In October 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court allowed the city and county of Honolulu to proceed with state law-based claims against fossil fuel companies. This case has now reached the threshold of the U.S. Supreme Court, with defendants asking the high court to review whether state or federal law applies to these claims.
One amicus brief in particular, written by two esteemed military leaders, retired General Richard B. Myers and retired Admiral Michael G. Mullen, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spotlighted an often-overlooked dimension of climate litigation: its impact on national security.
Myers and Mullen sound an alarm about the dangers of fragmenting climate policy across various state jurisdictions, arguing that Congress and the executive branch should centrally decide such matters. This perspective is rooted in a deep understanding of the intricate relationship between national security and energy policy — a relationship strategically cultivated over the past century.
The federal government’s involvement in the production and sale of oil and gas dates back to the early 20th century. Former President Howard Taft’s administration, for example, focused on developing domestic oil resources to ensure a reliable supply for the Navy’s burgeoning needs. In 1910, President Taft set aside oil-rich federal lands as an emergency reserve for the military.
This necessity was further underscored during World War I when mechanization required vast amounts of fuel. By 1917, global leaders understood the strategic value of oil in warfare.
During World War II, the U.S. government set up special groups to ensure enough oil for the war effort. This action wasn’t just about keeping the economy running; it was crucial for keeping the country safe. Just like a car needs gas to go, our military needs fuel to defend us.
Fast forward to the present and we see a continuation of these policies, albeit under different guises. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations took significant steps to enhance domestic oil production, citing energy prices, job protection, and national security as key drivers. These actions reflected a bipartisan understanding of the strategic imperatives that fossil fuels represent to the United States, especially in terms of military readiness and international stability.
However, the recent trend of climate litigation poses a new challenge to this established framework. Municipalities across the nation, encouraged by entities such as the Center for Climate Integrity and law firms such as Sher Edling, are increasingly turning to the courts to seek remedies for alleged climate-related damages. These lawsuits threaten to disrupt the unified national approach needed to address both energy security and climate policy effectively.
The potential consequences of such litigation are far-reaching. By pursuing claims against major energy producers, these cases risk undermining the federal government’s strategic energy policies and destabilizing the domestic energy market. This could lead to decreased investment in infrastructure and exploration, slower responses to energy crises, and ultimately a reduction in the nation’s ability to manage its defense needs in an unstable world.
Indeed, the current geopolitical climate, particularly tensions in the Middle East, underscores the necessity of maintaining a robust and independent energy sector. Disrupting this sector through litigation only exacerbates the risks we face, placing the U.S. in a precarious position during a time when energy dominance is more critical than ever.
Moreover, these legal actions contravene the broader national interest in maintaining fuel security and military readiness, as Myers and Mullen highlighted. The U.S. military, being the country’s largest fuel consumer, relies heavily on a steady and secure supply of energy to power its operations worldwide. Any threat to this supply chain is a direct threat to national security.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Climate change is undoubtedly a pressing global issue that demands comprehensive and coordinated action. However, the approach to tackling this challenge must be strategic and unified at the national and international levels. The fragmentation caused by individual state and local legal actions against energy companies not only complicates this task but also potentially compromises the broader goals of national security and energy stability.
Ultimately, the courts are not the appropriate venue for setting complex climate policy. Instead, Congress should address this through cohesive and deliberate policymaking, ensuring that national interests in energy security and environmental stewardship are preserved and advanced.
Joe Buccino is a retired U.S. Army colonel who serves as an A.I. research analyst with the U.S. Department of Defense Defense Innovation Board. He served as U.S. Central Command communications director from 2021 until September 2023. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense or any other organization.