Go ad-free at wickedproblems.earth!

Well it’s been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon.1 

Hope you’re enjoying Trumpocalypse Day 8. How are you getting by?

Had such a great night2 catching up with The Heat and the Fury author Peter Schwartzstein early this week that this episode is even more delayed than I thought it’d be. Before a stop on his UK book tour we buttonholed him for a sidebar earlier this week at the top of the show.

For our main event I sat down with Pittsfield, MA’s finest, Dana Drugmand, a leading voice on US climate litigation, founder of Climate in the Courts and author of the One Earth Now Substack, to explore the potential for litigation to step in as a force for climate accountability and progress, especially under the new U.S. administration.

This conversation drops just days after the Dutch courts’ reversal of a landmark case against Shell—a decision that, while discouraging for some, also highlights the role of judicial action as a means of enforcing corporate climate responsibility. Dana brings her unique perspective on what the post-election legal landscape could mean for U.S. climate policy. As we confront a federal judiciary more conservative than ever, she warns that the courts could become either a last line of defense or a daunting obstacle for climate advocates.

One of our central topics was Project 2025, an ambitious agenda helmed by the Heritage Foundation, positioning itself to dismantle key climate policies. This agenda foresees cuts across agencies that have historically played central roles in regulating environmental impact, potentially downsizing the EPA and other scientific agencies like NOAA, while replacing civil servants with politically aligned appointees. Dana’s take is that while the federal stage may seem bleak, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of state-level litigation. States like California and Vermont are already mobilizing to hold major polluters accountable—efforts that could set national precedents, especially if cases reach the Supreme Court.

Our discussion also explored the Honolulu case, which could open the door to groundbreaking discoveries about oil companies’ historical actions on climate change. This case has the potential to bring to light internal documents that could shape public understanding and policy alike, much like the tobacco litigation of the 1990s did for public health.

For those who see these efforts as idealistic, Dana’s closing insights were clear: while federal barriers may grow, there’s also increasing resilience at the state and international levels. Vermont’s recent legislation, European legal frameworks, and global climate accords offer paths forward—if we can hold on to them.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.