Climate Lawfare: Judicial Activism And The $20 Billion Scandal

This article is an essential follow-up to my previous piece, Follow the Money: How Climate Bureaucrats Are Robbing Taxpayers Blind, where I detailed how billions in taxpayer dollars were funneled to politically aligned nonprofits under the guise of climate activism. [emphasis, links added]

If you haven’t read it, I strongly recommend you do, it sets the stage for understanding this latest shocking judicial intervention.

In a stark example of judicial activism, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan recently blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) legitimate effort to reclaim $20 billion in hastily awarded climate grants.

These grants were allocated in the final days of the Biden administration to newly created organizations with virtually no track record in effective environmental management or climate expertise.

Judge Chutkan’s ruling is troubling, to say the least… it positions the judiciary as a political gatekeeper, safeguarding billions in taxpayer dollars earmarked for organizations that appear better connected politically than scientifically credible.

Judicial Activism Shielding Questionable Funding

Judge Chutkan, appointed by President Obama, has consistently sided with progressive policy positions.

Her ruling against the EPA illustrates an alarming precedent: judges actively protecting financial windfalls for politically connected climate groups.

The result? Twenty billion taxpayer dollars continue flowing unchecked into organizations that often lack even basic transparency, oversight, or genuine climate action records.

For instance, the Climate United Fund received nearly $7 billion, despite being only months old at the time funds were awarded. These organizations barely existed before becoming billion-dollar grant recipients.

Yet the judge found no issue with billions flowing into untested hands; her concern was instead that reclaiming the funds might somehow violate procedural fairness.

The Core of the Problem: EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding

At the heart of this legal battle is the deeply problematic 2009 Endangerment Finding, which labeled carbon dioxide (CO2), an essential molecule for plant life, as a dangerous pollutant.

This decision provided a shaky foundation upon which billions in misguided spending have been justified.

As many reputable scientists and policy analysts have argued, this finding relies on deeply flawed climate modeling and exaggerated claims about CO2’s environmental impacts.

The Trump-era EPA initiated a critical review of this finding, recognizing that reversing it would dismantle the flimsy legal justification for vast, scientifically unsupported spending.

Overturning the Endangerment Finding would not only restore scientific integrity but also empower agencies to reclaim taxpayer money from these questionable climate grants.

Real Pollution Ignored, Imaginary Threats Funded

Ironically, the same regulatory apparatus that justifies billions spent on politically motivated CO2 reductions simultaneously dismisses the genuine threats of real pollutants.

As I previously detailed in my article “The Myth of Ever-Escalating Climate Costs in the USA”, claims about the catastrophic costs of climate change have consistently proven exaggerated, while genuine pollution issues receive far less coherent policy attention.

Judicial activism like Chutkan’s transforms courts into platforms for protecting financial schemes cloaked in environmental language…

Judge Chutkan’s recent ruling reinforces this flawed approach, prioritizing CO2, a beneficial gas, over genuine environmental threats.

Her decision protects politically favored organizations, undermines real science, and ignores the actual environmental and economic consequences.

Lawfare: Courts as Political Weapons

This scenario exemplifies “lawfare,” the strategic use of the legal system to achieve political goals that cannot succeed through transparent democratic processes.

Judicial activism like Chutkan’s transforms courts into platforms for protecting financial schemes cloaked in environmental language, rather than places of unbiased justice.

Instead of protecting taxpayers and promoting scientifically grounded policies, judicial intervention perpetuates the misuse of billions in federal funding, further entrenching wasteful practices and undermining public confidence in climate initiatives.

Irrational Fear is written by climatologist Dr. Matthew Wielicki and is reader-supported. If you value what you have read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work that goes into it.

Read rest at Irrational Fear