23 Republican attorneys general urge EPA to cut climate group funding

State attorneys general are pushing back against the funding of a left-wing environmental group accused of training and lobbying judges on climate policy. Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general have sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin, urging him to cancel funding to the Climate Judiciary Project, an initiative by the Environmental Law Institute.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen spearheaded the letter, expressing his concerns about taxpayer dollars funding radical environmental training for judges. Knudsen emphasized that the Climate Judiciary Project is using climate propaganda to influence judges and push a partisan agenda through the court system.

The letter, signed by 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calls on the EPA to terminate any grants and awards given to the Environmental Law Institute. The group has been accused of manipulating judges to support left-wing climate litigation, prompting calls for an end to its funding.

According to financial statements, the Environmental Law Institute received a significant portion of its revenue from EPA grants in recent years. The group’s ties to the federal government have raised concerns about the impartiality of its educational programs.

Critics argue that the Climate Judiciary Project is lobbying judges to advance a specific climate agenda through the courts. The group’s efforts to influence judicial decision-making have sparked legal and ethical questions, prompting calls for the EPA to cut off funding.

In response to the controversy, the Environmental Law Institute maintains that its educational programs are in line with national judicial education standards. The group defends its curriculum as fact-based and science-oriented, developed in partnership with judicial education institutions.

Leading advocacy groups, including the American Energy Institute and the Alliance for Consumers, have applauded the state attorneys general’s efforts to end funding for the Environmental Law Institute. They argue that taxpayer funds should not support political advocacy disguised as judicial education.

As the debate over climate policy and judicial influence continues, the push to defund the Climate Judiciary Project highlights the broader implications of using courts to advance environmental agendas. Critics warn that courtroom maneuvering could threaten individual rights and reshape American society, underscoring the need for transparency and accountability in judicial education programs. The Climate Lawfare Campaign Suffers a Setback in South Carolina

A recent letter sent on Tuesday raised concerns about the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its representation of training as objective when it is not. The letter highlighted that state consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive marketing practices, and state Attorneys General are responsible for protecting consumers. This comes as a blow to the Climate Lawfare Campaign, which has been under scrutiny for its tactics.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been reevaluating funding to left-wing groups and programs under the leadership of EPA chief Zeldin. The EPA has canceled millions of dollars in grants, including $20 billion under the Inflation Reduction Act, which has sparked a court battle. Zeldin has been vocal about the misuse of taxpayer funds and has made significant cuts to various grants.

In a call to action, state attorneys general have urged Zeldin to cut funding to ELI, citing previous cuts made under the Trump administration. They commended Zeldin for achieving monumental savings for taxpayers and canceling grants that were deemed unnecessary. The move to reassess funding to ELI is seen as a step towards accountability and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used wisely.

Meanwhile, the Climate Judiciary Project and the Environmental Law Institute have faced criticism from lawmakers for their involvement in training judges and promoting creative climate litigation tactics. Republican Senator Ted Cruz has raised concerns about a systematic campaign by the Chinese Communist Party and left-wing activists to undermine American energy dominance through the court system.

The Climate Judiciary Project has been accused of seeking “judicial capture” in order to advance their agenda. As the debate over climate lawfare continues, it is essential to scrutinize the role of organizations like ELI and ensure that they are acting in the best interest of consumers and the environment.

In conclusion, the recent developments in South Carolina and the actions taken by the EPA under Zeldin’s leadership signal a shift towards greater accountability and transparency in climate lawfare campaigns. It is crucial to continue monitoring these organizations and their activities to protect the interests of taxpayers and the environment.