In my legal practice, I witness firsthand the results of abusive environmental litigation. It seems costs always rise and individual liberties always fall. Unfortunately, state and local governments are now jumping on this litigation bandwagon. 

But excessive litigation hurts all of us. According to recent estimates from the Pacific Research Institute, we pay a “lawsuit tax” every year of $1,300 per person. For the average family of four, that amounts to $5,200 per year. But such costs could pale in comparison to recent climate litigation. 

Perhaps it should be no surprise the City and County of Boulder and San Miguel County are joining the likes of California and New York in suing those who provide us with heat, light and mobility. They seek to hold our energy producers liable for global climate change. Apparently, our utility bills and prices at the pump are not yet high enough. In fact, a top outside lawyer for the plaintiffs admitted on local radio that was the real goal: use litigation to raise oil and gas prices on everyone.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The sheer magnitude of these lawsuits is staggering — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. But we rely on these companies for the fuel we need to keep us warm in the winter, power our workplaces and hospitals and enable us to travel quickly and safely. Not to mention utility costs are already far too high.

If energy companies now have to add billions of dollars in climate mitigation costs, these costs will be passed onto us — as they always are. There will be that new “lawsuit tax” on our already outrageous electric and gas bills.

For energy-producing states like Colorado, the toll could be even worse. A new analysis from Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC) found in 2021 oil and gas production supported more than 303,000 jobs, provided more than $34 billion in wages and contributed more than $48 billion to the state’s economy. These contributions are already at significant risk given Colorado’s challenging regulatory environment. 

But climate is a global issue. Litigation like this will solve nothing. Worse, state-owned energy companies in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are immune from such actions — even though their fuels are a much greater part of global emissions. And each and every painful step we take to cut carbon emissions pales to China and India’s ever-growing reliance on new coal-fired power plants. Faced with power shortages and escalating costs, much of Europe is taking steps to bolster its energy resources and supplies rather than limit them. So too should we.           

Thanks largely to Boulder and Telluride, Coloradans and other Americans could lose jobs and pay more for energy, while the rest of the world sells and uses the same fuels without the added costs. 

Last year, former Colorado House Speaker Pro Tem Kathleen Curry, in a Grand Junction Daily Sentinel column, expressed her confidence that state court judges “will quickly realize that these cases are not real lawsuits over wrongfully caused harms, but political efforts masquerading as lawsuits.” I strive to share her optimism. These lawsuits should fail. Neither the law nor the facts support them. Let’s hope Colorado’s courts dismiss this litigation and set an example for the rest of the country.

Kent Holsinger is the founder and managing partner of Holsinger Law, LLC.