percent of global emissions—far below China’s roughly 33 percent and the EU’s 7 percent. In fact, America’s emissions in 2024 were essentially unchanged from 1987, even though its economy has grown by 150 percent. Together these facts show that if California truly wanted to cut emissions, its leaders would prioritize cleaner domestic production and build on America’s proven record of reducing emissions, rather than punishing U.S. companies while rewarding higher-emitting foreign suppliers.

California’s climate lawsuit is both legally shaky and strategically misguided. By targeting American energy producers—who operate under some of the world’s strictest environmental standards—the state risks undermining its own energy security and the very policies they claim are necessary in the broader fight against climate change. If leaders in Sacramento truly wants to reduce emissions, they should work with federal policymakers on constructive solutions instead of pursuing misguided lawsuits. In the interim, courts should reject these lawsuits for what they are: a political stunt that stretches the law beyond recognition, punishes responsible American producers, and distracts from real, achievable climate progress.