Governor establishes first-of-its-kind 'superfund' program to combat pressing global issue: 'It will be interesting to see how the courts handle this'
New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signed legislation creating a Climate Superfund that will collect $75 billion from oil companies over the next 25 years to address climate emergency costs.
As The Good Men Project reported, the new law notes a connection between pollution and extreme weather events, using scientific studies to determine financial responsibility.
It will help fund infrastructure like coastal wetland restoration, energy-efficient cooling systems, and improved stormwater drainage without burdening taxpayers.
This practical approach comes as climate-related repairs are projected to cost New York households over $65,000 each by 2050.
The law standardizes emissions calculations, with major polluters facing significant financial responsibility. For instance, Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, will pay $640 million every year for its pollution between 2000 and 2020.
This development has promising potential to spread across the country. Vermont has already enacted similar legislation, and Maryland, Massachusetts, and California are exploring their own versions. This growing movement signals a turning point for long-term dirty fuel investments, which are becoming increasingly risky financial liabilities compared to clean energy alternatives.
The shift combines environmental protection with straightforward economic logic. Despite the ESG bubble's flawed approach, the clean economy keeps gaining strength. Money that once funded climate damage will instead support resilient infrastructure, creating jobs and reducing costs for average Americans.
While the industry pushes back, the financial signals are clear: The sunset of the dirty fuel era has begun.
"These kinds of laws, which are likely to spread rapidly among other states and around the world, serve to deter those who invest in the destruction of the planet because they will anticipate huge losses," said blogger Enrique Dans in his analysis of the legislation.
According to Dans, the American Petroleum Institute, representing some 600 industry members, criticized the law as "a punitive tax on U.S. energy" and indicated it is "evaluating its legal options in this regard."
Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes?
Definitely
Only if it saves money
I'm not sure
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"It will be interesting to see how the courts handle this," noted Dans.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
GOP lawmakers stick with Trump in messy Musk breakup
Amid the messy ongoing divorce between the president and the world's richest man, this much is already clear: Donald Trump has sole custody of the House GOP. Republican lawmakers are making clear that, if forced to choose, it's Trump — not Elon Musk — they're sticking by as leaders race to contain the fallout for their 'one big, beautiful bill.' Even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who helms a House panel inspired by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency initiative, blasted Musk's public attacks on Trump as 'unwarranted' and criticized his 'lashing out on the internet.' 'America voted for Donald Trump on Nov. 4, 2024 — every single vote mattered just as much as the other,' Greene said in a brief interview. 'And whether it was $1 that was donated or hundreds of millions of dollars, the way I see it, everybody's the same.' Like many Americans, GOP members watched Thursday's online exchange with a sense of car-crash-like fascination. Many shared that they hoped Musk and Trump could somehow patch things up. But many — including some of the former DOGE chief's biggest backers on Capitol Hill — were wholly unsurprised to see the billionaire suddenly cut down to size after months of chatter about who was really calling the shots at the White House. 'It's President Trump, not President Musk,' said one lawmaker granted anonymity to speak frankly about prevailing opinions inside the House GOP. Speaker Mike Johnson made no secret of where he stands on the public breakup. He told reporters Friday that he hoped the two men 'reconcile' and that it would be 'good for the party and the country if all this worked out.' But in the nearly same breath, Johnson quickly reaffirmed his allegiance to the president and issued a warning to Musk. 'Do not doubt, do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,' Johnson said. 'He is the leader of the party. He is the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era. And he's doing an excellent job for the people.' Other House Republicans concurred with the speaker's assessment Friday, even as they faced the looming threat of Musk targeting them in the upcoming midterms or at least pulling back on his political giving after pouring more than $250 million into the 2024 election on behalf of Trump and the GOP ticket. 'I think it's unfortunate,' said Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.) of the breakup. 'But Donald Trump was elected by a majority of the American people.' Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, who was one of only two Republicans to oppose Trump's megabill in the House last month, also made clear he stood with the president over Musk. 'He does not have a flight mode — he's fight, fight, fight … and he's been pretty measured,' Davidson said of Trump. 'I think Elon Musk looked a little out of control. And hopefully he gets back and grounded.' GOP leaders who have spent weeks cajoling their members to vote for the sprawling domestic-policy bill hardly hid their feelings as Musk continued to bash the legislation online, even calling on Americans to call their representatives in an effort to tank it. 'Frankly, it's united Republicans even more to go and defend the great things that are in this bill — and once it's passed and signed into law by August, September, you're going to see this economy turning around like nothing we've ever seen,' Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in a brief interview Friday. 'I'll be waiting for all those people who said the opposite to admit that they were wrong,' Scalise added. 'But I'm not expecting that to happen.' A few Republicans are still trying to walk a fine line by embracing both Trump and Musk — especially some fiscal hawks who believe Musk is right about the megabill adding trillions to the national debt. 'I think Elon has some valid points about the bill, concerns that myself and a handful of others were working to address up until the passage of it,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said in an interview. 'I think that'll make the bill stronger. I think it'll help our standing with the American people.' Both Trump and Musk 'have paid a tremendous price personally for this country,' Cloud added. 'And them working together is certainly far better for the country.' Notably, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, a key Musk ally on the Hill, declined to engage Thursday when asked about the burgeoning feud. Instead, the Ohio Republican responded by praising the megabill Musk had moved to tank. Democrats, for their part, watched the unfolding and public breakup with surprise and a heavy dose of schadenfreude. 'There are no good guys in a fight like this,' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). 'You just eat some popcorn and watch the show.'
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Beware: The Human Rights Campaign is just a scam to push lefty issues
Why does Uber make videos where people say, 'I'm non-binary or genderqueer'? And why does Lockheed Martin fund floats at Pride parades? Because companies want to raise their score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index. Equality is a good thing. I support human rights. But the Human Rights Campaign? That's something else. 'They have nothing to do with actual human rights,' says Robby Starbuck. 'They're an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization that pushes topics about transgenderism into the workplace.' Starbuck uses his social-media following to criticize the many companies that partner with the Human Rights Campaign. The campaign 'does great harm,' he says, because companies that want a high score must do things like pay for trans employees' gender reassignment surgery and fund puberty blockers for employees' kids. I push back, 'I know people who've had the surgery, and they seem happier!' 'If you're an adult and you make a set of decisions I disagree with, that's your prerogative,' replies Starbuck. 'I don't want to give my money to a company that's going to use it to fund any sex changes of any child.' People can debate the age when you're considered competent to medically change your gender. What surprises me is how many companies suck up to the Human Rights Campaign by paying for it. Google even brags about providing a 'trans liaison' to help people transition. Even some of your Amtrak tax subsidy goes to pay for this stuff. Amtrak's 'Lead Environmental Specialist' touts 'education on personal pronouns.' To raise their Corporate Equality Index scores, companies are encouraged to donate to LGBTQ+ groups — like the Human Rights Campaign! That helps the campaign collect millions in tax-free money. The more I looked at the organization, the less it seems to be about human rights, and the more it seems to be about left-wing advocacy. Its homepage features protesters holding signs saying, 'I will aid and abet abortion.' When I point that out to Starbuck, he says, 'Yeah, which humans? Which rights? Apparently, if you're a small enough human, you don't have rights.' The campaign's president says its Corporate Equality Index is 'about partnership with businesses to make workplaces as inclusive as possible for LGBTQ+ people.' But today, most businesses are inclusive, and in America, LGBT people are more accepted than ever. Twenty years ago, 37% of Americans supported gay marriage; 45% said gay relationships are moral. Today, support for gay marriage is at 69% and 64% consider gay relationships moral. Yet, as life gets better for LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign declared a 'national state of emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans!' 'This is a crisis right now!' said HRC president Kelley Robinson. I think I know why she said that. If activists acknowledge that Americans have come to accept LGBT people, the campaign might go out of business. One HRC executive says, 'We are never going to reach a destination.' Of course not. There's money to be made and leftist propaganda that needs spreading. Starbuck, by pointing out what the HRC really does, has persuaded some companies to stop sucking up. Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe's, Molson Coors, Toyota, Tractor Supply, Walmart and others announced that they will no longer participate in the Index. 'We came along and told people the story and they backtracking began,' says Starbuck. The campaign's president says, 'What we're seeing from these companies is short-sighted.' Maybe. Businesses can join whatever lists they want, but they ought to do what's good for their business. That means listening to customers, not progressive activists. 'At the end of the day,' says Starbuck, 'that's all people want, is for businesses to do their business. Not to virtue signal . . . or to perpetuate a political ideology.' John Stossel is the author of 'Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.'
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican. A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees. This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. Why It Matters Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks. While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans. In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA. "As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does." The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees. Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do." House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors. Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found. "It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify." What Happens Next Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage. "The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed." "Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."
