Latest news with #ClimateSuperfund
Epoch Times
25-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Liability for Climate Change: An Inequitable Economic Disaster
Commentary Recently, the Trump administration filed lawsuits seeking to halt efforts by some states to impose liability on fossil fuel companies for their past greenhouse gas emissions. It will likely take some years for these lawsuits to be resolved. What is already clear are the serious and senseless economic consequences that will follow if states are allowed to punish fossil fuel companies for their lawful past production. States are meting out such punishment in two ways. The first is through common law tort suits. Some of these suits allege that past greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas production constitute a public nuisance. In others, states allege that fossil fuel companies lied to consumers about the potentially harmful consequences of such emissions. The second way that states are trying to punish fossil fuel companies is through what are called 'Climate Superfund' laws. Such laws, already enacted by New York and Vermont and on the road to passage in states such as Maryland and California, hold fossil fuel companies jointly liable for the supposed costs of past greenhouse gas emissions. New York's law simply sets out an arbitrary $75 billion that fossil fuel companies must pay, with each company paying a share equal to its share of industry GHG emissions over the 2000–2018 period. Under Vermont's law, producers are liable, again according to their share of emissions, for a virtually limitless set of expenditures—including everything from new roads and bridges to 'preventive health care'—that Vermont incurs to address the harms of climate change caused by fossil fuel producer emissions over the period 1995–2004. Were a large number of states to enact laws similar to those enacted in New York and Vermont, fossil fuel companies could be facing trillions of dollars in liability for past production. These laws impose a new form of liability, one previously virtually unknown in the law, liability for cumulative past emissions. As I show in a recently published peer-reviewed analysis, such cumulative liability—de facto fines for past emissions—will severely cut present and future fossil fuel production. The supply shrinkage comes about through two channels. The first pathway is that cumulative liability will cause some currently producing fields to be shut down. Cumulative liability will cause producers to shut some (generally older) wells because the longer an oil or gas field is in production, the bigger its cumulative production and therefore liability but the lower the present value of oil and gas that remains in the ground. Eventually, liability for cumulative past production (and emissions) must be bigger than the present value of remaining, unproduced oil and gas, meaning that a field becomes a negative net value asset and should be closed. This is true even if the price per barrel is higher than the per barrel damages. By my rough calculations, imposing cumulative liability at even a relatively low per barrel damage level could cause a substantial fraction of Permian Basin fields to become such negative value assets. The prospect of future cumulative liability will also reduce oil and gas supply by causing firms to delay drilling new wells. The reason is that the cost of delaying drilling—delaying the realization of net revenues—is lower when a potentially large portion of such revenues are diverted to paying Climate Superfund or common law damages. Crucially, field closure and drilling delay are supply shocks that only impact supply from firms that are actually subject to state tort litigation or 'Climate Superfund' laws. These are primarily U.S. producers. But by most estimates, over 70 percent of global oil and gas reserves are owned and controlled by OPEC+ countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. State owned or controlled enterprises who produce fossil fuels in such countries will likely be completely judgment proof with respect to state tort and Climate Superfund liability. Such liability will be borne entirely by U.S. (and possibly) European producers. Even worse, the tort theories advanced and the Climate Superfund laws passed by the states impose joint liability—meaning defendants who are susceptible to legal judgment are together jointly responsible for all fines or damages. Because liability is joint, U.S. producers will be potentially liable for harms caused by total past greenhouse emissions, even emissions from production by OPEC+ members. Indeed, climate tort liability and climate superfund laws give OPEC+ producers a new competitive advantage from increasing production—by increasing production, they not only reduce global price, but increase the potential liability of U.S. producers. Related Stories 5/22/2025 5/21/2025 U.S. fossil fuel production, especially from the Permian Basin, has provided an important check on the ability of OPEC+ to increase oil and gas prices. A reduction in such U.S supply caused by state climate tort litigation and state Climate Superfund laws may thus lead both to higher U.S. prices and an increased dependence of the U.S. on OPEC+ supply with very little impact on global fossil fuel production and hence global greenhouse gas emissions from such production. Against such minimal or nonexistent benefits, such laws will likely increase U.S fossil fuel prices to consumers, reduce production and employment in the U.S fossil fuel industry, and increase U.S. dependence on foreign fossil fuel production. They will thus stand as only the latest in the series of foolish U.S. policies whose vast costs and minimal benefits are politically justified by the cry for a 'war' on climate change. From Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is illegally trying to overturn state climate laws
The foundation of American government rests on a simple but powerful principle: states are not mere departments of the federal government. They are sovereign entities with both the right and the responsibility to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their residents. President Trump's recent executive order, which instructs the Justice Department to block state climate laws such as New York's Climate Change Superfund Act, is a direct attack on that principle. But executive orders cannot undo duly enacted state laws. Trump's action is a political stunt, not a legal reversal. New York's Climate Change Superfund Act stands on strong constitutional ground. Across the country, states are stepping up to respond to the rising toll of climate-fueled disasters. More than ten states have introduced climate superfund legislation based on a simple idea: those massive, multinational oil and gas corporations that caused the climate crisis should help pay for the damage. This is not only fair but necessary. The costs of climate change are staggering, and without action, those costs are already falling entirely on the shoulders of working families. In New York alone, it will cost an estimated $52 billion to protect New York Harbor from climate change, $75 to $100 billion to defend Long Island, and another $55 billion to safeguard communities across the rest of the state. Without laws like the Climate Superfund, that burden would be borne entirely by local governments, homeowners and taxpayers, who are also seeing climate-driven cost increases in their homeowner's insurance, health care and numerous other expenses. Under our system of federalism, states have always had broad authority to enact laws that protect their people. That authority is rooted in the Tenth Amendment and reinforced by centuries of precedent. Whether regulating public health, consumer safety, or environmental protection, states serve as both innovators and defenders when federal action falls short. The Climate Change Superfund Act continues that tradition. It applies the longstanding 'polluter pays' principle to today's climate disasters. Instead of asking the public to foot the entire bill, it holds the largest, most profitable global fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage their products have helped cause. Trump's executive order does not simply challenge this one law, but rather the very idea that states have the right to hold powerful interests accountable when Washington will not. By branding state efforts as 'illegal' simply because they conflict with his administration's ideological agenda, the president undermines the same state sovereignty that he once claimed to champion. Federalism was never meant to guarantee uniformity across all 50 states. It exists to empower states to meet the specific needs of their people. From fires in the West to floods in the Northeast, extreme weather is overwhelming local budgets. Communities everywhere are being forced to rebuild, and they have every right to demand that the companies who profited the most from pollution help pay for the recovery. Trump's executive is not for families struggling to rebuild after a disaster, nor for mayors trying to repair storm drains, nor for governors strengthening coastlines. Rather, it is for fossil fuel lobbyists, for billion-dollar polluters and for the same corporate interests that have fought climate and economic progress at every turn. The costs of climate change are here; the only question is who will pay those costs. States like New York are choosing fairness. We are choosing to make the biggest global polluters pay. The right to protect our communities belongs to the people and the leaders they elect, and it's not limited by the whims of Washington insiders or oil industry lobbyists. We intend to defend that right, in the courts, in the legislature and in the court of public opinion, for as long as it takes. Liz Krueger is a New York state senator and Jeffrey Dinowitz is a New York assemblyman. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump is illegally trying to overturn state climate laws
The foundation of American government rests on a simple but powerful principle: states are not mere departments of the federal government. They are sovereign entities with both the right and the responsibility to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their residents. President Trump's recent executive order, which instructs the Justice Department to block state climate laws such as New York's Climate Change Superfund Act, is a direct attack on that principle. But executive orders cannot undo duly enacted state laws. Trump's action is a political stunt, not a legal reversal. New York's Climate Change Superfund Act stands on strong constitutional ground. Across the country, states are stepping up to respond to the rising toll of climate-fueled disasters. More than ten states have introduced climate superfund legislation based on a simple idea: those massive, multinational oil and gas corporations that caused the climate crisis should help pay for the damage. This is not only fair but necessary. The costs of climate change are staggering, and without action, those costs are already falling entirely on the shoulders of working families. In New York alone, it will cost an estimated $52 billion to protect New York Harbor from climate change, $75 to $100 billion to defend Long Island, and another $55 billion to safeguard communities across the rest of the state. Without laws like the Climate Superfund, that burden would be borne entirely by local governments, homeowners and taxpayers, who are also seeing climate-driven cost increases in their homeowner's insurance, health care and numerous other expenses. Under our system of federalism, states have always had broad authority to enact laws that protect their people. That authority is rooted in the Tenth Amendment and reinforced by centuries of precedent. Whether regulating public health, consumer safety, or environmental protection, states serve as both innovators and defenders when federal action falls short. The Climate Change Superfund Act continues that tradition. It applies the longstanding 'polluter pays' principle to today's climate disasters. Instead of asking the public to foot the entire bill, it holds the largest, most profitable global fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage their products have helped cause. Trump's executive order does not simply challenge this one law, but rather the very idea that states have the right to hold powerful interests accountable when Washington will not. By branding state efforts as 'illegal' simply because they conflict with his administration's ideological agenda, the president undermines the same state sovereignty that he once claimed to champion. Federalism was never meant to guarantee uniformity across all 50 states. It exists to empower states to meet the specific needs of their people. From fires in the West to floods in the Northeast, extreme weather is overwhelming local budgets. Communities everywhere are being forced to rebuild, and they have every right to demand that the companies who profited the most from pollution help pay for the recovery. Trump's executive is not for families struggling to rebuild after a disaster, nor for mayors trying to repair storm drains, nor for governors strengthening coastlines. Rather, it is for fossil fuel lobbyists, for billion-dollar polluters and for the same corporate interests that have fought climate and economic progress at every turn. The costs of climate change are here; the only question is who will pay those costs. States like New York are choosing fairness. We are choosing to make the biggest global polluters pay. The right to protect our communities belongs to the people and the leaders they elect, and it's not limited by the whims of Washington insiders or oil industry lobbyists. We intend to defend that right, in the courts, in the legislature and in the court of public opinion, for as long as it takes. Liz Krueger is a New York state senator and Jeffrey Dinowitz is a New York assemblyman.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Officials push forward on controversial plan that could have widespread health impact: 'The public has a right to know'
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate a 15-year-old program that requires businesses to report the amount of harmful carbon pollution they emit each year, according to The New York Times. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program became effective in 2010. The program requires more than 8,000 U.S. companies and vendors to report how much heat-trapping pollution they produce annually, allowing the EPA to track this data over time. In March, the EPA announced it was considering stopping the program. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that the program costs businesses "millions of dollars" and makes it more difficult for small businesses to operate. ProPublica recently reported that the agency may be even closer to getting rid of — or at least downsizing — the GHGRP after an EPA meeting in April. At the meeting, officials instructed staff to rescind reporting requirements for 40 of the 41 industries currently required to submit data. The GHGRP was created to shed light on pollution from major industries so that the public could understand the risks. This is especially important for communities close to power plants, refineries, and manufacturing hubs. Scaling back these requirements makes it more difficult to track air pollution and for families to know what they breathe. Without this data, local leaders won't have the information they need to advocate for cleaner air or hold polluters accountable. "The public has a right to know how much climate pollution is being emitted," said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, per the Times. Patton also called it an "irresponsible" move. Despite the potential rollback of the GHGRP, many companies are still committed to reducing pollution and their carbon footprint. Major corporations like Microsoft and Unilever have pledged to invest in carbon offset projects while lowering their harmful pollution. LanzaTech is also working on technology to turn carbon pollution into usable products. There are also numerous other policies in place around the country to make the planet cleaner. New York's Climate Superfund will collect $75 billion from oil companies over two decades to address climate-related damages. Wisconsin lawmakers proposed the Climate Accountability Act, aiming to cut heat-trapping pollution in half by 2030. These efforts show that states and companies are stepping up to push for a cleaner future, even as federal oversight shifts. Explore critical climate issues and become part of the solution. Do you think your city has good air quality? Definitely Somewhat Depends on the time of year Not at all Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. 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.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
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.
