September 19, 2025 • 29 mins
Is the courtroom the right battleground for climate change debates, or are we misusing our legal system for political gain? Join us as we host Phil Goldberg, and explore the controversial realm of climate change litigation. Goldberg pulls back the curtain on how these lawsuits often go beyond environmental concerns, serving as political tools or revenue generators. We dissect the limitations of using the judicial system to address climate issues and question if bypassing legislative and regulatory processes could have unforeseen global energy implications.
We further explore the complexities of manufacturers' liability in the evolving climate litigation landscape. Goldberg sheds light on unusual legal trends, including lawsuits against car manufacturers over viral video-fueled thefts, which challenge traditional legal concepts like causation and foreseeability. From cases in Boulder, Colorado, to Charleston, South Carolina, the conversation underscores the urgent need for the U.S. Supreme Court to establish clear legal guidelines. We discuss how these multifaceted legal battles could reshape not just the legal industry, but also influence energy security and economic considerations.
We further explore the complexities of manufacturers' liability in the evolving climate litigation landscape. Goldberg sheds light on unusual legal trends, including lawsuits against car manufacturers over viral video-fueled thefts, which challenge traditional legal concepts like causation and foreseeability. From cases in Boulder, Colorado, to Charleston, South Carolina, the conversation underscores the urgent need for the U.S. Supreme Court to establish clear legal guidelines. We discuss how these multifaceted legal battles could reshape not just the legal industry, but also influence energy security and economic considerations.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Charge Conversations, where we discuss the latest energy
and energy related topics. I'm your host, bring him account.
On this episode, we'll be diving into climate change litigation,
why it's happening, what it's really accomplishing, and whether or
not it's more about the courtroom and cash than the
climate itself. To help us unpack all of this. A
(00:31):
honor to be joined today by Phil Goldberg. Phil is
a well respected attorney and the managing partner of Washington,
DC's office of Schuck, Hardy and Bacon, where he co
chairs the firm's public policy practice. He also serves as
special counsel to the Manufacturer's Accountability Project at the National
Association of Manufacturers. He's become a leading voice on liability,
(00:55):
climate strategy and the pushback against climate lawsuits. Phil, Welcome
to Charge Conversations.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Rigan. Thank you so much for having me. I'm really
honored to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Well, we're honored to have you with us here today.
And do I leave anything out of your introductions? I
get that right.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I'm sure if you asked my mom or my wife,
they'll give you a few more things. But I think
you got the highlights covered.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So we're both lawyers. I'm a recovering lawyer, your current
lawyer practicing, and you know, the law is fascinating, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
It is. I mean, it's one of the things that
is I find interesting about my job, and I'm sure
you do as well. As it's so dynamic and you've
got people who are trying to push the lawn ways
it was never intended to go, and you got people
like us saying, you know, hang on there second, you
know this is not what was intended. And I think
that's pretty much, you know, a summation what's going on
(01:48):
with this climate litigation. You know, the idea that we're
suing companies who are providing us energy right things that
we need every day to literally power our lives, turn
on our lights, run our plants, power our cars, that
that somehow makes them liable for climate change. It just
doesn't make sense. It's not what liability laws for, and
(02:08):
that's what we're trying to explain to the courts.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Well, that's a great place to start. And you know,
and listening to you and some previous things you've said,
and full disclosure, you've been on a panel with us
at Hudson Institute before you know, you've said previously, I think,
but don't let me put words in your mouth that
climate lawsuits aren't really about solving climate issues. It's more
(02:32):
about raising money. Is that true?
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Well, they're about trying to advance a political agenda and
to and to make money, not really about trying to
do anything on the climate. In fact, if you look
at a lot of litigation in order because they know,
if they acknowledge that this litigation is intended to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions and regulate energy, that you know that
(02:56):
the the cases would be dead on arrival. That is
not the role of the courts, and the U. Supreme
Court clearly said that in AP versus Connecticut in twenty eleven.
And so they're trying to reframe and masks what the
cases are really about. But at the end of the day,
they're the same as AP versus Conneticut. They' trying to
regulate impose their preferred solutions on GSG emissions, even though
(03:18):
what they do, frankly is not going to affect the climate.
It's only going to make things more expensive for people
here in the United States. But it's not going to
do anything with regard to energy companies are broad the
state run energy companies, it's only going to drive energy
energy production, and so much of what is needed offshore
(03:38):
to places that are not as conscious as American companies
or Western European countries companies are in terms of doing
things in a way that are better for the climate
and better for the environment. And so the litigation actually
can have the perverse effect of making things worse, but
that doesn't seem to stop them. I mean, that's exactly
why these are the issues that at the heart of
(04:01):
this litigation. What we should do about climate change, how
we should handle the production energylicy, all of that needs
to be It's a delicate balance that needs to go
through Congress, needs to go through the federal regulatory agencies
that can look at all of these things that to
balance out the impact on the climate, the need and
(04:23):
affordability of energy for people and families and businesses in
this country, and then also how does that impact US
visa vi our competitors abroad, and how this plays into
other energy producers around the world. You can't do that
in a court. You can't do that in a public
musmance lawsuit or in a state Consumer Protection Act lawsuit.
(04:43):
And so that's the fundamental reason why this litigation should
not be successful, it should not go forward because it
can't assess all the issues that are going on that
regulators can. But you know, that's exactly why they're trying it,
because they want somebody to make a decision about, you know,
(05:05):
adding costs to you know, to cost a certain energy.
They want to make decisions about GHG emissions without having
to consider affordability and all these other policies that are important.
And so they are trying to find a judge as
we want to take that on. And so they filed
some thirty some odd lawsuits around the country, find trying
(05:25):
to find a state that allow the claims and a
judge that's willing to take this on. And so we'll
see how that plays out.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So would it be fair to say, and we'll unpack
some of this you've said, but is this I'll say,
people just generally, so we have a group of people
that have a certain policy agenda we could say policy, political,
whatever word you want to put in there, and they're
not able to achieve their ochectives through the ballot box,
(05:54):
through Congress, the executive branch so you're saying they're used
seeing the court system, the judicial branch, the third branch
of government has a substitute for policy making.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
That's exactly right, and they're and they're doing so in
a way to try to get around the checks and
balances of the normal policy making branches of government.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
And you talked a little bit about cost to consumers,
and a lot of the listeners wonder how this affects
them directly. And we've talked before on charge conversations about
how cost matters, and you just mentioned that lawsuits actually
don't keep costs down, perhaps they even drive costs up
(06:38):
and slow down innovation. How does that really play out
in practice.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yes, it's a great question. So the purpose of this
litigation and we've heard them say it, you know, you know,
say in the Boulder Laws, the lawyers who are behind
that have said part of what they're trying to do
here is drive up the costs of energy, because they
believe by driving up the cost of energy, people can
afford to use less of it, and so that'll be
better for the environment. That is their premise here. If
(07:07):
we're going to if there's a policy that makes sense
around increasing the cost of energy. If we ask Congress
and in the presidential administration again whichever party doesn't matter,
to make that decision. They're going to consider factors like, well,
how much should that be, where the money get spent,
what do we do to help people afford energy? All
(07:28):
those different things to try to figure out how to
how to effectuate that policy in a way that could
make sense for people. Now, they haven't done that because
they haven't because they don't think it makes sense for people,
And which is why these you know, this loss is
trying to do it through the courts. But the courts
can't look at all those other factors. They can't decide, well,
if we allow this litigation that drives up energy costs,
(07:48):
what does it mean for people, you know, in their
monthly pocketbooks? What does it mean for the ability of
American manufacturers to compete internationally when they're being charged more
for their energy than someone in one of these other
So you end up with if this litigation is allowed
to go forward as successful, You're going to end up
with Americans spending a lot more money on their energy,
(08:09):
but not any broader impact on the environment, no ability
to actually deal with climate change or do something meaningful
on climate. It's just going to make things more expensive
for us.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Gosh. I mean, we live in such an energy abundant country,
and I was under the impression that one of our
strategic advantages that's powered our literally powered our economy and
that makes us such a great nation, is that we
have affordable energy and lots of it. I just thought
these folks wanted us to use less polluting energy. You're saying, no,
(08:44):
they want us to lose less energy and take us
back to those days of the nineteen seventies of energy scarcity.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, I think that's probably right. I mean, you know,
I have not seen them say, well, we'd rather use
this energy over that energy. Mean, certainly, you know, renewable
energy sources, I mean that they would probably support, but
those all rely on traditional energy as a basis for
that generation. Right, So ultimately, you know, my understanding, and
you know it could be wrong, is that they would like,
(09:14):
you know, less energy, and certainly, if you're making choices
among energy sources, they would like you to choose the
energy sources that they would like you to that they
would like you to choose, Okay, and they want to
make that decision again through the course as opposed to
the regulatory legislative bodies, to.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
The regular way of making laws and deciding policy. And yeah,
I guess you know. One thing that concerns me is
when you look at the classic definition of energy security.
This doesn't have anything to do with the lawsuit, but
it's about available energy that's reliable and affordable. That that's
the entire definition of energy security. And something that I
(09:49):
focus on at Hudson Institute, and it's something I thought
was universally accepted. Is that not?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Yeah, I mean I it seems that there would be
others that have a different perspective on that. They believe,
you know, I don't want to say put words in
their mouth, but that all's fair in love and war
and climate politics, and so you know, they see this
as and I have heard them say this on panels
and other places that you know, this in their mind,
(10:17):
if this can help, they want to do it, even
if it's the wrong path, even if it leads to
bad outcomes. If they think this is one more lever
that they could pull to advance their agenda, then they're
willing to do it.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Does the agenda stop with climate litigation or is this
sort of an anti capitalist theme or some other sort
of view of how the world out of work.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
As you said, I do work with the Manufacturer's Accountability Project.
And one of the reasons that manufacturers generally are concerned
about this litigation is obviously the impact I would have
on their bottom line, but also this is the kind
of model that could be used and frankly is starting
to be used against other types of manufacturers. So if
(10:57):
there's a societal issue, you know, related to how a
product is being used, misused, or disposed of whether or
not it's a understood risk, whether the manufacturers have told
people not to do something, but they wanted to say, well,
you made the products, you need to bear the costs
of whatever that societal issue is. So, you know, we
(11:18):
had in New York, the State a g sued a
soda manufacturer, Botlin Company for litter in Buffalo, even though
they had nothing to do with that, but it was
some of their you know, the bottles from some of
their products were found and so therefore they were sued.
Now fortunately there the court said, no, that's not the
responsibility of the of the soda manufacturer. It's the person
(11:43):
who actually throws it in the river. Throws it in,
you know, actually does the littering. That's the person who's responsible.
But that's the kind of litigation we're seeing now in California.
We're seeing just the opposite. We're seeing cases being allowed
where they're saying, well, even though you you labeled your
bottles as recyclable, you're responsible for the failures of the
(12:06):
California recycling system that is not recycling enough and is
allowing and it is causing litter, right and so I
mean it's again only in bizarro world does actually labeling
your products truthfully as recyclable can lead you to being
liable for bottles that are not recycled. What the California
court sev said is allowable. I mean, the cases are pending.
(12:28):
We haven't seen a result of that litigation yet. But
on the first cut through when you know that in
that case, when the soda company filed the motion dismiss
and said this is crazy, the court said, no, we're
gonna let it go through. We think we think this
is fine.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Really, So like if I so I drove a Tesla,
I'm an early adopter, I've had ones. I'm not anti
green energy at all, but under that kind of philosophy.
If I abandoned my car in Chicago, are in La,
then you could see Tesla because my car was a
recycled maybe.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yeah. And in fact, Hyundai and Kia are facing you
know almost you know, those kinds of lawsuits right now.
They there was during COVID there was a video that
went kind of viral on TikTok by the Kia boys
they called themselves, and they gave people instructions on how
to steal Kia cars or Hyundai cars, and so it
(13:18):
led to, you know, a raft of thefts of these cars.
And so now you have people, you know, I have
local communities suing Hundai and ki is saying, well, we
had extra police presence as a result of your cars
being stolen, and so you just have to pay us
the money. Before that, you have people who were hit
by the stolen you know, the drivers of the stolen
(13:39):
vehicles suing Hyundai and Kia is saying you owe me,
you know, for the injuries I suffered being hit by
this person who stole the car, all outside of the
control obviously of what Hyundai and Kia did. Their cars,
you know, were fine up until that video went around
and then and you know, they've changed the you know,
the design and all that of the the models, and
(14:01):
they've offered people anti theft devices that they can add
to their cars. They have one of these older models,
and they've done all the right things, but yet they're
still being sued by everybody because just because you know,
these criminals told other criminals how to steal their cars.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Wow, So that doesn't this go back to traditional common
law tort law causation foreseeability, Uh, the falls graph case,
the zone of danger, the wacking, the chain of custody,
and I thought all that stuff was settled.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Well, as we go back to we first started with,
it's a very dynamic area where we all think the
law was settled until some you know, lawyer can this
bright idea figures out how can I make money and
leverage litigation in a way that can drive settlements. And
so that's what they do. They file all these big
lawsuits and hope the companies are willing to abandon either
Meritori's defenses or that the judge will allow the case
(14:54):
to go forward, in which case maybe they can get
a verdict. And you know, and the cost of these
virtuous go on up.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
And up and up, you know, so speaking about law,
and you know, just uh, you know, maybe somebody would say, well,
wait a minute, your project's back by industry, and that
makes you that makes some people skeptical. But uh, you know,
I know you a little bit, and you're kind of
a left of center, aren't you. You're not exactly a
Trump maga guy last time I checked.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Yeah, No, you're right. I worked on the hill for
three different Democrats and worked for presidential you know, Democratic
presidential campaigns in my life. And uh, but when you
look at the policies, politic shouldn't matter, right, when you
look at the law, it's not about you know what,
you know, what your your politics are, it's you follow
the law. You're supposed to do the right thing. And
(15:42):
here the law seems pretty clear this isn't about what
we want to do on climate. Right. If I do
believe that we need to do something meaningful to address
the climate, that doesn't mean that I think this is
a proper use in the legal system. And I serially
don't think that that this is going to do anything
to affect the climate in a meaningful way. So it
becomes a distraction for those of us who actually want
(16:02):
to see something get done.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Well, you talked about how it doesn't really affect climate.
You know, I was always under the impression that, well,
if you want to talk about climate, and you want
to talk about a clean climate, we're better off producing
things in this country where we have an EPA, where
we have very strict standandards. Isn't this a global situation
(16:27):
where if you put China and India together, they're co
two emissions, their other emissions have outgrown the western world
of Europe, in the US already combined with their emissions.
And there's sort of this notion that, well, if we
just had no emissions here, the world would be fine.
But that's kind of silly, right, We don't live in
(16:49):
a bubble, That's right.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
There was an article a couple of years ago in
New York Times that kind of pointed this out. It
said that if you know, American energy companies are already
reducing their use of certain energy sources, oil, gas, what
have you. And as a result, OPEK is already starting
to fill those gaps. And you know, the article said,
doesn't mean we're going to have any less oil in
the world. It just means more of it's going to
(17:11):
be controlled by foreign countries and by OPEK, And so
they said, you know, at certain whatever date they laid
out that you know, OPEK will go up from whatever
fifty something percent of the international market to over seventy
percent of the international market. That's not good for the environment.
That's not good for you know, for people who want
to deal with climate change, because it's moving things out
(17:31):
of as you said, you know, production in facilities that
are governed under American law, where we care about those things,
where we try to do things in ways that minimize releases,
that minimize the impact on the environment, and so and
over there, they just don't care, and it's just not
as much of a factor. And so to make all
(17:52):
of us pay more for our energy by burdening American
and European energy companies those are who provide us energy
with the cost of climate change here in the United States,
but not putting that burden on any of these other
state owned energy companies, then we're really we're paying more,
but we're not getting a game, and we're not doing
(18:14):
anything meaningful on the environment. So it really makes no sense.
I mean, if you look at it in that way,
this litigation only increases the costs, but it doesn't actually
do something meaningful on climate change, and that makes no sense.
It makes no sense to me.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Yeah, that's a very good point, and kind of keeping
on that thing. Would it be tough in these cases
to even prove that a company's action is directly causing
damage to the city or state. I mean, how can
you tell whether that CO two came from my city
or my state or a lot of us live in
a tri state area where have multiple states. I mean,
(18:49):
I don't know where does this stuff even come from?
And the cities themselves use the products. Look at every
police car, fire truck, municipal vehicle. I'm in my mind
missing something.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
No, you're not, and in fact, you know. One of
the key legal questions in this litigation right now is
the case from Boulder, Colorado is pending in the Supreme Court,
is whether the court's going to grant review of the case.
They have not yet, so we're hoping they will. But
what Boulder's trying to say is whatever actions that took
place around the world related to the production, promotion, and
(19:25):
sale of the energy sources that they're suing over violated
Colorado law and mean such the liability under Colorado law.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
Well, Colorado law does not apply to actions that took
place outside of Colorado, So they're trying to use Colorado
law to govern and impose liability not just things that
took place in other states, but things that took place
entirely in other countries.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
That's that no state law has that reach. And that's
what the Second Circuit said when New York City brought
a similar lawsuit a few years ago. The Use courtpeals
for the Second Circuit said that this kind of expansive
concept can't be governed by by state law. It's why
in traditional pollution cases it's not the you have to
litigate under the rules of the source state. So if
(20:08):
Colorado is saying that there's the pollution that happened in
Nebraska is affecting us, you have to sue under Nebraska
law because that's what governs the source. That's basic law.
That's been the law in the United States forever, and
these cases are trying to get around all that and
get around so that any kind of any kind of
(20:29):
understanding of how the laws worked in this area for decades.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Do you think this sort of behavior by the people
bringing these lawsuits so that the way they frame things
up that that actually undermines trust in the legal system.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
I think it does. I mean, because you know, the
people who are doing this have said, you know, publicly,
that they look at the politics of the communities that
they go to to, you know, to get when they're
when they're trying recruit plaintiffs, recruit local governments to bring
these cases. Obviously they're they're looking at the legal environment
(21:06):
of the states where the cases are being brought. For example,
they there's a case in Charleston, South Carolina, that was
brought a couple of years ago. The mayor switched had
you know, the the mayors no longer that from there
is no longer the same now. The current mayor is
not as gung ho about this litigation. The courts threw
the case out, and the people behind the litigation decided
(21:29):
just recently within the last week not to appeal that
to the you know, to the South Carolina appellate courts
and ultimately we'll go to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
I think they understand that if they pursued that they
would probably lose at the South Carolina Supreme Court and
that would create it, you know, an even greater split
in among the states that the Supreme Court would eventually
(21:50):
have to take this. You know, this case, we think
the Supreme Court states the case. Now, we've got the
Boulder cases pending before the court. You have thirty sei
case is going on around the country. You have several
cases where the courts, the state court has said sure,
will allow this litigation to go forward. You've got probably
twice as many courts saying no, like this is not
(22:13):
an appropriate use of state liability law. And we need
one answer we need and the only place to get
that one answer is the US Supreme Court. So at
this point we really do need the US Preme Court
to take this case and take these issues and lay
down the rules of the road, explain what states law
we know, what state law can reach, what they can't reach.
(22:34):
How you know, there's there's some nuanced legal issues here
dealing with jurisdiction of what's you know, federal common law
or federal law or the state law. If they can
just lay down the rules of the road for that,
then these the states and the and the and the
federal courts can process that and figure out what to
deal with this litigation. But right now, what we're saying
is you know, it's probably like a legal laboratory out
(22:55):
there that you know that the people behind this litigation,
they're trying all stories of different things see if anything
will and the defense, you know, the companies and and
you know, and those like us who are who don't
agree with this litigation are trying to explain why. You know,
it's like playing wackaball, right, you're trying to hit each
one of those down. And if you can just have
a bit, you've got have one set of rules that
applies across the board that would be really helpful. And
(23:18):
that's what we're asking.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
It's almost you talked about Lachamo. It's uh. I mean
ninety percent, ninety five percent could fail, but if five
percent of them succeed, and there's time and money, right,
there's a lot of time, money, and energy that goes
into all this, which ultimately I presume gets passed to
consumers at some point because there's no money tree out
there that or I'd have one, and I wouldn't tell
you about it if I did.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
But I'm going to find out where you live and
I'm going to go pluck.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
I assure you there's there's nothing that exciting out there.
But uh yeah, so you know you mentioned Boulder, Are
there any other What does the Supreme Court said, if
anything yet? And we know that as lawyers, the Supreme
Court does not like to get involved. They're very conscientious
about the president that they set. They tried to decide
things on narrow issues so as to not make broad decisions.
(24:09):
But where does all that stand then and next year
or two or who knows, or what do you think.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
If they take the Boulder case. They asked Boulder to
respond to the petition. You know, the current administration has
filed a brief saying that they should hear the case,
and they don't like this litigation, even that in the
previous presidential administration, the previous time when the Honolulu case
came up to you know, there's also a petition for
(24:37):
asking the Supreme Court to hear very similar case brought
by the City of Honolulu. The Solicitor General under the
Biden administration acknowledged some of the legal shortcomings with this
litigation that you can only sue for things that happened
in your state, you can't sue for things happen in
other states. But they said this is just not the
right time to hear this litigation, that they should allow
it to percolate around the states for longer and out,
(25:00):
you know, and and then see and see what happens.
And and I can appreciate that that is often how
things work. But we have a split in authority right
now that we and you know, the people who are
who are behind this litigation, they just want to file cases.
I mean, they see value in the you know, the
(25:21):
media attention and all the things that go along with
filing these lawsuits. And they feel like it creates pressure
on the system and maybe they can get some you know,
policy victory in you know, in legislature since because of
these lawsuits and whatever it might be. And so having
these cases kind of proliferate and percolate in all these
different states, at some point it's a waste of judicial
(25:43):
resources and as you say, costs that ultimately get borne
by by consumers. That doesn't need to happen. The Supreme
Court could just come in now and lay down the
rules of the road.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
And is there a split in federal circuits that would
give something for the Supreme Court to jump onto. We
have a first impression, and you've got split among the
circuits or you've got to split.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
It's a split. The U. S Court Appeals for the
Second Circuit said no to these cases. You've got state
courts in New Jersey, in Maryland and Delaware, h and
a couple other places that have said no to these lawsuits.
And you've had a few the state supreme courts in
Colorado and Hawaii have said yes to these lawsuits. And
(26:24):
you have a couple other courts like in I think
Minnesota and DC that have said yes. And so there
is a split. There is a split of you know
of courts where the cases have ended ended up, you
know in state spring courts or in the US Quarter
Appeals for the Second Circuit that are It's a very
real split. I mean, in fact, if you when you
(26:44):
look at the opinions in the Colorado Spring Court, you
look at the opinion in uh in the Hawaii Spring Court,
they specifically say we disagree with the US Court Appeals
for the Second Circuit and so and then they lay
out why they are allowing the cases to go forward.
So there is a real, real and and deep split
that is occurring. And again I don't see the need
(27:04):
to have this split go more you know, with more
cases kind of lining up on either side, it's time.
It's time for the court to step in.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Well, and finally, here let's flip the question. If these
lawsuits go away, though, what are we risk losing? Because
a lot of time with point of lawsuits thinking of products,
liability or other things, they do a service, right, They
do a service of raining things in. Sometimes is there
a chance that companies end up with too little accountability?
Speaker 2 (27:33):
I don't think so. I mean, this is not a
situation of who knew what when? This is a situation
of we all understand that the use of certain energy
products is contributing to greenhouse gas admissions and the ultimately
to climate change. We all understand that, and that has
been and we've all understood that for a long time,
and we continue to try to develop policies to mitigate
(27:54):
that impact while continuing to allow for the generation of
certain energy so that we can continue to power the
world as we would say. So that debate of how
we keep doing that belongs in the the regulatory and
the legislative bodies that would continue whether or without this litigation.
And so there there's no downside to this litigation being dismissed.
(28:17):
In fact, it would only be The upside is that
it would actually focus people on the right bodies of
government and to push for answers that are going to
you know, truly balance and affect what we want to
get done in this world. And I think that and
I think that would be important as.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
We're reaching the end of our time. Anything I missed
that you'd like to say?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
No, I mean, I'd really appreciate, you know, the being
on a panel with you as you indicated at the
Hudson Institute and being on your podcast today. You've been
a great voice, you know for these kinds of common
sense policies and UH and and providing good forum for
these kinds of discussions. So I really appreciate that and
thank you for it absolutely.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
And you know, before we wrap up for the we
want to hear from you too. What are your thoughts
on the future climate policy? What about pragmatism? What about costs?
What about more or less energy? Where do we need
to be Please email us anytime at Charge Conversations at
(29:17):
bamaccount dot com or you can find me at bam
account on x We read every message and value your perspectives.
You've been listening to Charge Conversations Joe Strecker Production. If
you like what you've been listening to, please hit that
subscribe button. I'm your host, Brighan mccount, and I'll see
you next time when we unpack the Paris Climate Change
Agreement and why it is or maybe isn't working right
(29:41):
here on Charge Conversations. I'll see you next time.
Welcome to Charge Conversations, where we discuss the latest energy
and energy related topics. I'm your host, bring him account.
On this episode, we'll be diving into climate change litigation,
why it's happening, what it's really accomplishing, and whether or
not it's more about the courtroom and cash than the
climate itself. To help us unpack all of this. A
(00:31):
honor to be joined today by Phil Goldberg. Phil is
a well respected attorney and the managing partner of Washington,
DC's office of Schuck, Hardy and Bacon, where he co
chairs the firm's public policy practice. He also serves as
special counsel to the Manufacturer's Accountability Project at the National
Association of Manufacturers. He's become a leading voice on liability,
(00:55):
climate strategy and the pushback against climate lawsuits. Phil, Welcome
to Charge Conversations.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Rigan. Thank you so much for having me. I'm really
honored to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Well, we're honored to have you with us here today.
And do I leave anything out of your introductions? I
get that right.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I'm sure if you asked my mom or my wife,
they'll give you a few more things. But I think
you got the highlights covered.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So we're both lawyers. I'm a recovering lawyer, your current
lawyer practicing, and you know, the law is fascinating, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
It is. I mean, it's one of the things that
is I find interesting about my job, and I'm sure
you do as well. As it's so dynamic and you've
got people who are trying to push the lawn ways
it was never intended to go, and you got people
like us saying, you know, hang on there second, you
know this is not what was intended. And I think
that's pretty much, you know, a summation what's going on
(01:48):
with this climate litigation. You know, the idea that we're
suing companies who are providing us energy right things that
we need every day to literally power our lives, turn
on our lights, run our plants, power our cars, that
that somehow makes them liable for climate change. It just
doesn't make sense. It's not what liability laws for, and
(02:08):
that's what we're trying to explain to the courts.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Well, that's a great place to start. And you know,
and listening to you and some previous things you've said,
and full disclosure, you've been on a panel with us
at Hudson Institute before you know, you've said previously, I think,
but don't let me put words in your mouth that
climate lawsuits aren't really about solving climate issues. It's more
(02:32):
about raising money. Is that true?
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Well, they're about trying to advance a political agenda and
to and to make money, not really about trying to
do anything on the climate. In fact, if you look
at a lot of litigation in order because they know,
if they acknowledge that this litigation is intended to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions and regulate energy, that you know that
(02:56):
the the cases would be dead on arrival. That is
not the role of the courts, and the U. Supreme
Court clearly said that in AP versus Connecticut in twenty eleven.
And so they're trying to reframe and masks what the
cases are really about. But at the end of the day,
they're the same as AP versus Conneticut. They' trying to
regulate impose their preferred solutions on GSG emissions, even though
(03:18):
what they do, frankly is not going to affect the climate.
It's only going to make things more expensive for people
here in the United States. But it's not going to
do anything with regard to energy companies are broad the
state run energy companies, it's only going to drive energy
energy production, and so much of what is needed offshore
(03:38):
to places that are not as conscious as American companies
or Western European countries companies are in terms of doing
things in a way that are better for the climate
and better for the environment. And so the litigation actually
can have the perverse effect of making things worse, but
that doesn't seem to stop them. I mean, that's exactly
why these are the issues that at the heart of
(04:01):
this litigation. What we should do about climate change, how
we should handle the production energylicy, all of that needs
to be It's a delicate balance that needs to go
through Congress, needs to go through the federal regulatory agencies
that can look at all of these things that to
balance out the impact on the climate, the need and
(04:23):
affordability of energy for people and families and businesses in
this country, and then also how does that impact US
visa vi our competitors abroad, and how this plays into
other energy producers around the world. You can't do that
in a court. You can't do that in a public
musmance lawsuit or in a state Consumer Protection Act lawsuit.
(04:43):
And so that's the fundamental reason why this litigation should
not be successful, it should not go forward because it
can't assess all the issues that are going on that
regulators can. But you know, that's exactly why they're trying it,
because they want somebody to make a decision about, you know,
(05:05):
adding costs to you know, to cost a certain energy.
They want to make decisions about GHG emissions without having
to consider affordability and all these other policies that are important.
And so they are trying to find a judge as
we want to take that on. And so they filed
some thirty some odd lawsuits around the country, find trying
(05:25):
to find a state that allow the claims and a
judge that's willing to take this on. And so we'll
see how that plays out.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So would it be fair to say, and we'll unpack
some of this you've said, but is this I'll say,
people just generally, so we have a group of people
that have a certain policy agenda we could say policy, political,
whatever word you want to put in there, and they're
not able to achieve their ochectives through the ballot box,
(05:54):
through Congress, the executive branch so you're saying they're used
seeing the court system, the judicial branch, the third branch
of government has a substitute for policy making.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
That's exactly right, and they're and they're doing so in
a way to try to get around the checks and
balances of the normal policy making branches of government.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
And you talked a little bit about cost to consumers,
and a lot of the listeners wonder how this affects
them directly. And we've talked before on charge conversations about
how cost matters, and you just mentioned that lawsuits actually
don't keep costs down, perhaps they even drive costs up
(06:38):
and slow down innovation. How does that really play out
in practice.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yes, it's a great question. So the purpose of this
litigation and we've heard them say it, you know, you know,
say in the Boulder Laws, the lawyers who are behind
that have said part of what they're trying to do
here is drive up the costs of energy, because they
believe by driving up the cost of energy, people can
afford to use less of it, and so that'll be
better for the environment. That is their premise here. If
(07:07):
we're going to if there's a policy that makes sense
around increasing the cost of energy. If we ask Congress
and in the presidential administration again whichever party doesn't matter,
to make that decision. They're going to consider factors like, well,
how much should that be, where the money get spent,
what do we do to help people afford energy? All
(07:28):
those different things to try to figure out how to
how to effectuate that policy in a way that could
make sense for people. Now, they haven't done that because
they haven't because they don't think it makes sense for people,
And which is why these you know, this loss is
trying to do it through the courts. But the courts
can't look at all those other factors. They can't decide, well,
if we allow this litigation that drives up energy costs,
(07:48):
what does it mean for people, you know, in their
monthly pocketbooks? What does it mean for the ability of
American manufacturers to compete internationally when they're being charged more
for their energy than someone in one of these other
So you end up with if this litigation is allowed
to go forward as successful, You're going to end up
with Americans spending a lot more money on their energy,
(08:09):
but not any broader impact on the environment, no ability
to actually deal with climate change or do something meaningful
on climate. It's just going to make things more expensive
for us.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Gosh. I mean, we live in such an energy abundant country,
and I was under the impression that one of our
strategic advantages that's powered our literally powered our economy and
that makes us such a great nation, is that we
have affordable energy and lots of it. I just thought
these folks wanted us to use less polluting energy. You're saying, no,
(08:44):
they want us to lose less energy and take us
back to those days of the nineteen seventies of energy scarcity.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, I think that's probably right. I mean, you know,
I have not seen them say, well, we'd rather use
this energy over that energy. Mean, certainly, you know, renewable
energy sources, I mean that they would probably support, but
those all rely on traditional energy as a basis for
that generation. Right, So ultimately, you know, my understanding, and
you know it could be wrong, is that they would like,
(09:14):
you know, less energy, and certainly, if you're making choices
among energy sources, they would like you to choose the
energy sources that they would like you to that they
would like you to choose, Okay, and they want to
make that decision again through the course as opposed to
the regulatory legislative bodies, to.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
The regular way of making laws and deciding policy. And yeah,
I guess you know. One thing that concerns me is
when you look at the classic definition of energy security.
This doesn't have anything to do with the lawsuit, but
it's about available energy that's reliable and affordable. That that's
the entire definition of energy security. And something that I
(09:49):
focus on at Hudson Institute, and it's something I thought
was universally accepted. Is that not?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Yeah, I mean I it seems that there would be
others that have a different perspective on that. They believe,
you know, I don't want to say put words in
their mouth, but that all's fair in love and war
and climate politics, and so you know, they see this
as and I have heard them say this on panels
and other places that you know, this in their mind,
(10:17):
if this can help, they want to do it, even
if it's the wrong path, even if it leads to
bad outcomes. If they think this is one more lever
that they could pull to advance their agenda, then they're
willing to do it.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Does the agenda stop with climate litigation or is this
sort of an anti capitalist theme or some other sort
of view of how the world out of work.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
As you said, I do work with the Manufacturer's Accountability Project.
And one of the reasons that manufacturers generally are concerned
about this litigation is obviously the impact I would have
on their bottom line, but also this is the kind
of model that could be used and frankly is starting
to be used against other types of manufacturers. So if
(10:57):
there's a societal issue, you know, related to how a
product is being used, misused, or disposed of whether or
not it's a understood risk, whether the manufacturers have told
people not to do something, but they wanted to say, well,
you made the products, you need to bear the costs
of whatever that societal issue is. So, you know, we
(11:18):
had in New York, the State a g sued a
soda manufacturer, Botlin Company for litter in Buffalo, even though
they had nothing to do with that, but it was
some of their you know, the bottles from some of
their products were found and so therefore they were sued.
Now fortunately there the court said, no, that's not the
responsibility of the of the soda manufacturer. It's the person
(11:43):
who actually throws it in the river. Throws it in,
you know, actually does the littering. That's the person who's responsible.
But that's the kind of litigation we're seeing now in California.
We're seeing just the opposite. We're seeing cases being allowed
where they're saying, well, even though you you labeled your
bottles as recyclable, you're responsible for the failures of the
(12:06):
California recycling system that is not recycling enough and is
allowing and it is causing litter, right and so I
mean it's again only in bizarro world does actually labeling
your products truthfully as recyclable can lead you to being
liable for bottles that are not recycled. What the California
court sev said is allowable. I mean, the cases are pending.
(12:28):
We haven't seen a result of that litigation yet. But
on the first cut through when you know that in
that case, when the soda company filed the motion dismiss
and said this is crazy, the court said, no, we're
gonna let it go through. We think we think this
is fine.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Really, So like if I so I drove a Tesla,
I'm an early adopter, I've had ones. I'm not anti
green energy at all, but under that kind of philosophy.
If I abandoned my car in Chicago, are in La,
then you could see Tesla because my car was a
recycled maybe.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yeah. And in fact, Hyundai and Kia are facing you
know almost you know, those kinds of lawsuits right now.
They there was during COVID there was a video that
went kind of viral on TikTok by the Kia boys
they called themselves, and they gave people instructions on how
to steal Kia cars or Hyundai cars, and so it
(13:18):
led to, you know, a raft of thefts of these cars.
And so now you have people, you know, I have
local communities suing Hundai and ki is saying, well, we
had extra police presence as a result of your cars
being stolen, and so you just have to pay us
the money. Before that, you have people who were hit
by the stolen you know, the drivers of the stolen
(13:39):
vehicles suing Hyundai and Kia is saying you owe me,
you know, for the injuries I suffered being hit by
this person who stole the car, all outside of the
control obviously of what Hyundai and Kia did. Their cars,
you know, were fine up until that video went around
and then and you know, they've changed the you know,
the design and all that of the the models, and
(14:01):
they've offered people anti theft devices that they can add
to their cars. They have one of these older models,
and they've done all the right things, but yet they're
still being sued by everybody because just because you know,
these criminals told other criminals how to steal their cars.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Wow, So that doesn't this go back to traditional common
law tort law causation foreseeability, Uh, the falls graph case,
the zone of danger, the wacking, the chain of custody,
and I thought all that stuff was settled.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Well, as we go back to we first started with,
it's a very dynamic area where we all think the
law was settled until some you know, lawyer can this
bright idea figures out how can I make money and
leverage litigation in a way that can drive settlements. And
so that's what they do. They file all these big
lawsuits and hope the companies are willing to abandon either
Meritori's defenses or that the judge will allow the case
(14:54):
to go forward, in which case maybe they can get
a verdict. And you know, and the cost of these
virtuous go on up.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
And up and up, you know, so speaking about law,
and you know, just uh, you know, maybe somebody would say, well,
wait a minute, your project's back by industry, and that
makes you that makes some people skeptical. But uh, you know,
I know you a little bit, and you're kind of
a left of center, aren't you. You're not exactly a
Trump maga guy last time I checked.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Yeah, No, you're right. I worked on the hill for
three different Democrats and worked for presidential you know, Democratic
presidential campaigns in my life. And uh, but when you
look at the policies, politic shouldn't matter, right, when you
look at the law, it's not about you know what,
you know, what your your politics are, it's you follow
the law. You're supposed to do the right thing. And
(15:42):
here the law seems pretty clear this isn't about what
we want to do on climate. Right. If I do
believe that we need to do something meaningful to address
the climate, that doesn't mean that I think this is
a proper use in the legal system. And I serially
don't think that that this is going to do anything
to affect the climate in a meaningful way. So it
becomes a distraction for those of us who actually want
(16:02):
to see something get done.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Well, you talked about how it doesn't really affect climate.
You know, I was always under the impression that, well,
if you want to talk about climate, and you want
to talk about a clean climate, we're better off producing
things in this country where we have an EPA, where
we have very strict standandards. Isn't this a global situation
(16:27):
where if you put China and India together, they're co
two emissions, their other emissions have outgrown the western world
of Europe, in the US already combined with their emissions.
And there's sort of this notion that, well, if we
just had no emissions here, the world would be fine.
But that's kind of silly, right, We don't live in
(16:49):
a bubble, That's right.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
There was an article a couple of years ago in
New York Times that kind of pointed this out. It
said that if you know, American energy companies are already
reducing their use of certain energy sources, oil, gas, what
have you. And as a result, OPEK is already starting
to fill those gaps. And you know, the article said,
doesn't mean we're going to have any less oil in
the world. It just means more of it's going to
(17:11):
be controlled by foreign countries and by OPEK, And so
they said, you know, at certain whatever date they laid
out that you know, OPEK will go up from whatever
fifty something percent of the international market to over seventy
percent of the international market. That's not good for the environment.
That's not good for you know, for people who want
to deal with climate change, because it's moving things out
(17:31):
of as you said, you know, production in facilities that
are governed under American law, where we care about those things,
where we try to do things in ways that minimize releases,
that minimize the impact on the environment, and so and
over there, they just don't care, and it's just not
as much of a factor. And so to make all
(17:52):
of us pay more for our energy by burdening American
and European energy companies those are who provide us energy
with the cost of climate change here in the United States,
but not putting that burden on any of these other
state owned energy companies, then we're really we're paying more,
but we're not getting a game, and we're not doing
(18:14):
anything meaningful on the environment. So it really makes no sense.
I mean, if you look at it in that way,
this litigation only increases the costs, but it doesn't actually
do something meaningful on climate change, and that makes no sense.
It makes no sense to me.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Yeah, that's a very good point, and kind of keeping
on that thing. Would it be tough in these cases
to even prove that a company's action is directly causing
damage to the city or state. I mean, how can
you tell whether that CO two came from my city
or my state or a lot of us live in
a tri state area where have multiple states. I mean,
(18:49):
I don't know where does this stuff even come from?
And the cities themselves use the products. Look at every
police car, fire truck, municipal vehicle. I'm in my mind
missing something.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
No, you're not, and in fact, you know. One of
the key legal questions in this litigation right now is
the case from Boulder, Colorado is pending in the Supreme Court,
is whether the court's going to grant review of the case.
They have not yet, so we're hoping they will. But
what Boulder's trying to say is whatever actions that took
place around the world related to the production, promotion, and
(19:25):
sale of the energy sources that they're suing over violated
Colorado law and mean such the liability under Colorado law.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
Well, Colorado law does not apply to actions that took
place outside of Colorado, So they're trying to use Colorado
law to govern and impose liability not just things that
took place in other states, but things that took place
entirely in other countries.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
That's that no state law has that reach. And that's
what the Second Circuit said when New York City brought
a similar lawsuit a few years ago. The Use courtpeals
for the Second Circuit said that this kind of expansive
concept can't be governed by by state law. It's why
in traditional pollution cases it's not the you have to
litigate under the rules of the source state. So if
(20:08):
Colorado is saying that there's the pollution that happened in
Nebraska is affecting us, you have to sue under Nebraska
law because that's what governs the source. That's basic law.
That's been the law in the United States forever, and
these cases are trying to get around all that and
get around so that any kind of any kind of
(20:29):
understanding of how the laws worked in this area for decades.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Do you think this sort of behavior by the people
bringing these lawsuits so that the way they frame things
up that that actually undermines trust in the legal system.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
I think it does. I mean, because you know, the
people who are doing this have said, you know, publicly,
that they look at the politics of the communities that
they go to to, you know, to get when they're
when they're trying recruit plaintiffs, recruit local governments to bring
these cases. Obviously they're they're looking at the legal environment
(21:06):
of the states where the cases are being brought. For example,
they there's a case in Charleston, South Carolina, that was
brought a couple of years ago. The mayor switched had
you know, the the mayors no longer that from there
is no longer the same now. The current mayor is
not as gung ho about this litigation. The courts threw
the case out, and the people behind the litigation decided
(21:29):
just recently within the last week not to appeal that
to the you know, to the South Carolina appellate courts
and ultimately we'll go to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
I think they understand that if they pursued that they
would probably lose at the South Carolina Supreme Court and
that would create it, you know, an even greater split
in among the states that the Supreme Court would eventually
(21:50):
have to take this. You know, this case, we think
the Supreme Court states the case. Now, we've got the
Boulder cases pending before the court. You have thirty sei
case is going on around the country. You have several
cases where the courts, the state court has said sure,
will allow this litigation to go forward. You've got probably
twice as many courts saying no, like this is not
(22:13):
an appropriate use of state liability law. And we need
one answer we need and the only place to get
that one answer is the US Supreme Court. So at
this point we really do need the US Preme Court
to take this case and take these issues and lay
down the rules of the road, explain what states law
we know, what state law can reach, what they can't reach.
(22:34):
How you know, there's there's some nuanced legal issues here
dealing with jurisdiction of what's you know, federal common law
or federal law or the state law. If they can
just lay down the rules of the road for that,
then these the states and the and the and the
federal courts can process that and figure out what to
deal with this litigation. But right now, what we're saying
is you know, it's probably like a legal laboratory out
(22:55):
there that you know that the people behind this litigation,
they're trying all stories of different things see if anything
will and the defense, you know, the companies and and
you know, and those like us who are who don't
agree with this litigation are trying to explain why. You know,
it's like playing wackaball, right, you're trying to hit each
one of those down. And if you can just have
a bit, you've got have one set of rules that
applies across the board that would be really helpful. And
(23:18):
that's what we're asking.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
It's almost you talked about Lachamo. It's uh. I mean
ninety percent, ninety five percent could fail, but if five
percent of them succeed, and there's time and money, right,
there's a lot of time, money, and energy that goes
into all this, which ultimately I presume gets passed to
consumers at some point because there's no money tree out
there that or I'd have one, and I wouldn't tell
you about it if I did.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
But I'm going to find out where you live and
I'm going to go pluck.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
I assure you there's there's nothing that exciting out there.
But uh yeah, so you know you mentioned Boulder, Are
there any other What does the Supreme Court said, if
anything yet? And we know that as lawyers, the Supreme
Court does not like to get involved. They're very conscientious
about the president that they set. They tried to decide
things on narrow issues so as to not make broad decisions.
(24:09):
But where does all that stand then and next year
or two or who knows, or what do you think.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
If they take the Boulder case. They asked Boulder to
respond to the petition. You know, the current administration has
filed a brief saying that they should hear the case,
and they don't like this litigation, even that in the
previous presidential administration, the previous time when the Honolulu case
came up to you know, there's also a petition for
(24:37):
asking the Supreme Court to hear very similar case brought
by the City of Honolulu. The Solicitor General under the
Biden administration acknowledged some of the legal shortcomings with this
litigation that you can only sue for things that happened
in your state, you can't sue for things happen in
other states. But they said this is just not the
right time to hear this litigation, that they should allow
it to percolate around the states for longer and out,
(25:00):
you know, and and then see and see what happens.
And and I can appreciate that that is often how
things work. But we have a split in authority right
now that we and you know, the people who are
who are behind this litigation, they just want to file cases.
I mean, they see value in the you know, the
(25:21):
media attention and all the things that go along with
filing these lawsuits. And they feel like it creates pressure
on the system and maybe they can get some you know,
policy victory in you know, in legislature since because of
these lawsuits and whatever it might be. And so having
these cases kind of proliferate and percolate in all these
different states, at some point it's a waste of judicial
(25:43):
resources and as you say, costs that ultimately get borne
by by consumers. That doesn't need to happen. The Supreme
Court could just come in now and lay down the
rules of the road.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
And is there a split in federal circuits that would
give something for the Supreme Court to jump onto. We
have a first impression, and you've got split among the
circuits or you've got to split.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
It's a split. The U. S Court Appeals for the
Second Circuit said no to these cases. You've got state
courts in New Jersey, in Maryland and Delaware, h and
a couple other places that have said no to these lawsuits.
And you've had a few the state supreme courts in
Colorado and Hawaii have said yes to these lawsuits. And
(26:24):
you have a couple other courts like in I think
Minnesota and DC that have said yes. And so there
is a split. There is a split of you know
of courts where the cases have ended ended up, you
know in state spring courts or in the US Quarter
Appeals for the Second Circuit that are It's a very
real split. I mean, in fact, if you when you
(26:44):
look at the opinions in the Colorado Spring Court, you
look at the opinion in uh in the Hawaii Spring Court,
they specifically say we disagree with the US Court Appeals
for the Second Circuit and so and then they lay
out why they are allowing the cases to go forward.
So there is a real, real and and deep split
that is occurring. And again I don't see the need
(27:04):
to have this split go more you know, with more
cases kind of lining up on either side, it's time.
It's time for the court to step in.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Well, and finally, here let's flip the question. If these
lawsuits go away, though, what are we risk losing? Because
a lot of time with point of lawsuits thinking of products,
liability or other things, they do a service, right, They
do a service of raining things in. Sometimes is there
a chance that companies end up with too little accountability?
Speaker 2 (27:33):
I don't think so. I mean, this is not a
situation of who knew what when? This is a situation
of we all understand that the use of certain energy
products is contributing to greenhouse gas admissions and the ultimately
to climate change. We all understand that, and that has
been and we've all understood that for a long time,
and we continue to try to develop policies to mitigate
(27:54):
that impact while continuing to allow for the generation of
certain energy so that we can continue to power the
world as we would say. So that debate of how
we keep doing that belongs in the the regulatory and
the legislative bodies that would continue whether or without this litigation.
And so there there's no downside to this litigation being dismissed.
(28:17):
In fact, it would only be The upside is that
it would actually focus people on the right bodies of
government and to push for answers that are going to
you know, truly balance and affect what we want to
get done in this world. And I think that and
I think that would be important as.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
We're reaching the end of our time. Anything I missed
that you'd like to say?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
No, I mean, I'd really appreciate, you know, the being
on a panel with you as you indicated at the
Hudson Institute and being on your podcast today. You've been
a great voice, you know for these kinds of common
sense policies and UH and and providing good forum for
these kinds of discussions. So I really appreciate that and
thank you for it absolutely.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
And you know, before we wrap up for the we
want to hear from you too. What are your thoughts
on the future climate policy? What about pragmatism? What about costs?
What about more or less energy? Where do we need
to be Please email us anytime at Charge Conversations at
(29:17):
bamaccount dot com or you can find me at bam
account on x We read every message and value your perspectives.
You've been listening to Charge Conversations Joe Strecker Production. If
you like what you've been listening to, please hit that
subscribe button. I'm your host, Brighan mccount, and I'll see
you next time when we unpack the Paris Climate Change
Agreement and why it is or maybe isn't working right
(29:41):
here on Charge Conversations. I'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.