Climate Case From Colorado Could Backdoor Carbon Taxes and Cripple U.S. Energy

By Emma Colton | Fox News

A massive climate lawsuit that could land before the Supreme Court is an attempt at a back-door “carbon tax,” a climate attorney previously involved in the case said during a recent legal forum. 

“Woke lawfare is finally being exposed for what it really is: a radical attempt to impose Progressive Lifestyle Choices on the American people via the courtroom,” O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance For Consumers, a nonprofit focused on preserving consumer protection efforts, told Fox News Digital.

“Whether it’s dark money left-wing nonprofits lying about their efforts to indoctrinate judges or climate lawyers telling the truth about their desire to take over the energy industry and impose a carbon tax via judicial edict, the result is an economy the American people don’t want — increased costs and reduced choices.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to pick up a case originating in Boulder, Colorado, claiming Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil had for years downplayed risks surrounding burning oil and gas, seeking damages from the companies under Colorado law. Conservative lawmakers have warned the case could bankrupt the American oil industry and put the U.S. national security and the economy in dire straits. 

David Bookbinder, who was the counsel of record in the Boulder, Colorado, lawsuit but is no longer actively involved in the case, joined a Federalist Society forum in October called “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy,” where he identified the case as part of an effort to impose an indirect carbon tax. In other words, the case is intended to increase costs on oil companies that are then passed down to consumers as part of the broader effort to decrease the use of oil across the board. He joined the forum in a personal capacity, he told Fox Digital. 

“Essentially, the tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder said during the forum. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable, the oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products. In some sense it is the most efficient way — the people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those, and I don’t think anyone on this panel would agree that Congress is likely to take on climate change anytime soon. So this is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax. The people who use the products pay for the damage that they cause.” 

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT FOX NEWS