Bezos-Funded Climate Report Could Be Dagger In Heart Of Energy Companies Wrapped Up In Lawsuits

The Bezos Earth Fund backed a new climate report urging policymakers, litigators and nongovernmental organizations to rely on a type of research favored by activists when making decisions that could carry financial consequences.

The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) on Thursday released a new report on climate attribution — the study of the extent to which human-caused climate change influences the likelihood or intensity of specific weather-related events. Meanwhile, members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology argued that there could be a conflict of interest with the climate litigation teams associated with non-profits and businesses.

Climate attribution is often invoked in lawsuits against fossil fuel companies alleging that they are liable for negative effects on the climate.

“By attributing extreme events and their impacts to climate change, scientists can provide additional information that helps to inform decision-makers and communities to better mange and respond to climate risk through planning, policy and adaptation,” the report reads. “Model Selection can affect results because models may cary in their fitness of purpose for specific event types and regions.”

“The people involved in the report’s development include Michael Burger, an academic and attorney for climate plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling, as well Delta Merner, who leads the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Accountability Campaign and served on the NAS committee guiding the report’s development until January 2025. Both Burger and Merner have publicly discussed the critical relationship between attribution science and climate litigation,” according to Energy in Depth.

“After cap-and-trade legislation died in 2010, activists regrouped at a Rockefeller-funded conference in La Jolla to map out a litigation strategy – and identified climate attribution as a key missing piece. The conference report was candid about the road ahead, Energy in Depth continued.

“A report with the kind of gravitas that the National Academies can bring will be a huge boost to the plaintiffs’ cases,” Pat Parenteau, a long-time advisor and business partner to Sher Edling, said in a Tuesday press release.

“There is no conflict of interest,” Parenteau told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “I have provided pro bono advice to Sher Edling but am not a ‘business partner.’ Never been paid for anything. Am not directly involved in any of their cases. My advice is purely as an academic with expertise on climate law and environmental litigation.”

“The report could help get attribution science admitted as evidence in court. Judges are the ‘gatekeepers’ of cutting edge scientific and technical evidence,” Parenteau said. “In federal court, this is known as the Daubert principle. Many state courts have adopted it. It is designed to test the veracity of expert opinions that rely on studies and reports.”

NAS and Bezos Earth Fund each did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

The NAS report follows a broader pattern of climate litigation advocates participating in scientific and judicial resources that are later cited in suits, Energy in Depth argued Tuesday. They maintain that its studies are developed through an “free from undue influence from sponsors, donors, or other interested parties,” designed to ensure objective scientific advice.

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is also investigating the NAS over this report and on Thursday sent a letter to the organization.

“It has long been the position of this Committee and the Executive Branch that ensuring federally funded and agency-relied-upon science is a matter of national security,” Committee Chairman Brian Babin, Republican Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick and Republican Florida Rep. Scott Franklin wrote in the letter. “If one of the most trusted and respected providers of that science is producing biased, partisan, or otherwise deficient science, the United States’ scientific enterprise—and, by extension, its economic, environmental, and national security interests—are threatened.”

“Of particular salience is whether the scientific material has been peer reviewed and whether it has followed the appropriate methodologies for the field of science. In the climate liability cases the defendant oil companies will fight hard to keep this evidence away form the jury,” Parenteau told the DCNF.

The National Academies describes the report as an examination of advocacy in climate attribution science and how attribution methods can be applied to weather and climate-related events.