Litigation targeting energy companies throughout the country over climate change have proved to be far from over. Like fossil fuel divestiture efforts, these court cases distract from important national and international work of advancing effective global climate solutions and U.S. energy security.

On May 17, a U.S. Supreme Court decision – in a 7-1 ruling – called on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to undertake a full appellate review of the jurisdictional arguments in Baltimore's lawsuit against major energy producers.

On April 2, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City dismissed a 2018 lawsuit by New York City against five energy producers. New York City argued these energy companies should pay for the city's climate change costs because they globally produce and sell fossil fuel products.

The dismissal of New York City's case was significant. First, the court held that "federal common law, not state law" should prevail in these cases because they involve a "uniquely international concern" such as climate change. Second, it saw the litigation as trying to impose national and international policies on carbon emissions through the courts. And third, the three-judge panel reaffirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not the courts.

"While [New York City] is not expressly seeking to impose a standard of care or emission restrictions on the Producers, the goal of its lawsuit is perhaps even more ambitious: to effectively impose strict liability for the damages caused by fossil fuel emissions no matter where in the world those emissions were released (or who released them). If the oil and gas producers want to avoid all liability," the judges explained, "then their only solution would be to cease global production altogether."

Many Americans believe these lawsuits are a flawed approach to tackling climate change. In a Manufacturers' Accountability Project commissioned survey, only 2% of voters believed that suing companies is the best way to address climate change challenges.

There are far more effective ways to deal with climate change. Reducing emissions and providing cleaner energy is not just a supply problem, but also a demand-related issue. As a former U.S. ambassador who dealt with the geopolitical implications of climate change and energy security, addressing climate challenges requires an international effort grounded in certain realities tied to energy security.

First, natural gas can play an essential role in reducing carbon emissions. By switching from coal to natural gas to generate electricity global carbon dioxide emissions have already been reduced from 500 million tons of CO2 since 2010. The Energy Information Administration found in November 2020, the transition from coal to natural gas for power generation has lowered emissions in the domestic power sector by 33% since their peak in 2007.

As economic growth resumes, global carbon emissions will rebound in the short run, the International Energy Agency has warned. This growth is due to a surge in coal consumption, especially in Asia. Natural gas can help minimize this increase if it can substitute for coal in electricity generation. Ironically it's the natural gas producers who are the energy companies getting sued for climate impacts.

Second, natural gas is part of an increasing renewables-based hybrid energy system. The U.S. should use natural gas as part of a carbon-neutral future instead of just as a bridge. University of Texas Engineering Professor Michael Webber, writing in Scientific American, stated, "the technology exists to extract the carbon or to transform the gas so that carbon coming out and carbon going in balance to zero or near zero." Appropriately managed, decarbonized gas can complement renewable electricity and serve as a faster, cheaper, and more effective path for creating power supplies while reducing US emissions.

Third, India and China should remain in the spotlight. The U.S., China, India, and the EU account for over 60% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. and the EU are approaching a no-coal generation power sector in 2030. However, China is commissioning solar and wind power as fast as it is burning coal. That means the burden for reducing global emissions will fall on China – as the world's leading polluter – and India.

Here international diplomacy – not the U.S. courts – can play a crucial role in addressing climate change. Secretary of State Tony Blinken's April 19 speech on U.S. global climate leadership was instructive. As Blinken pointed out, we need the whole world to cooperate on reducing carbon emissions. U.S. liquefied natural gas exports to countries like India and China are critical to helping them reduce their dependence on coal-powered electrical systems.

Policymakers should be reminded that issues as crucial as climate change belong in the sphere of public policy, addressed through innovative solutions and diplomatic action, not in the courts. The stakes are too high to target an industry whose partnership is necessary to achieve practical and effective solutions to the challenge of climate change while preserving our energy security. To succeed in this unique fight, we need all the tools at our disposal, including smart solutions like natural gas that offer innovative measures for addressing the risks of climate change while delivering clean electricity – at home and abroad – cheaply and reliably.

Richard D. Kauzlarich is a former U.S. ambassador and the co-director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy and Distinguished Visiting Professor at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government.