Dear Editor:
Your editorial “A Failed Climate Coup in the Courts” (Review & Outlook, Feb. 9) highlights an important issue that could have unintended consequences.
Over 3,000 climate change cases had been filed globally by mid-2025, more than 60% of which were being litigated in the U.S. As a recent United Nations Environment Program and Columbia University report states, “climate litigation may play a role in accelerating the adoption of mitigation and adaptation strategies and may lead to an increase in the ambition of such efforts.”
Addressing climate change is an important goal, but that shouldn’t be directed by the courts regardless of whether science supports one argument or another.
Running an economy is a balancing act. It’s important to consider not only environmental goals but also the economic wellbeing of a nation’s citizens. Creating uncertainty via courts and punishing companies for their products that are vital to the economy affects those companies’ investment and production. Runaway climate litigation could also lead to increased prices (on energy, for instance), which in turn could lead to public backlash against climate change policies.
Litigation serves essential purposes, including enforcing environmental laws and providing avenues for redress. But when it expands beyond those functions and becomes the primary mechanism for shaping national energy, climate and economic policies through state and local courts, it becomes a problem.
Pinar Cebi Wilber
Chief economist, exec. vice president
American Cncl. for Capital Formation
Washington
