The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether municipalities can force oil and gas companies to pay for weather damages purportedly precipitated by CO2 emitted from combustion of their products. While the question before the court hinges on constitutional provisions that reserve such power to the federal government, it is important to note that the premise of the case is scientifically invalid.

In Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and City of Boulder v. Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil – the lead case in nearly three dozen similar suits – the producers of fossil fuels are blamed for the effects of bad weather. The suits are a coordinated effort to bankrupt energy companies and force an economically devastating “green” agenda on the public.

On October 5^th, lawyers for oil and gas companies argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that state and local governments are precluded by the Constitution from taking the kind of legal action in the Colorado case, reserving such power to the federal government. Those suing the companies would have the country’s 90,000 counties, cities, townships, boroughs, school districts, and so forth effectively setting national energy policy, suggested one attorney.

Fearmongering

We agree that city hall should not be deciding whether the producers of coal, oil, and natural gas are allowed to stay in the businesses that make modern civilization possible. However, equally important is that the apocalyptic claim of a climate emergency underlying what could become hundreds, or thousands, of lawsuits is fearmongering with no basis in reality.

Published in August, the CO₂ Coalition’s report, Colorado and Climate Change: Colorful Colorado Greener Than Ever, finds no climate crisis in the state – a conclusion our researchers have reached in several other regional and state reviews.

In Colorado, the record shows that temperatures have fluctuated, as one would expect, since the late 1800s. A modest rise since the mid-1970s is driven by nights becoming less cold, not by hotter days, and recent averages are comparable to earlier warm decades. Days at or above 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 °C) have declined since a peak in the 1930s, the decade of the infamous dust bowl. Nights at or below zero have declined since the 1920s.

Annual precipitation in Colorado records significant fluctuations year-to-year but no overall decreasing trend, as recent values are comparable to those from past decades. Dry periods since 1999 can be partially explained by natural phenomena in the Pacific Ocean, namely El Niño and La Niña. Occurrences of floods show no clear worsening outside a few unusual years. Wildfires, tornadoes, and winter storms are not becoming more frequent or severe, according to official records.

In short, despite claims of “weather damages” from the modern use of fossil fuels, natural phenomena have exhibited little variation from the time before SUVs and multi-megawatt power plants.

If Colorado were suffering unduly from weather, agriculture would be a likely victim. However, crop productivity is increasing in Colorado and around the world. Much of this is due to longer growing seasons resulting from modest warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19^th century, agricultural innovation, and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Too small to be felt

CO2 is not a pollutant but a trace atmospheric gas necessary for plant photosynthesis and all life. Higher concentrations increase plants’ growth and drought resistance. About 70% of global greening confirmed by NASA satellites has been attributed to CO2’s fertilization effect. Greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to boost crop yields.

As for warming from CO2_, the effect of U.S. emissions from 2025 to 2100 is calculated to be about 0.07 degrees Celsius, and of Colorado’s approximately 0.0012 degrees. These are differences too small to be felt. Neither figure can support a damage award of any amount, much less one ruinous to international businesses and national economies.

Boulder seeks a monetary judgment, subject to treble damages, for health programs, “green-fit” streets and transit, and general climate mitigation. A parallel suit by Multnomah County, Oregon, has demanded as much as $51 billion. Lawyers associated with the Colorado litigation have described the strategy as a tax on oil companies and consumers. Plaintiff-aligned estimates of cumulative exposure run into the trillions.

A ruling for the companies would not strip states of authority over activities inside their borders. It would stop localities from using damage awards as a substitute for rational energy policy.

Whatever one thinks of the climate issue, its questions need to be answered according to the disciplined rationale of both the U.S. Constitution and scientific inquiry.