EXCLUSIVE: Climate Review Linked To Lawsuits Was ‘Sham’ Shrouded In ‘Secrecy,’ Attorneys General Allege
State attorneys general allege that a National Academies of Sciences report on climate change was biased and designed to support lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, including Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil. The report, funded by groups tied to climate litigation, was released strategically to aid plaintiffs in the Suncor case before the Supreme Court. The coalition also criticizes NASEM's internal review process for lack of transparency and independence.
How this was made
The 30-second read
Why it matters
It frames potential conflicts of interest and timing advantages for plaintiffs in climate tort litigation, explicitly linking the dispute to the Supreme Court case involving Suncor and to an ExxonMobil-related lawsuit in Colorado.
Market read
This is a litigation-process and evidentiary credibility story that may influence sentiment around climate tort risk, but it does not disclose a new court decision or a fresh company-specific financial datapoint.
What to watch
Traders may be over-weighting process allegations versus actual Supreme Court procedural posture, admissibility rulings, or any new filings that directly affect Suncor and Exxon’s litigation strategy.
Background
The article reports a coalition of state attorneys general alleging the National Academies (NASEM) produced a biased climate-attribution report and that a follow-up review was not truly independent.
Ticker impact
Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued ExxonMobil in 2018 over alleged climate-change harms, and the letter says NASEM’s report was timed to aid plaintiffs in that case.
Near-term sentiment pressure possible around litigation headlines, but no direct new liability finding is disclosed here.
The piece centers on attorneys general alleging bias and conflicts in a National Academies report used in the Suncor case; it does not report a new Supreme Court decision or a fresh Exxon-specific procedural outcome.
The attorneys general allege NASEM’s July climate-attribution report was designed to bolster lawsuits, including the Suncor Energy case now before the Supreme Court.
Limited immediate price impact expected unless follow-on actions (funding review, court filings, or Supreme Court developments) emerge.
The article describes allegations about report funding, timing, and secrecy, and notes Supreme Court oral arguments are set for October; it does not provide a new Supreme Court order or Suncor settlement.
Market effects
Reinforces litigation and evidentiary scrutiny risk for fossil-fuel companies using climate-attribution science in tort claims.
US-focused legal process and state AG coordination could keep pressure on US-listed energy names tied to climate litigation.
Could influence how courts and regulators view climate-attribution evidence internationally, affecting broader energy litigation risk perceptions.
Counterpoint
Even if the report’s independence is challenged, courts may still treat attribution science as admissible or weigh it alongside other evidence; the letter may not change case outcomes.
Key entities
- companySuncor Energy
Named in the Supreme Court case referenced as benefiting from the NASEM report timing.
- companyExxonMobil
Named as a defendant in the Boulder, Colorado climate-change damages lawsuit referenced in the letter.
- organizationNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)
Alleged to have produced a biased climate-attribution report and to have conducted a non-independent internal review.
- funderBezos Earth Fund
Alleged funder of the NASEM report, with additional ties to climate litigation via grants and amicus briefs.
