Over the last decade, an orchestrated climate agenda took hold across the United States that was built on aggressive emission reduction pledges, rapid transitions, and a coordinated climate lawfare offensive that recently celebrated its ten-year mark without a single meaningful win. [emphasis, links added]
Designed to remake the energy landscape and eliminate fossil fuels, it was championed by politicians who embraced the green vision.
Now, reality is setting in. Cracks are forming as states pivot from climate alarmism toward common sense.
Massachusetts, for example — long touted as a national “climate bellwether,” — is failing to follow its own emissions reporting deadlines and is tripping over the very climate rules it wrote, all while scrambling to contain rising energy costs.
Similarly, New York and New Jersey have done a climate about-face, as both states approved natural gas pipeline infrastructure and are reconsidering climate target deadlines.
Governor Newsom in California quietly reopened the door to oil and gas after years of championing himself as the foe of the fossil fuel industry, while Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro has also pulled out of a pending cap and trade program.
These are the latest hints that even the loudest climate champions cannot outrun affordability and reliability concerns forever.
The common thread? Scrambling to shield Americans from the price tag of the very green agenda these politicians campaigned on.
Even more damaging to the campaign, judges across the country have also widely rejected the wave of climate litigation designed to kneecap the fossil fuel industry in court.
And for good reason – the legal theories are weak, but the politics and pocketbook math are worse.
So, what’s really going on? Is this the early test run for the 2026 midterms and the looming 2028 presidential race? Or is the billionaire-backed band of climate activists finally breaking up now that their political enablers are forced to live in the real world?
Blocked at Both Doors: Voters, Lawmakers, and Courts Turn on the Climate Agenda
Across key states handpicked by Rockefeller-funded groups precisely because they embraced aggressive climate policies, the once-confident climate agenda is getting squeezed from both directions.
Let’s take a look at how these states are backtracking on ambitious climate promises while distancing themselves from the legal crusade against the energy industry:
Massachusetts
State agencies missed required reporting of vehicle emissions under the state’s own climate law, leaving the public in the dark on its proclaimed climate goals and raising questions about whether Massachusetts can even implement the mandates it already passed.
From the Commonwealth Beacon:
“The regulation states that when MassDEP believes an agency has exceeded its emissions limit “or violated any other condition” of the rule, DEP “may require” an agency to perform audits on its carbon dioxide emissions…None of the records made public through the lawsuit show DEP taking any such steps.” [emphasis added]
If the state’s leaders cannot deliver the commitments already on the books, it is no wonder they are suddenly interested in rolling some of them back.
Pennsylvania
While securing a climate lawsuit in an oil and gas producing state would’ve been activists’ admitted “cherry on top,” Pennsylvania’s Bucks County lawsuit squashed that cherry over the summer with a clear message from Judge Corr bringing climate-over-reality activists back to earth:
“…today we join a growing chorus of state and federal courts across the United States, singing from the same hymnal, in concluding that the claims raised by Bucks County are not judiciable by any state court in Pennsylvania.” [emphasis added]
At the same time, Governor Josh Shapiro – a darling of the Democratic Party and a top contender for the DNC’s endorsement for president in 2028 – backed away from joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as part of negotiations to reach a state budget deal this year.
A Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection-backed study even found RGGI would cut < 1 percent of emissions in eight years while increasing Pennsylvanians’ electric bills by approximately 30 percent.
New York
As the only climate case that has made it to trial, New York’s case was a total and utter failure. In a recent dismissal, the state’s highest court found the case insufficient based on:
“The City cannot have it both ways by, on one hand, asserting that consumers are aware of and commercially sensitive to the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, and, on the other hand, that the same consumers are being duped by Defendants’ failure to disclose that their fossil fuel products emit greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.” [emphasis added]
Ironically, New York recently bet on fossil fuels to combat reliability concerns. After years of blocking pipeline proposals, Governor Kathy Hochul approved the Northeast Supply Enhancement project to avoid projected downstate shortages.
In her own words:
“As Governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer.”
The state’s backtrack doesn’t just stop at pipelines. It is also trying to slow-walk implementation of its own landmark climate law, which requires a 40 percent emissions reduction by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050.
A New York Supreme Court judge recently faulted the state for dragging its feet, prompting Governor Hochul to seek a rollback of obligations she now calls economically unrealistic.
New Jersey
New Jersey’s climate lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice after a judge ruled:
“The federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions.” [emphasis added]
And now, despite years of attacking fossil fuels, the state, in partnership with New York, quietly leans on the very natural gas infrastructure it once condemned to help stabilize its grid and avoid deeper reliability problems.
Maryland
Maryland’s attempt to join the climate-litigation wave has similarly gone nowhere, with the state court’s acknowledgment that:
“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that state law cannot be used to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries caused by out-of-state pollution.” [emphasis added]
In contrast to its initial stance on fossil fuels, the state is now sneakily backing away from the same aggressive climate policies it once championed.
Instead of pursuing another lawsuit, lawmakers are holding hearings on whether those policies are pushing Maryland toward an energy shortfall.
During a recent joint hearing with colleagues from mid-Atlantic states, Maryland Delegate Brian Chisholm blasted current policies as a “reckless agenda” that families and small businesses “cannot afford,” citing warnings of future brownouts if the state doesn’t pivot.
Even Senate President Bill Ferguson, a top Democrat, acknowledged policymakers must be “realistic” and keep natural gas in the mix to preserve reliability.
California
In one of the starkest and most confusing examples, California is simultaneously pursuing major climate lawsuits while confronting the practical limits and public pushback on its energy agenda.
While Governor Newsom, at the time of the announced suit, publicly claimed:
“With this lawsuit, California is taking action to hold big polluters accountable and deliver the justice our people deserve.”
His recent shift illustrates a different story.
The state is signaling a potential pause on clean-fuel mandates, and Democratic lawmakers have stalled the state’s proposed climate “superfund” after warnings it would push energy prices even higher.
At the same time, Newsom is opening the door to more in-state drilling and softening enforcement timelines for fuel-market rules, a dramatic departure from the aggressive posture he took just a year ago.
Interestingly enough, he summarized it:
“We are all the beneficiaries of oil and gas. No one’s naive about that…So it’s always been about finding a just transition, a pragmatism in terms of that process.”
Yet even as Newsom acknowledges the need for more reliable fuel supplies, California politics are being pulled back toward the same anti-energy playbook.
San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer just launched a gubernatorial bid rooted in attacking oil and gas companies while claiming he will lower energy costs for Californians.
It is a revealing contrast that shows the state wants fossil fuels to keep the lights on while its political class still campaigns against them.
So…What’s Up With Michigan?
Michigan is now the outlier in a moment when peers are quietly pulling back. As climate lawsuits collapse, Attorney General Dana Nessel is still signaling that she wants to move forward with a sweeping climate case of her own.
The problem? Michigan isn’t immune to the economic and reliability pressures driving a rethink in state capitals across the country.
Michigan’s energy mix still depends heavily on natural gas, and the state has continued approving new gas infrastructure across key regions to avoid winter reliability concerns.
Yet at the same time, Nessel has pushed for expanded legal authority to pursue her long-promised climate lawsuit, even as courts in other jurisdictions have dismissed nearly identical cases as unconstitutional, preempted, or legally baseless.
That leaves Michigan at a crossroads. Nessel can acknowledge what is happening across the country, where even the most climate-aggressive states are stepping back under the weight of rising costs and grid concerns.
Or she can continue pursuing a legal theory that has failed everywhere it has been tried.
The real question is whether Michigan will course-correct before more time and resources are wasted, or move deeper into the same trap other states are now trying to escape from.
Bottom Line
The political ground is shifting beneath the most climate-ambitious states. These climate 180°s are the inevitable outcome of aggressive climate targets that were never grounded in the realities of cost or reliability. When energy bills rise and grids struggle to keep up, states return to the fundamentals of what works.
Read more at EID Climate
