California legislation would allow victims to sue oil and gas companies over disasters
California legislation would allow victims to sue oil and gas companies over disasters
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Trump greeted by Newsom in Los Angeles ahead of wildfires tour
President Donald Trump was greeted by Gov. Gavin Newsom in Los Angeles to tour areas hit by the deadly wildfires.
Two California Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation that could allow people and insurers to sue oil and gas companies for damages sparked by climate change-related disasters such as wildfires and mudslides.
The Affordable Insurance and Climate Recovery Act, authored by state Sens. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco and Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Pasadena, accuses fossil fuel companies of misleading the public about the impact of their products on climate change.
The bill comes during the very early recovery stages of the devastating wildfires in Southern California earlier this month which have killed at least 28 people and burned more than 35,000 acres. If the measure passes, California would be the first state in the U.S. to allow for such legal action, Wiener told reporters at a news conference Monday in Sacramento.
"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," said Wiener, flanked by consumer protection and environmental group advocates. "The fossil fuel industry has endless resources, its profits just continue to spiral and spiral into the stratosphere. And we are left holding the bag in terms of paying for these disasters."
The source: 'Hotter, drier, and more flammable': Scientists say climate change fueled LA fires
Lawmakers: 'Time for Big Oil to take responsibility'
Due to the spike in climate-driven natural disasters, seven of the top 12 insurance companies in California have paused or limited new business in the last year and a half, despite rate increases approved or pending with the state's insurance department.
Under the proposed measure, people insurance businesses impacted by natural disasters may be able to recoup losses from fossil fuel corporations. Among the insurance companies would be those under California's FAIR Plan, the state insurance option for those who can't get private insurance and are considered by some as a last resort.
Wiener said fossil fuel companies need to be a part of the solution for home and business owners who lose their properties.
"By forcing the fossil fuel companies driving the climate crisis to pay their fair share, we can help stabilize our insurance market and make the victims of climate disasters whole," Wiener added in a statement announcing the bill.
Pérez pointed to the devastating impact of the wildfires, including the Eaton Fire, which burned more than 14,000 acres alone and destroyed more than 9,000 structures in her district.
"The reality is that climate change is here, and the fossil fuel industry has known this for decades," Pérez said in a statement. "Now, communities like mine are paying the price, and it's time for Big Oil to take responsibility."
Amid the tragedy: 'What America should look like:' loss in the Altadena fires, and a hard road to recovery
Opponent says real solutions are needed, not theatrics
The suit already has its detractors. The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil and gas companies in five states, said it will oppose it. In a statement, president and CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd said state lawmakers are using the wildfires to "scapegoat" the industry. The state's economy heavily depends on oil and gas, even as California looks to reduce its carbon footprint, she said.
"We need real solutions to help victims in the wake of this tragedy, not theatrics,' Reheis-Boyd said. "Voters are tired of this approach."
California State Sen. Roger Niello, R-Roseville, the vice chair of the Senate's Insurance Committee, told reporters at Monday's news conference that he takes exception to the bill.
"This furthers the false narrative that this is all about climate change. It is of course much more complicated than that," said Niello, noting he believes the state's Democratic leaders underfund forest management projects statewide and Los Angeles leaders cut funds from the fire department's budget.
"Do those issues have anything to do with the conflagration that we've seen in Southern California? I think so," Niello said. "So will Senator Wiener and Perez include in their bill the ability to sue those entities for their role in this, too?" Niello asked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
See North Jersey 2025 primary results for Bergen, Essex, Passaic and Morris counties
EDITOR'S NOTE: Results will be added as they become available after polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10. Check back often as we update results as they become available. The focus of the June 10 primary election has been the gubernatorial race, however, there were numerous local contested races in Bergen, Passaic, Essex and Morris counties. This was New Jersey's first primary where all 21 counties used a black ballot design for both parties instead of the "county line." The line traditionally gave candidates endorsed by the county's political party a preferred ballot placement, but it was dismantled by a federal judge in 2024. As of May 1, New Jersey had 6,565,285 registered voters, which includes 2,449,526 Democrats and 1,621,669 Republicans. More than 691,000 vote-by-mail ballots were sent out across the state and about 234,000 were returned, according to state officials. To vote in New Jersey's primary election, voters are required to be affiliated with a party. The latest numbers show that almost 37 percent, or 2.4 million, of the state's voters are registered as undeclared. Undeclared voters may declare a party at the polls on the day of the election if they wish to vote. Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked by June 10. NJ Primary Election 2025: Our complete guide to voting, governor candidates, local races The following were all the North Jersey contested races listed by county and party. An asterisk denotes incumbents. Members of the Bergen County Board of Commissioners (Vote for three three-year seats) Bergen County Democrats for Change: Chris Chung — John Vitale — Dolores Witko — Democratic Committee of Bergen County: Thomas J. Sullivan * — Mary Amoroso * — Germaine M. Ortiz * — CRESSKILL Mayor (Unexpired two-year term) Skyler Cohen — Better spending. Better schools. Better Cresskill — Leslie Kaplan — Democratic Committee of Bergen County — GLEN ROCK Borough Council (Vote for two three-year terms) — Jonathan Hendl – Putting Residents First — Seth M. Rosenstein* – Glen Rock Democrats for Council — Rachel C. Madley – Glen Rock Democrats for Council — MOONACHIE Borough Council (Vote for two three-year terms) Robert J. Bauer Sr. – Democratic Committee of Bergen County — James D. Campbell – Democratic Committee of Bergen County — Giovanni A. Brattoli – Your Voice, Our Future! — RIDGEFIELD Borough Council (Vote for two three-year terms) Joanna Congalton-Hali* – Democratic Committee of Bergen County — James V. Kontolios* – Democratic Committee of Bergen County — Andrew J. Borek – People Who Love Ridgefield — RUTHERFORD Borough Council (Vote for two three-year terms) Edward C. Narucki – Eddie – Alt Indie Democrat — Douglas J. Hoffman – Rutherforward — Richard H. Hussey – Rutherforward — Christie Delrey-Cone* – Democratic Committee of Bergen County — Dennis F. Mazone – Democratic Committee of Bergen County — Susan E. Quatrone* – Democratic Councilwoman Serving Rutherford — FRANKLIN LAKES Borough Council (Vote for two three-year terms) Joseph S. Conte – Trusted. Responsible. Dedicated — Joseph L. Rosano – Trusted. Responsible. Dedicated — Joel D. Ansh* – Bergen County Republican Endorsed Candidates — Michael A. Kazimir – Bergen County Republican Endorsed Candidates — HILLSDALE Borough Council — (Vote for two three-year terms) Anthony J. DeRosa — Hillsdale Republicans — Louis A. Casale — Bergen County Republican Endorsed Candidates — Stephen B. Riordan — Bergen County Republican Endorsed Candidates — WALDWICK Borough Council (Vote for two three-year terms) Nadia M. Luppino — Bergen County Republican Endorsed Candidates — Charles F. Asta — Bergen County Republican Endorsed Candidates — Michele S. Weber* — Bergen County Republicans — Mark J. Ramundo* – Bergen County Republicans — BLOOMFIELD Township Council (Democrats, vote for three three-year terms, serving at-large): Jill Fischman — Satenik Margaryan — Monica Charris-Tabares* — Tracy Toler-Phillips — Widney Polynice* — MILLBURN Township Committee (Democrats, vote for two three-year terms,serving at-large): Michael Cohen* — Jeffrey Feld — Annette Romano* — WANAQUE Borough Council (Republican, vote for two three-year terms): Dominick Cortellessa* — Passaic County Regular Republican Organization Inc — Angela Demetriou — Community: Stronger Together — Edward Leonard* — Passaic County Regular Republican Organization Inc — WAYNE Mayor (Democrats, vote for one four-year term): James R. Freeswick — Democrat — Donald Robert Pavlak Jr. — Passaic County Democratic Organization Endorsed Candidate — DOVER COUNCIL (Democrat) Ward 1 (Vote for one four-year term): Claudia Toro* — Daniele Mendez — Ward 2 (Vote for one four-year term): Sergio Rodriguez — Judy Rugg — Ward 3 (Vote for one four-year term): Michael Scarneo — Christopher Almada — MENDHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (Republican) (Vote for two three-year terms): Robert Mason — Bruce LaFera* — Neil Sullivan — MONTVILLE COMMITTEE (Republican) (Vote for two three-year terms): Daria Senaldi — Chris Fano — Thomas Mazzaccaro — James Sandham Jr. — PARSIPPANY (Republican): Mayor (Vote for one four-year term): James Barberio* — Justin Musella — Council (Vote for two four-year terms): Frank Neglia — Jigar Shah — Casey Parikh — John Bielen — ROCKAWAY BOROUGH (Republican): Council (Vote for two three-year terms): Robert DeVito — Andrew Agliata* — Thomas Slockbower* — ROCKAWAY TWP. COMMITTEE (Republican): Ward 6 (Vote for one four-year term): Rachael Brookes* — Tucker Kelley — WASHINGTON COMMITTEE (Republican) (Vote for two three-year terms): Michael Marino* — Michael Starr — Lawrence Bajek — This article originally appeared on NJ primary election results 2025 for Bergen, Essex, Morris, Passaic
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House approves pair of resolutions condemning antisemitic attack in Colorado
The House on Monday approved a pair of resolutions condemning the antisemitism attack in Boulder, Co., as the chamber looks to crack down on the spate of incidents targeting Jewish individuals. The first resolution, led by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), was adopted in a 400-0-2 vote, with just Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) voting 'present.' The second measure, spearheaded by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), cleared the chamber in a 280-113-6 vote, with 113 Republicans voting 'no.' 'Antisemitic violence will not be ignored, excused, or tolerated in the United States of America,' Van Drew wrote on X after the vote. While both measures were adopted in a bipartisan fashion, the resolution sponsored by Evans drew Democratic ire. Lawmakers were frustrated that Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who represents Boulder, was not included as a co-sponsor of the legislation. Some also took issue with the inclusion of details about the suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman's, immigration status. Evans' resolution also said the attack 'demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas,' leaning into the politically polarizing issue of immigration. And it 'expresses gratitude' to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 'for protecting the homeland.' 'In times like these I would have hoped that my colleagues would be willing to come together to properly honor the victims, to condemn antisemitism as I have said and as our resolution does. It's not hard to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker,' Neguse said on the House floor. 'And the question that Mr. Evans should answer is why? Why not join his two other Republican colleagues in Colorado and join the bipartisan resolution that thanks the Boulder Police Department, that thanks the FBI? The purpose of these resolutions is to unite the congress, not divide it.' Neguse and other members of the Colorado congressional delegation — including two Republicans — introduced their own resolution condemning the attack last week. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Evans resolution was 'not a serious effort.' 'Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America,' Jeffries said. 'This is not a serious effort. This guy is going to be a one-term member of Congress. He's a complete and total embarrassment.' Soliman was charged with 118 counts of attempted murder after he threw Molotov cocktails at a group of people who were gathered peacefully and calling for the release of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas amid the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. He was also charged with a federal hate crime after acknowledging that he planned the attack for a year and said he 'walked to kill all Zionist people.' In a statement on X after the vote, Greene said she voted 'present' on Van Drew's resolution because Congress has not condemned hate crimes against other groups of Americans. 'Antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others,' Greene wrote. 'Tonight, the House passed two more antisemitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st I've voted on since taking office. Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb — and Congress stays silent. We don't vote on endless resolutions defending them.' 'Prioritizing one group of Americans and/or one foreign country above our own people is fueling resentment and actually driving more division, including antisemitism,' she added. 'These crimes are horrific and easy for me to denounce. But because of the reasons I stated above, I voted present.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next
Donald Trump is talking and acting like an authoritarian as he escalates a constitutional clash with California over his migration crackdown. Much now depends on whether he's simply talking tough or if he's ready to take an already-tense nation across a fateful line in his zeal for strongman rule. In a mind-boggling moment, on Monday, the president of the United States — the country seen as the world's top steward of democracy for 80 years — endorsed the arrest of the Democratic governor of the nation's most populous state. 'I think it would be a great thing,' Trump, the only convicted felon ever to serve as president, told reporters as he strode across the South Lawn of the White House. Later, Trump deployed hundreds of active-duty Marines to Los Angeles and authorized the arrival of 2,000 more National Guard reservists after a weekend of unrest that saw clashes with police and burning cars in contained areas of the city. The protests were triggered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps seeking undocumented migrants in a city and state that are epicenters of Democratic power. California and Los Angeles officials reject Trump's claims that they have lost control. On Monday evening, law enforcement officers pushed back demonstrators throwing projectiles with flash bangs. Trump's decision to deploy troops despite the opposition of California Gov. Gavin Newsom represented the latest example of his willingness to flex extraordinary executive power — often on questionable grounds — and marked a break with a first term when he was often talked out of his extreme impulses by establishment officials. For all Trump's multiple previous challenges to the rule of law and democracy, a grave new chapter may be opening. 'The president is forcibly overriding the authority of the governor and mayor and using the military as a political weapon. This unprecedented move threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis,' Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said on Monday evening. 'Since our nation's founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on US soil,' Reed said in a statement. California Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, whose district encompasses Paramount, just south of Los Angeles, condemned Trump's mobilizations of troops that she said were not justified by the situation. 'This is where I think this is a sign of a dictator,' she told CNN's Jake Tapper. 'And the threat he is making against the governor to arrest him — I mean come on — that is pretty outrageous.' Top Trump administration officials are throwing around words like 'insurrection.' Not surprisingly, many observers have taken such rhetoric as a sign the White House is prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act — a law that would allow the president to activate troops to put down a rebellion in a state. There is no such revolt in California. Trump's claims on Monday that his swift action stopped Los Angeles being obliterated are also not true. The president's border czar Tom Homan, meanwhile, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that claims by Democratic officials that protests intensified because Trump sent National Guard troops were 'ridiculous.' Joining 'The Source' from Los Angeles, Homan said, 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters— I mean, they make the decisions.' Protesters gathered in large numbers in Los Angeles on Monday night, raising the prospect of another cycle of tension and uncertainty. The trajectory of the crisis could now turn on whether Trump follows through on his dictator's theatrics by crossing lines not approached by modern presidents — notably on the use of troops in a law enforcement capacity. It may also rely on the restraint of protesters, who would play into Trump's hands by taking part in more unrest that creates alarming television pictures that can fuel Trump's dystopian rhetoric. Creating or escalating a law-and-order crisis or threat to public security and then using it to justify the use of the military on domestic soil would mirror the methodology of tyrannical leaders throughout history. And hopes of restraint are hardly supported by Trump's second term so far. The president has, for instance, invoked highly contentious national emergencies on immigration and trade to unlock rarely used executive powers with no pushback from the Republican Congress. He's used presidential authority against what he regards as centers of liberal authority and influence: at Ivy League universities, in the federal government and in the media. And even in his breakup with erstwhile DOGE chief Elon Musk last week, Trump threatened yet another abuse of power by cancelling federal subsidies for the SpaceX boss's firms. The administration is spoiling for a fight as it lays down a marker in California for other Democratic states where leaders are loath to cooperate with Trump's deportation purge. It obviously also perceives a political advantage in the president positioning himself as the guardian of public order in a way that allows Republicans to accuse Democrats of defending softer immigration enforcement. But as ever with Trump, there's a question as to whether he's serious with his threats or is staking out an extreme position to please his voters or even to create some perceived leverage for himself. Homan, for instance, told CNN's Collins that Newsom had 'absolutely not' done anything at this point to justify his arrest. And North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer adopted the classic GOP line that not everything that the president says should be taken literally when asked about administration threats to detain Newsom. 'You guys could ask every day if I am comfortable with what he said. He hasn't arrested him. I can't imagine that he is going to arrest Gavin Newsom,' Cramer told CNN's Manu Raju. Cramer also voiced the view of many Republicans that, far from behaving like an authoritarian, Trump is rightfully addressing failures by Democratic leaders on immigration policy and public order. 'There's no question about it: Places like California have thumbed their noses at the American people and decided they want to be sanctuary for criminals,' Cramer said. So far, National Guard reservists mobilized by the president over the head of a state governor for the first time since the Civil Rights era in the 1960s have mostly been used to defend federal buildings in Los Angeles. While the announcement of a deployment of Marines to the city was superficially alarming, their orders prohibit them from conducting law enforcement activities like making arrests without Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. The Marines are expected to be used to bolster National Guard members on the ground while up to 2,000 reservists are mobilized. CNN's Evan Perez, meanwhile, reported on Monday evening that while officials like top White House aide Stephen Miller have been talking about an 'insurrection,' administration lawyers have been working to craft a much less confrontational way of protecting the federal government's ability to carry out immigration enforcement, hoping to avoid further inflaming the situation, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions. This may all signify that the president is not yet ready to push the nation toward an unprecedented authoritarian cliff — even if his personal history, not least over January 6, 2021, suggests that in the heat of the moment he often takes the most reckless course. And Trump may be playing with fire in a city and state where anger over his wild four-month-old presidency is boiling. By inserting troops into such a volatile and tense environment, he's opening the possibility that flashpoints could ignite and even that tragic circumstances could unfold. But then again, maybe that's the point, if the president is seeking a predicate to deploy active-duty troops on the streets of American cities. Another troubling omen is that Newsom — who, like Trump, relishes public fights — has no incentive to cave to the man he would like to replace as president in 2029. Newsom, for example, wrote on social media on Monday that the president was deploying another 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, even though only 300 from his initial 2,000-strong contingent had so far arrived in the city. 'This isn't about public safety. It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego,' the governor said. 'This is Reckless. Pointless. And Disrespectful to our troops.' The state has sued the administration over that initial call-up of reservists. State Attorney General Rob Bonta called Trump's federalization of the state's National Guard troops 'unnecessary, counterproductive, and most importantly, unlawful.' The suit created yet another legal morass around one of Trump's most aggressive power grabs. California has now lodged 24 lawsuits against the administration in 19 weeks. With every day that passes in the California public order crisis, the political incentives seem to be driving toward more confrontation rather than a peaceful resolution. But ultimately it's up to Trump how this ends.
