The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Monday in Suncor v. Boulder, a case that pits the City of Boulder against major oil companies over who bears responsibility for the costs of climate change. But as Jack Hellner argues in an editorial for American Thinker, the procedural question before the Court may matter far less than the precedent it could set.
At issue is whether federal law preempts Boulder’s state-law claims, which arise from interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions. The Court is not being asked to decide whether the oil companies actually caused Boulder’s alleged climate damages or committed fraud. It is deciding only whether the lawsuit can proceed in state court. If the plaintiffs prevail on that threshold question, the case moves forward — and, according to Hellner, that outcome would effectively hand a victory to the plaintiffs regardless of the merits.
A Question of Preemption, Not Guilt
Hellner frames the case as part of a broader legal campaign against fossil fuel producers, one he says rests on a “false premise.” The editorial points to what he calls a giveaway phrase — the assumption that “it’s no secret” fossil fuel companies knew their products would cause climate change — and argues that no lawsuit has produced facts linking oil consumption to specific temperature changes, sea levels, hurricanes, floods, or droughts.
Instead, Hellner contends that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally. He notes that a little ice age ended around 1860, making some warming afterward unsurprising. He also cites a period of global cooling from 1940 to 1975, a time when oil use was rising rapidly — something he says would not have happened if oil were the primary driver of warming. He further points to first Earth Day predictions in 1970 of a coming ice age as evidence that climate forecasting has a history of error.
The editorial also pushes back on the framing that oil companies are villains, arguing that life expectancy has roughly doubled — from around 40 to around 80 — since the widespread use of oil began. Hellner credits petroleum with being used in more than 6,000 products that improve quality and length of life, and suggests that rather than being sued, oil companies should be thanked for their discovery.
Electric Vehicles and the Limits of Regulation
Much of Hellner’s argument targets what he describes as a long-running effort by environmental advocates and Democratic politicians to dismantle the oil industry. He criticizes pushes to move Americans away from gas-powered vehicles and toward electric cars, which he describes as expensive, inefficient, and reliant on lithium — a material he calls highly flammable — without acknowledging the environmental costs of battery production.
To illustrate what he sees as the futility of such policies, Hellner cites an extrapolation he attributes to the AI tool Grok, drawing on data from the International Energy Agency’s “Outlook for emissions reductions.” According to that analysis, switching every gasoline and diesel passenger car to electric would cut global CO₂ emissions by roughly 1.5 to 3 billion tonnes per year, depending on the electricity mix. Relative to a world that continued burning fuel in cars, that would avoid only about 0.05 to 0.15 degrees Celsius of warming over the rest of the century — a change Hellner describes as noticeable in emissions accounts but small next to total human influence on climate.
He goes further, arguing that if eliminating all oil-powered vehicles would only change temperatures by a fraction of a degree, then those same vehicles could not have raised temperatures by more than that tiny fraction in the first place. He also dismisses long-range temperature predictions as guesswork, saying it is nonsensical to believe computer models can forecast temperatures within a fraction of a degree given the hundreds of natural variables at play.
The Stakes of a Procedural Win
Perhaps the most consequential part of Hellner’s editorial is his prediction about what happens if the case proceeds. He notes that Justice Samuel Alito is abstaining, which he says will likely leave the Court split and allow the case to move forward in Colorado state court — something he characterizes as a win for the plaintiffs.
From there, Hellner warns of a cascade of consequences: what he calls “endless slush funds for green pushers,” a destruction of quality of life, and the loss of tens of millions of direct and indirect jobs tied to the oil industry. He also raises the prospect of damage to public and private pensions and investments if oil companies were driven into bankruptcy.
The editorial closes with a broader appeal about free speech and the importance of open debate, followed by a donation request from American Thinker.
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision turns on preemption doctrine or opens the door to a wave of climate litigation, the case is being watched far beyond Boulder. For critics like Hellner, the real question is not whether the oil companies are liable, but whether the legal system will become a tool for extracting money from industries that environmental activists have long targeted. Supporters of the lawsuit see it differently — as a long-overdue attempt to hold fossil fuel producers accountable for damages their products have caused. Either way, the arguments Monday could shape how — and where — those fights are waged for years to come.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/10/colorado-s-leftists-are-trying-to-create-a-slush-fund-for-green-activists/