Climate lawsuits worsen inflation and hurt SC businesses and families

Due to a combination of armed European conflict, supply chain stresses, and domestic monetary and fiscal misfires, inflation continues to surge in South Carolina and around the United States. The consumer-price index report for July showed prices rose 8.5 percent over the past 12 months, one of the fastest rates in four decades. While many of us are feeling the sting of inflation across all types of goods and services, the price increases in electricity, gasoline and other energy sources has been particularly problematic for families and businesses.

I have spent much of my career in business and public service, and I know first-hand how important it is for government policies to help not harm small business, their employees and families around the state. That’s why I find it particularly troubling that some elected officials are taking action that could push energy prices even higher.

States and localities, including the City of Charleston right here in South Carolina, are pushing climate litigation against the companies that produce and sell us the energy our families and businesses rely on for their livelihoods. Their goal is for state courts to make the companies pay billions of dollars for them to climate proof their communities. It is understandable that these communities are looking for assistance, but the practical reality is that putting the burden on the energy companies, as one of the lawyers in the cases said, means saddling us consumers with those costs.

Indeed, the lawyers representing these communities have said in comments to the media that they want to “raise the price” of our electric and gasoline bills. That’s part of their political agenda. Nothing could be more damaging to our hardworking families and businesses that rely on affordable energy to keep their lights on and our economy charged. Climate litigation disregards the financial struggles that many South Carolinians, including those in Charleston, face every day. Do we really want governments to drive up the cost of energy even higher than they were earlier this year? That’s a resounding, no.

Worse, this climate litigation burdens only Americans and our allies. It seeks untold damages from American oil and gas companies, including some local distributors in South Carolina in an effort to keep these cases in state court. So, we pay while China, Russia, and other oil producing and using countries go scot-free. That makes no sense given the global nature of carbon emissions — particularly when American companies and citizens are already doing a lot on climate change, and these foreign entities are not. This litigation is unpatriotic.

Government works best when it is defending and advancing their citizens’ interests — not working against us. During my time in the South Carolina House of Representatives, I was proud to stand with our great small business owners, their workers and their families. I was appointed to serve on the Special Committee on Comprehensive Tax Reform to craft solutions to help them reduce their tax burdens. Climate lawsuits in Charleston and elsewhere, however, would hamper the progress we’ve made, and could effectively raise the costs of doing business in Charleston, without addressing climate change. There are also state and federal funds available for communities that need to address their infrastructure needs now.

The only way we are going to make progress on climate change is to leverage market driven solutions. We can develop the technologies that will allow Americans to have cleaner energy while ensuring our competitiveness. That’s the better way to promote a greener future. Accomplishing such a goal is possible, but not if misguided lawsuits get in the way. If the cities and groups advancing climate litigation are serious about promoting a cleaner energy future, they would push for real solutions from Congress and private sector innovators, not this half-baked climate litigation.

Todd Atwater is a former member of the South Carolina House of Representatives.