Pennsylvania State lawmakers are considering a proposal put forward by Representative Joe Webster, a Democrat from Montgomery County, to study the costs of climate change in Pennsylvania. [emphasis, links added]
The bill – H.R. 90 – sponsors a plan to require Pennsylvania’s Joint State Government Commission to study the cost of measures to combat future climate change in Pennsylvania, as well as analyze future global warming’s impact on the state’s “natural, built, and social environments.”
While the bill may sound innocuous enough, Rep. Webster’s media blitz touting the proposal came just days after a public event hosted by well-known billionaire-funded activists supporting climate lawsuits in Pennsylvania, raising questions about the groups’ continued lawfare agenda in the state.
Pennsylvania’s Climate Litigation Campaign Coordinated by Billionaire-Funded Activists
The February event preceding Rep. Webster’s bill was hosted by the Heinz Endowments-backed environmental “Group Against Smog & Pollution – Pittsburgh” (GASP-PGH), Corporate Accountability, and the Rockefeller-funded environmental groups Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) and Union of Concerned Scientists.
CCI, the main activist group supporting climate lawsuits, has clearly recognized that climate suits are near-impossible unless a court can localize and put a price tag on the effects of global greenhouse gas emissions.
To that end, CCI has poured resources into biased “climate costs” studies tailor-made for use in the courtroom.
These studies purport to show the economic impacts of climate change, right down to the congressional district level.
Climate Cost Studies Used by Activists to Create Evidence for State Climate Lawsuits
Similar “climate costs” studies have been explicitly designed by climate plaintiffs, for climate plaintiffs.
For example, the group Resilient Analytics was contracted by the City of Boulder to conduct a climate costs study just a week before Boulder filed its climate lawsuit against oil and natural gas companies.
That taxpayer-funded study would go on to be cited in the Colorado municipalities’ case.
The same groups appear to be trying to replicate this model in Pennsylvania. In 2023, Resilient Analytics and CCI published a similar climate costs report in Pennsylvania.
Later, in April 2024 CCI partnered with GASP-PGH to host a public event titled “What is Climate Change Costing Allegheny County and Who Should Pay?” to promote their findings.
It’s yet to be seen if CCI and its partners have their hands in Rep. Webster’s proposal as well. The bill does not rule out working with outside parties in the development of a potential climate costs study, saying:
“…to prepare the study, the Joint State Government Commission shall engage subject-area experts and other stakeholders, as needed, to contribute to the study…”
Any climate cost study put forward by the Pennsylvania legislature should not be conducted alongside outside interests, particularly when those interests are directly aligned with climate plaintiffs.
PA Continues to Soundly Reject More Climate Lawfare
CCI’s renewed activity in Pennsylvania goes to show that the activists have clearly not gotten the message that climate lawfare will not find a welcome audience in the energy-rich state.
As Energy in Depth has highlighted, the sole climate lawsuit in the state, filed in 2024 by Bucks County, was met with harsh criticism over the closed-door deliberations that preceded its filing.
A mere two weeks after the suit was announced, Republican County Commissioner Gene DiGirolamo even withdrew his support:
“I have considered this for the past seven or eight days,” said DiGirolamo. “And at this point, I would like to withdraw my support for the lawsuit.”
And in April of last year, when CCI presented to the Allegheny County Council in hopes of recruiting a new plaintiff, a coalition of manufacturing and labor groups sent an open letter to the Council blasting a potential lawsuit:
“Fundamentally the activists don’t care about impacts on Pennsylvanians; the state is just one stop on their nation-wide road show. It doesn’t take a lawyer to know that filing a lawsuit will not solve climate change.
It won’t prevent natural disasters or rehabilitate old infrastructure. It will, however, drive up the cost of energy for Pennsylvanians, waste taxpayer dollars, and demonize an industry that is a crucial economic driver for our state.”
The plaintiffs’ and activists’ approach was even squarely rejected by the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania Attorney General, Eugene DePasquale, who denounced climate lawfare in a debate:
“[Climate litigation] is not a direction I am looking to go. Look – I am pro Pennsylvania energy. That [seeking repayment from energy companies for climate change] is a policy issue, that’s something for the government and the legislature and obviously if the Congress wants to do something like that… Simply punishing companies is not going to get us there.” (emphasis added)
Outside of Pennsylvania, the momentum and recent case law are not in climate activists’ favor.
In recent months, state judges in Baltimore, New York City, Annapolis and Anne Arundel Counties, and New Jersey have dismissed similar climate lawsuits on the grounds that the lawsuits inappropriately aim to regulate global emissions.
Bottom Line
Activist-backed “climate costs” reports are not impartial research, but PR tools tailor-made for activists and plaintiffs.
And, given the swift backlash in Bucks County, Pennsylvanians have already made it clear that climate litigation is not welcome in the natural gas-producing state.
It’s time that CCI and its partners got the message.
Read more at EID Climate
