A new Los Angeles Times story tries to put a Colorado ranching face on Boulder’s climate lawsuit, highlighting seven ranchers who filed an amicus brief supporting the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. [some emphasis, links added]
There’s just one problem.
The ranchers featured in the story are hardly representative of Colorado ranching communities, and the Times leaves out much of the in-state opposition to Boulder’s lawsuit.
Lack of Broad Support in Colorado
The numbers make the Times’s framing difficult to square with the reality on the ground.
By the USDA Census figures cited in the ranchers’ own Supreme Court brief, Colorado had 3,498 ranchers in 2022. Seven ranchers signed this brief. That is 0.2 percent.
And no statewide agricultural organization is listed among the amici on the ranchers’ brief.
In fact, a local Colorado law firm didn’t even file the amicus brief; instead, a New York impact-litigation firm was enlisted.
Furthermore, the Center for Climate Integrity, a Rockefeller-funded organization that is a cornerstone in the campaign against American energy companies, even featured the Colorado ranchers in a press release regarding amicus briefs in the Boulder case.
The approach showcases how activists are attempting to use the ranchers as a new avenue of support for climate lawfare.
Meanwhile, eight Colorado counties – Archuleta, Delta, Garfield, Grand, Mesa, Montezuma, Montrose and Rio Blanco – joined a Supreme Court brief opposing Boulder’s position, along with the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado.
By contrast, no Colorado counties filed in support of Boulder.
That hardly supports the impression of a broad, homegrown Colorado movement behind the lawsuit.
Even Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who helped lead the effort to keep Boulder’s lawsuit alive, has stopped short of endorsing its underlying allegations.
When NBC News pressed him recently, he refused to say whether the lawsuit was an appropriate vehicle for addressing climate change.
Four members of Colorado’s congressional delegation joined a national congressional brief on Boulder’s side; however, Colorado’s two U.S. senators did not, and EID Climate has previously documented that no additional Colorado city, town, or county joined the separate local-government amicus effort supporting Boulder.
That hardly amounts to the groundswell of in-state support the Times story might lead readers to imagine.
The National Climate Litigation Network Is Part of the Story
The broader amicus campaign also underscores that Boulder’s lawsuit is part of a much larger national litigation effort.
Consider the city-and-county amicus brief. Its counsel of record are Sher Edling attorneys – the same firm representing numerous state and local governments across the country that are pursuing similar lawsuits against energy companies.
Ten out-of-state jurisdictions – Chicago, Hoboken, five California cities and counties, and Hawaii’s Maui County and Honolulu – signed that brief. Not one Colorado jurisdiction did.
So it’s no surprise the Los Angeles Times ran with this story given its long history of bolstering the litigation campaign.
The paper’s “Exxon Knew” so-called “reporting” series in 2015 helped kick off the entire climate litigation movement.
But analysis from Energy in Depth, and later, the Columbia Journalism Review, revealed that the Rockefeller foundations funded the series, the very same groups bankrolling climate lawsuits and opposing American energy development.
Bottom Line
Despite its best attempt, the Times’s recent attempt to portray strong in-state support for Boulder’s lawsuit falls flat.
Boulder’s case is far from a local dispute; rather, it is the test case for a national climate litigation campaign. This brief doesn’t speak for the ranching community, nor for towns and cities across Colorado.
Read more at EID Climate
