Climate Lawyer Says the Quiet Part Out Loud: ‘It’s Really Just a Carbon Tax’

But circumventing democracy because you can’t win through democratic processes isn’t clever strategy – it’s contempt for self-governance. If Americans don’t want carbon taxes, imposing them through lawsuits doesn’t make them more legitimate.

What “Woke Lawfare” Actually Describes

Critics call this “woke lawfare” – using litigation to impose progressive policies that can’t win politically. That term usually gets dismissed as partisan rhetoric. But when plaintiffs’ own former lawyer admits the lawsuits are designed to function as taxation without legislation, the description becomes accurate.

Lawfare means weaponizing legal process to achieve political goals. That’s exactly what Bookbinder described: admitting Congress won’t act, so litigation creates the same economic effects through court judgments instead.

The “woke” part refers to using social justice framing – climate justice, corporate accountability, protecting vulnerable communities – to justify what’s actually economic restructuring. The cases are presented as David vs. Goliath environmental justice struggles when they’re really attempts at policy implementation through judicial fiat.

When the strategy admits its own goals openly, calling it lawfare stops being name-calling and starts being description.

The Supreme Court Question That Just Got Clearer

The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the Boulder case. The question is whether state courts can adjudicate claims about global climate change caused by nationwide emissions.

Bookbinder’s admission suggests a different question matters more: Can state courts impose what effectively functions as national carbon taxation through accumulated tort judgments? Because if that’s what these cases actually seek to accomplish – and Bookbinder said it is – the constitutional implications are enormous.

Taxation power belongs to Congress. States can’t individually impose national taxes through their court systems. If climate lawsuits admit they’re designed to create the economic effects of carbon taxation, they’re asking state courts to exercise power the Constitution doesn’t grant them.

That’s a question worth the Supreme Court’s attention – not because it’s about climate change, but because it’s about whether litigation can accomplish what legislation can’t by relabeling taxes as tort damages.

What Happens When Strategy Admits Its Purpose

The climate litigation movement has been careful about framing. These cases are about accountability, not policy. About compensating victims, not restructuring markets. About corporate deception, not carbon taxation.

Bookbinder blew up that framing by explaining what the lawsuits actually aim to accomplish. You can’t put that back in the bottle. Every future case will face questions about whether it’s really seeking damages for specific harms or trying to impose carbon taxation through accumulated judgments.

Defense lawyers now have ammunition: one of the plaintiffs’ own former attorneys admits the strategy is using tort liability to achieve carbon tax effects. That’s not speculation or conspiracy theory – it’s description from someone who was inside the litigation.

Whether courts find that admission compelling depends on whether they think tort law can legitimately be used to accomplish policy goals that democratic processes have rejected. But at minimum, Bookbinder ensured that question will get asked – and answered – in ways climate activists probably won’t like.