California considers letting wildfire victims sue oil companies for damages
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Oil and gas companies would be liable for damages caused by climate change -related disasters in California under legislation introduced Monday by two Democratic lawmakers.
The proposal, introduced by two Democratic lawmakers, claims that the oil industry intentionally deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels on climate change that now have intensified storms and wildfires and caused billions of dollars in damage in California. Such disasters have also driven the state insurance market to a crisis where companies are raising rates, limiting coverage or pulling out completely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters, supporters of the bill said.
Under state law, utility companies are liable for damages if their equipment starts a wildfire. The same idea should apply to oil and gas companies, said Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, 'for their massive contribution to these fires driven by climate change.'
The bill aims to alleviate the financial burdens on victims of such disasters and insurance companies by allowing them to sue the oil industry to recoup their losses. It would also allow the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, created by the state as a last resort for homeowners who couldn't find insurance, to do the same so it doesn't become insolvent.
If approved, California would be the first state in the U.S. to allow for such lawsuits, according to the author.
"We are all paying for these disasters, but there is one stakeholder that is not paying: the fossil fuel industry, which makes the product that is fueling the climate change,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, who authored the bill, said at a Monday news conference.
The new measure is bound to face major backlash from oil and gas companies, who have faced a string of defeats in California in recent years as the country's most populous state started to shift policy priorities to address climate change.
The Western States Petroleum Association, representing oil and gas companies in five states, already signaled it will fight the bill. President and CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd said state lawmakers are using the LA fires to 'scapegoat' the industry.
'We need real solutions to help victims in the wake of this tragedy, not theatrics,' Reheis-Boyd said in a statement. 'Voters are tired of this approach.'
Supporters said the measure will also help stabilize the state's insurance market by allowing insurers to recover some of the costs after a natural disaster from oil companies, which will prevent increased rates from being passed onto policyholders. The bill is supported by several environmental and consumer protection groups.
The legislation comes as California begins the long recovery process from multiple deadly fires that ripped through sections of Los Angeles and burned more than 12,000 structures earlier this month. The fires were named the most destructive in the modern history of the city of Los Angeles and estimated to be the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. Lawmakers last week voted to spend $2.5 billion to help the area rebuild.
Dozens of U.S. municipalities as well as eight states and Washington, D.C., have sued oil and gas companies in recent years over their role in climate change, according to the Center for Climate Integrity. Those suits are still making their way through the courts, including one filed by California more than a year ago against some of the world's largest oil and gas companies, claiming they deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels.
Scientists overwhelmingly agree the world needs to drastically cut the burning of coal, oil and gas to limit global warming. That's because when fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide forms and is released, which accounts for over three quarters of all human-caused greenhouse gases.
California is also working to persuade insurers to continue doing business in the state by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for more issuing policies in high-risk areas. Citing ballooning risks of climate-driven natural disasters, seven of the top 12 insurance companies doing business in California in 2023 either paused or restricted new business in the state. The state now allows insurers to consider climate change when setting their prices and will soon also allow them pass on the costs of reinsurance to California consumers.
Trân Nguyễn (), The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
36 minutes ago
Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction
Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court. Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction. "The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court. Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land." "I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken." Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing. "These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued. Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents. With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request. "The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued. If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Donald Tusk makes his case before a confidence vote in Poland
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Prime Minister Donald Tusk made the case Wednesday to parliament that his centrist, pro-European coalition has brought progress to Poland as he seeks to regain political momentum after his camp's stinging loss in the recent presidential election. Tusk also acknowledged the new difficulties that he faces in a speech before a vote of confidence which he requested seeking to reaffirm the mandate of his coalition government. The vote in parliament follows the narrow June 1 defeat of Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski to Karol Nawrocki, a right-wing nationalist backed by U.S. President Donald Trump. 'I am asking for a vote of confidence with full conviction that we have a mandate to govern, to take full responsibility for what is happening in Poland," Tusk said. He said that his coalition's challenges are greater as a result of the presidential election. But he also argued that the narrow defeat of Trzaskowski indicates that support remains strong for his political camp. Tusk is expected to survive the vote in the lower house of parliament, the Sejm, scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. He remains the most powerful person in the Central European nation, and his government coalition has a parliamentary majority, with 242 seats in the 460-seat body. Still, the close presidential race has rattled his coalition, an uneasy alliance of his centrist Civic Coalition, the Left party and the center-right Polish People's Party. Many have started blaming Tusk for Trzaskowski's defeat, and his coalition partners have begun reevaluating the benefits and costs of sticking it out with him. There are questions about what Tusk can realistically achieve before the next parliamentary election, scheduled for late 2027, and whether it will even survive that long in a new political environment in which the far right has seen an surge in popularity. Polish media and political analysts are debating whether this might be the 68-year-old Tusk's political twilight. 'I know the bitterness of defeat, but I do not know such a word as 'capitulation,' Tusk told lawmakers. Tusk served as Polish prime minister from 2007-2014 and then as president of the European Council from 2014–2019. He resumed his leadership of the country as prime minister again in December 2023 in a country exhausted by the pandemic and inflation, and with political divisions deep and bitter. In a sign of those divisions, half of the parliament hall was empty, with right-wing lawmakers boycotting his speech on Wednesday. Tusk criticized them for that, suggesting that they were showing disrespect to the nation by being absent. For Tusk, the challenge is keeping his fractious coalition intact. A failure would trigger the formation of a caretaker government and possibly an early election — a scenario that could return power to the national conservative Law and Justice party, likely in coalition with the the far-right anti-Ukraine Confederation party, whose candidate placed third in the presidential race. Tusk had long counted on a Trzaskowski victory to end months of gridlock under President Andrzej Duda, who repeatedly blocked his reform agenda. Instead, Nawrocki is now poised to take office, promising strong resistance to Tusk's plans. In his speech, Tusk acknowledged that that his coalition was already facing challenges that have only grown more difficult. 'We cannot close our eyes to reality. These challenges are greater than we anticipated as a result of the presidential election,' he said. Following the presidential election, criticism has grown that Tusk's government has underdelivered on its campaign promises. Many blame him for contributing to Trzaskowski's loss. Much of the criticism comes from within his coalition. Joanna Mucha, a deputy education minister from the centrist Third Way alliance, posted a blistering Facebook analysis blaming the defeat on Tusk's party. She argued that Law and Justice, which backed Nawrocki, ran a focused, data-driven campaign with a fresh face, and she accused Tusk's party of ignoring polling data, relying on campaign consultants who had lost previous elections, and failing to build support beyond its liberal base.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Kweisi Mfume is pitching an old-school approach to one of House Democrats' highest-profile jobs
Frustrated by Democrats' seniority system, Kweisi Mfume fled the House three decades ago, saying he could do more to advance civil rights from the outside. Now he's back and trying to reap the benefits of seniority at a moment when many in his party are starting to openly question it. The Baltimore native last month surprised many House colleagues by entering the wide-open race to lead Democrats on the high-profile Oversight Committee, seeking to fill the spot vacated by the sudden death of Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly. Into the void jumped a pair of young, ambitious members — Jasmine Crockett of Texas and Robert Garcia of California — as well as a close Connolly ally, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts. And then there's Mfume, who at 76 is making no bones about this being the capstone of a long career that included stints leading the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP — jobs he took back in the 1990s. 'I started a long time ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth,' Mfume joked in an interview, before describing his old-school approach to legislative relations: 'The first thing you learn is how to count votes, which has never failed me yet,' he said, adding that he would be careful not to alienate colleagues 'by doing something that causes problems for them in their district.' Rather than detail a point-by-point agenda for taking on President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, Mfume said if elected he'd convene the committee's Democrats to decide a course of action. The party, he said, can only move forward with a 'consensus.' That style stands in sharp contrast to a Democratic base that's itching for more aggressive leadership and a more visible fight with Trump — something the other candidates are clearly heeding: Garcia has tangled with the Justice Department over his criticism of Elon Musk; Crockett has broached the prospect of a Trump impeachment inquiry; and Lynch, as the panel's interim top Democrat, attempted last week to subpoena Musk during a panel hearing. The race also threatens to become a proxy fight for broader questions about age and seniority inside the Democratic Party. House Democrats ousted several aging committee leaders at the end of last Congress as they girded for a fight with the Trump administration — and many in the base were disappointed when Connolly triumphed over Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. The winner is poised to lead efforts to investigate and thwart the Trump administration if Democrats can retake the House majority next year — and ride herd on a chaotic panel that in recent months has featured intense personal attacks between lawmakers and the display of nude photos. 'It's a street fight every day,' said Rep. Lateefah Simon of California when asked about the panel and what it takes to lead it. 'It's every single day being able to expose the hypocrisy of this administration and to tell the truth.' There was a time when Mfume would have been a natural choice for such a moment. First elected to Baltimore's City Council at the age of 30, he quickly butted heads with legendary Mayor William Donald Schaefer. After longtime Rep. Parren Mitchell retired, Mfume easily won the seat in 1986 and within a few years become a national figure due to his chairmanship of the CBC. Ascending to that role just as Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency, he became an important power broker, forcing key concessions in Clinton's 1993 budget and pushing the White House to restore ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. He also clashed with Clinton at times, including over his decision to pull the nomination of prominent Black legal scholar Lani Guinier to a top Justice Department post. But after Democrats lost their House majority in 1994 — and Mfume lost a quixotic bid to enter the party leadership — he decided two years later to forgo a long climb up the seniority ladder. He instead took the helm at the Baltimore-based NAACP, a job thought to better harness his skills at organizing and oratory. Former Maryland state Sen. Jill Carter said Mfume has long had the 'it factor' and 'charisma' that matters in politics. When Carter ran against Mfume in his 2020 House comeback bid, she got a reminder of how well her rival was known in the district and beyond: 'When some of my people did exit polling, they got the response, 'Oh, we love Jill but, come on, this is Kweisi.'' What's less clear is whether Mfume's reputation in Baltimore, burnished over 45 years in the public eye, makes him the man for the moment as far as his contemporary House colleagues are concerned. He's not known as a partisan brawler, and he said in the interview he doesn't intend to become one. 'There are always going to be fights and disagreements,' he said. 'It's kind of escalated in the last few years to a level that we haven't seen before. I think the main thing is to moderate and to manage the disagreements, because you're not going to cause any of them to go away. How you manage them and how they are perceived by the overall public is what makes a difference.' Mfume is leaning heavily, in fact, on the style and reputation of the man who filled the 7th District seat for the 24 years in between his House stints — the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, who served as top Democrat and then chair of Oversight during Trump's first term and is still spoken of in reverent terms inside the caucus. Mfume concedes that Cummings might have been the better communicator — he 'had a little more preacher in him than I do' — but said they share a similar lofty approach to politics. Like Cummings, he suggested prescription drug prices might be a committee priority. What Mfume is unlikely to have is the official support of the Congressional Black Caucus, a powerful force in intracaucus politics. With two members in the race — Crockett also belongs — Mfume said he does not expect a formal CBC endorsement after an interview process Wednesday. But he still expected to draw support from the bloc — especially its more senior members. Other factors complicate Mfume's candidacy. One is age: He is a year older than Connolly was when he was elected to lead Oversight Democrats last year. For those who prize seniority, Lynch has actually spent more time on the panel. And his 2004 departure from the NAACP was marred by controversy: The Baltimore Sun reported the executive committee of the group voted not to extend his contract under threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit; the NAACP later paid the woman who complained a $100,000 settlement. Mfume strenuously denied any wrongdoing, but while the episode has not emerged as a major issue in the Oversight race, some Democrats have privately expressed reservations about elevating a leader with personal baggage to potentially lead investigations of Trump. 'There's never been one person to corroborate that one allegation — not one,' Mfume said. About the payment, he said, 'I found out about it, quite frankly, after it happened.' Much of the Democratic Caucus remains undecided ahead of the June 24 secret-ballot vote. Candidates will first go before Democrats' Steering and Policy Committee, which will make a recommendation to the full caucus. 'I think that you have a situation where Mfume and Steve Lynch are getting support from folks who put seniority at top, and maybe the other two candidates would probably lean toward members who are newer, and then you got a whole host of folks that's in the middle. And I think that's where the battle is to see where they fall,' said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.). One younger member said he was swayed by Mfume's experience. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is 48 and had weighed his own bid, said that while other candidates were compelling, the Baltimorean had a 'leg up.' 'Kweisi shows me pictures of him with Nelson Mandela,' he said. 'I was like, I'm not going to run against Nelson Mandela's best friend.'
