Answers to Common Questions
Below are responses to some of the most common questions about this initiative, including how the litigation works, why municipalities are participating, and what it could mean for Wisconsin communities.
Fiscal Responsibility & Taxpayer Protection
Is this just a "money grab" or a political stunt against the energy industry?
This is a fiduciary responsibility initiative. As local leaders, our primary job is to balance budgets and protect property values. When a bridge is scoured or a sewer system fails due to extreme weather, the bill currently falls to our taxpayers. This is about fiscal accountability: we are following evidence that these companies knew the risks of their products and chose to shift the remediation costs to the public.
​
Won't these lawsuits drive up the price of gas for the same people you claim to be protecting?
Gas prices are set by global markets and corporate supply decisions, not local legal accountability. Furthermore, the fossil fuel industry currently receives $34.8 billion in annual federal subsidies, that is, taxpayer money. Wisconsinites are currently paying twice: once at the pump and again repairing infrastructure damaged by these products. This litigation seeks to stop that "double-billing" of the Wisconsin taxpayer.
​
The fossil fuel industry provides jobs. Aren't you biting the "hand that feeds" the economy?
The "hand that feeds" Wisconsin is our local workforce, our schools, and our small businesses. When a business's basement floods or a main road is closed for repairs, the local economy suffers. We want a healthy energy sector, but we cannot afford one subsidized by the destruction of municipal budgets.
​
Why not just wait for federal money (IRA or IIJA) to fix these problems?
Federal aid is a welcome "shield," but it is insufficient. Our Household Derivation Model shows that while federal aid provides broad support, it is often restricted to "new" projects and subject to "claw-backs." It does not cover the $14 billion in "legacy" infrastructure repairs Wisconsin needs right now. We shouldn't have to wait for a federal handout to fix damage caused by corporate negligence.
Legal Strategy & Accountability
How can you prove a specific storm was caused by one specific oil company?
We use Attribution Science. Just as doctors proved smoking increases the specific risk of lung cancer without witnessing every single puff, climate scientists can now quantify how much more intense our rainfall and heatwaves have become due to historic carbon emissions. We aren’t suing over a single "act of God"; we are suing over a decades-long "act of deception" that made these events more frequent and more expensive.
​
What if we lose the case?
There is no financial risk to the municipality. This case is handled on a contingency basis, meaning the law firms assume all legal costs and risks. If the case is not successful, the City/County is not responsible for any legal fees or expenses.
​
If we win, where does the money go?
We are following the successful Opioid Settlement model. Under this framework, settlement funds are allocated only to those political entities that officially file and participate in the litigation. By joining this action, your municipality ensures that any recovered revenue is directed back into your local budget to offset the costs of infrastructure repairs and future mitigation.
Public Mandate & Urgency
Is there public support for this legal action?
Yes. According to the Yale Climate Opinion Survey, there is a unified mandate across Wisconsin. Data indicates that residents in rural areas hold the same views as those in urban centers: up to 79% of Wisconsinites recognize the impact of significant weather changes and expect their local officials to take proactive steps.
​
Is this just a "big city" issue?
Not at all. From Marathon County to Milwaukee, the 2025 data show this is a statewide concern. The public views these weather changes as a direct threat to future generations and wants elected leaders to secure the resources necessary to protect their communities.
​
Why shouldn't we wait?
The public has seen the success of the opioid case and the revenue it generated for participating communities. Joining the litigation now ensures your municipality has a "seat at the table" when settlement funds are allocated. Waiting risks being left out of the recovery process while your taxpayers continue to shoulder the costs of remediation alone.