On April 23, the Baltimore Sun published an op-ed lambasting efforts by localities and states to hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for decades of misinformation about the dangers of their products. These hazards to the public’s health, welfare, and safety are now coming home to roost in the form of extreme weather, increased flooding and drought, and other harms that have materialized as a result of climate change.
Notably, the op-ed blames rising fuel costs on the early stages of state and local litigation and infantilizes the state courts by suggesting they lack the “wherewithal to make sense of complex interstate — and indeed — international — issues.” The author argues broadly for the need for federal “shield laws” akin to 2005’s federal provision against civil litigation extended to the gun industry.
I submitted a brief letter to the editor to rebut some of the arguments presented in the op-ed. While the Sun has regrettably elected not to run this response, I have posted it here to share with readers.
A recent op-ed in The Sun (“Lawmakers must end Climate Court Shakedowns”) offered a muddled diagnosis of what is driving the recent spike in fossil fuel costs. After correctly noting that 'geopolitical turmoil is the main culprit,' the author takes a gratuitous detour to blame what he describes as 'out of control litigation.'
This position simply ignores basic principles of cause and effect. Unlike recent price fluctuations tied to the Strait of Hormuz, litigation aimed at holding Big Oil accountable for their deliberate deceptions have not actually led to any damage awards for plaintiffs. Somehow litigation that has not happened yet is moving entire global energy markets.The relatively stable costs of so-called “natural” gas in recent months confirm that international market pressure is what is really driving high prices at the pump. Both face the same risk of litigation, but natural gas is relatively insulated against the supply disruptions caused by the Iran war.
While laying the blame for current fuel costs on state litigation is a specious argument, it does tip the hand of the fossil fuel industry as relates to their playbook in attempting to avoid culpability for decades of deception. According to their self-serving argument, if the states use their constitutional authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents, then things might go badly for the public. Never mind that the damages from industry’s conduct has approached over $20 billion in Maryland thus far, and never mind that the oil industry is continually experiencing windfall profits. The implicit threat from industry is, if you try and hold us accountable, it's gonna cost you.
It’s already costing us, and year over year, the price tag born by the public as relates to health, infrastructure, and life is going to keep going up.
Showing 2,996 results
Bryan Dunning | May 4, 2026
On April 23, the Baltimore Sun published an op-ed lambasting efforts by localities and states to hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for decades of misinformation about the dangers of their products. These hazards to the public’s health, welfare, and safety are now coming home to roost in the form of extreme weather, increased flooding […]
James Goodwin | May 4, 2026
On April 24, The Washington Postpublished an op-ed that sought to blame an unusual source for the high energy and gas prices Americans are now facing: justice. Specifically, it claims that these price increases are the result of state and local governments trying to hold Big Oil accountable for the climate-related harms their constituents are continuing to suffer. I submitted a letter to the editor debunking the op-ed’s argument, noting that the real cause of higher gas prices is the illegal war in Iran.
Federico Holm | April 30, 2026
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is undergoing one of the most consequential and likely disruptive transformations in its 121-year history. The agency plans to relocate its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and overhaul its structure and management. According to a Forest Service press release from March 31, the overhaul aims to bring leadership “closer to the forests and communities they serve,” replacing the agency’s long-standing regional model with a state-based structure. At first glance, the rationale seems intuitive. Forest management should be informed by local conditions, local relationships, and decisions made closer to the ground. But that premise raises a more fundamental question: what happens when the scientific infrastructure that informs those decisions is dismantled at the same time?
Lemir Teron | April 29, 2026
As the release date of my forthcoming book, Unlearn Power: Strengthening Communities in the Age of Environmental Crisis, approaches, naturally, I've been asked, "What's the book about?" But given the amalgamation of ecological devastation across the planet, with fallout and stakes unevenly felt across socioeconomic lines and underscored by political forces that engage in climate denialism and assaults on democratic institutions, I urge that "Why Unlearn Power?" is the more apropos question.
James Goodwin | April 23, 2026
The pursuit of idiosyncratic grievances and obsession with exerting unconstrained power have been the hallmarks of President Trump’s second term so far. But it was only last week, during a pair of congressional hearings, that the American public received its first real introduction to the obscure administration official largely responsible for translating Trump’s worst impulses into action: Russell Vought.
Alejandro Camacho | April 22, 2026
The 56th Earth Day may also be the bleakest. Wave upon wave is crashing upon our system of ecological protections. But having spent years studying the full sweep of American environmental legal history, we can say with confidence: the bigger the wave, the stronger the undercurrent.
James Goodwin | April 22, 2026
On April 18, The New York Times dropped a bombshell with a story that offered a unique window into the political inner world of the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on a series of leaked memos, the story retraces the events leading up to the Court’s extraordinary decision to halt the enforcement of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, even while the case was still pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bryan Dunning | April 17, 2026
Maryland’s 2026 legislative session represented a challenging playing field for advancing climate and environmental legislation, marked heavily by the dual considerations of budget shortfalls — driven by the federal government’s abandonment of funding critical programs and sowing chaos among the numerous federal workers who live in Maryland — and uncertainty as to long-term energy reliability and affordability placing a pall on energy planning in the state.
James Goodwin | April 16, 2026
In early April, The Washington Post published an op-ed trashing state and local efforts to hold Big Oil and Gas accountable under the law for the lies they told about their products’ connections to climate change and damages they inflict on people and the planet. I submitted a letter to the editor presenting counterpoints to the op-ed’s claims, which included the absurd notion that insulating some of the biggest companies on earth from even a small measure of justice is somehow a vital “national security” interest. The Post chose not to run that letter, so I’m sharing it with readers here.