China's shadow over U.S. climate lawsuits threatens energy supremacy
By willowt // 2025-06-30
Copy
 
  • Over 2,666 global climate litigation cases exist, with the U.S. leading with 1,745, catalyzing debate over foreign influence.
  • Chinese-funded groups like the Energy Foundation China (EFC) channel millions to U.S. anti-fossil fuel NGOs, like NRDC and Rocky Mountain Institute.
  • Sen. Ted Cruz’s Senate subcommittee investigates China’s ties to climate lawsuits, warning of energy security risks and strategic vulnerability to Beijing.
  • China dominates lithium, solar tech and battery supply chains, capitalizing on U.S. policies accelerating decarbonization.
  • Climate litigation’s global expansion includes corporate accountability cases, testing legal frameworks and sparking new legislation.
The recent surge in climate lawsuits targeting U.S. fossil fuel companies has drawn scrutiny from national security experts who argue Beijing is exploiting the legal crusade to erode American energy dominance. Data shows nearly 2,666 climate cases have been filed globally, with the United States accounting for 1,745 instances, but questions now center on foreign funding behind these initiatives. Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), warn of a coordinated campaign by Chinese state-backed entities to advance geopolitical interests by stifling domestic energy production and aligning U.S. policy with Beijing’s supply chain ambitions.

Cruz’s subcommittee lights “China footprint” in climate litigation

At a June 26 hearing, Cruz’s Judiciary subcommittee convened experts to explore ties connecting Chinese entities, U.S. environmental groups and climate litigation. Senator Cruz emphasized that lawsuits brought by firms like Sher Edling—not just lawsuits opposing climate policies but also those targeting fossil fuel companies—risk advancing China’s goal of global market dominance. “This isn’t just about the environment,” Cruz asserted. “It’s about who controls the future of energy.” Central to the probe is the Energy Foundation China (EFC), a San Francisco-based NGO with staff predominantly in Beijing. EFC has reportedly funneled millions into U.S. groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which faced a 2018 congressional probe over possible foreign agent violations. Meanwhile, the Chinese government’s National Natural Science Foundation has collaborated with U.S. academics, publishing anti-fossil fuel research in peer-reviewed journals.

Supply chain vulnerabilities drive national security fears

The House Energy and Commerce Committee warns that China’s strategic moves coincide with U.S. climate policies. Beijing’s near-monopoly on lithium and cobalt production, combined with its control over 80% of solar panel manufacturing, positions it to capitalize on rapid American decarbonization. Oil services CEO Dan Eberhart argues that without securing domestic energy independence, the U.S. will become dependent on foreign energy systems—a shift China aims to expedite through litigation. Senator Cruz underscored this in hearings, noting: “If these lawsuits succeed, we’ll swap fossil fuel dependency on OPEC for battery mineral reliance on China.” Congressional briefings reveal Beijing’s efforts to infiltrate U.S. state and local governments, steering policy toward renewable energy mandates that align with its industrial goals.

A global surge in climate laws, with U.S. as a litigation battleground

Globally, climate litigation is evolving into a multifaceted tool influencing policy and corporate behavior. Over 226 new cases were filed in 2024 alone, with the U.S. still bearing the brunt alongside Australia and Brazil. The Grantham Research Institute’s 2025 report notes that while climate-friendly lawsuits like Hawaii’s against fossil fuel companies persist, Republican-led challenges to federal climate rules have also surged. The U.S. Department of Justice, under Trump administration directives, filed a preemptive lawsuit against Hawaii to block climate damages claims—a clash that epitomizes Washington’s internal polarization. Meanwhile, the dismissal of a landmark German case against RWE (Lliuya v. RWE) still affirmed corporate liability for climate harm, signaling expanding global legal risks.

From Kyoto to a new era of geopolitical climate games

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol marked the first international push for emission cuts, but today’s climate fights are increasingly politicized. Early U.S. litigation, like 2005’s Massachusetts v. EPA, focused on regulatory accountability. Now, the cross-border funding networks and national security framing reflect a new chapter where climate policy intersects with great-power competition. This shift coincides with China’s aggressive state-capitalism: Beijing has built over 100 coal plants since 2015 while positioning itself as a “clean energy pioneer.” Critics argue U.S. climate litigationdoğrular this narrative by dampening fossil fuel output without securing domestic clean tech supremacy.

Transparency is the antidote to foreign influence

As Sen. Cruz’s hearings conclude, stakeholders urge transparency into funding origins and policy connections. “Americans deserve to know who profits if these lawsuits succeed,” Eberhart wrote. Without addressing Chinese influence, critics warn, the U.S. risks ceding energy leadership while tying its economy to foreign supply chains—a move that could permanently alter global power dynamics. The stakes are stark: the clean energy transition may determine whether the nation retains a 21st-century manufacturing edge or becomes collateral in Beijing’s geopolitical calculus. As litigation spreads, so too does the urgency to parse fact from foreign interference. Sources for this article include: ZeroHedge.com ClimateintheCourts.com
Copy