The article (link below) from American Greatness, titled "The Asymmetric Advantages of Environmentalist Zealotry" by Edward Ring, is a sharp critique from a climate-sceptical, pro-industry, nationalist-conservative perspective. It portrays a small group of activist judges and environmentalist litigators as wielding disproportionate ("asymmetric") power that harms America's (and the West's) economy, energy security, forests, and overall interests, often under the banner of climate or ecological protection.

Ring argues that environmental "zealotry" isn't genuine concern for the planet but a strategic weaponisation of the legal system. A tiny cadre exploits laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, and others to file endless lawsuits, secure "sue and settle" deals (where agencies settle quickly, pay legal fees, and impose regulations without full debate), and obtain nationwide injunctions from sympathetic judges. This bypasses democratic processes, elected officials, and scientific/management consensus.

Key points:

Asymmetric power dynamics: One person or small NGO can halt massive projects or policies affecting millions. For example, Denise Boggs (operating as "Conservation Congress" in Montana) has sued the U.S. Forest Service dozens of times to block fuel-reduction efforts. Groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council use litigation as a "business model," funded partly by settlements and allegedly foreign influences (e.g., over $500 million from CCP-linked foundations funnelled to U.S. climate groups, per a 2025 letter from 30 state AGs).

Economic sabotage: "Sue and settle" during the Obama era fast-tracked costly EPA rules on power plants, fertilisers, etc., costing industries/consumers billions (U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates for Clean Air Act alone). Broader climate policies (net-zero pushes) could cost $3.5 trillion annually, while China burns coal for 55% of its energy and gains industrial edge as the U.S. weakens.

Forest mismanagement and wildfires: Litigation blocks prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, and timber harvests, leading to overgrown forests (5–10x normal density in California). This creates "tinderboxes" and "superfires." A December 2025 Breakthrough Institute report (non-partisan, tech-optimist group) details how a "small but loud" minority opposes practical fuels reduction, prioritising "untouched" nature over safety and ecology.

Broader motives: Accusations include anti-human/industry bias, profit from litigation, or foreign agendas (China benefits from U.S. self-sabotage via high energy costs and deindustrialisation).

The tone is accusatory and urgent, framing this as a threat to sovereignty and prosperity. It praises pragmatic management (e.g., balanced fire suppression) and implies reforms are needed to curb such overreach, while condemning biased media coverage.

Parallels and Discussion in the Australian Context

Australia offers striking parallels to the U.S. patterns Ring describes — environmental litigation often delays or blocks resource projects (mining, gas, coal), with activists leveraging laws, human rights claims, and cultural heritage arguments. From a similar critical viewpoint, this is seen as "green lawfare" that prioritises ideology over economic reality, jobs, and energy security in a resource-rich nation.

Notable Australian examples:

Adani/Carmichael coal mine: Years of intense litigation, protests, and legal battles (e.g., activist Ben Pennings' campaigns leading to prolonged court fights with Adani/Bravus, including SLAPP-style suits against him that ultimately failed or were dropped). Critics argue this exemplifies how small activist groups can tie up billion-dollar projects.

Gas projects (e.g., Barossa, Scarborough): Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) and others secured injunctions or challenges (e.g., Federal Court setbacks for Woodside/Santos over cultural heritage, traditional owner consultations, or environmental plans), delaying construction and imposing costs.

Climate/human rights litigation: Landmark cases like Sharma v Minister for the Environment (2021 Federal Court) recognized a duty of care to children from coal mine emissions' climate impacts. Pabai v Commonwealth (2025) and others advance First Nations cultural rights against projects. Youth-led or NGO challenges often seek injunctions/declarations to halt approvals under the EPBC Act.

Great Barrier Reef: Ongoing international pressure (UNESCO "in danger" threats, Rights of Nature tribunals in 2014), domestic suits, and advocacy tie reef health to coal ports/mining runoff and climate emissions, pressuring governments to restrict development.

Broader trends: Australia has seen a surge in climate litigation (hundreds of cases), often investor/activist-funded, targeting energy/resource approvals on climate, heritage, or human rights grounds. Critics (e.g., conservative think tanks like IPA) call it "strangling" prosperity via endless delays, with groups like EDO facing backlash for derailing projects like gas pipelines or gold mines.

From Ring's climate-critical lens, these Australian cases mirror U.S. "asymmetric advantages": A vocal minority uses courts to impose de facto policy (e.g., anti-fossil fuel outcomes) without electoral mandate, harming mining-dependent economies, raising energy costs, and benefiting competitors (e.g., cheaper imports from less-regulated nations). Supporters view it as essential accountability; detractors see judicial/activist overreach undermining democracy and growth. Conservatives must oppose it.

https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/04/the-asymmetric-advantages-of-environmentalist-zealotry/