Latest news with #SabinCenterforClimateChangeLaw
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Despite backlash, more states are considering laws to make Big Oil pay for climate change
As climate disasters strain state budgets, a growing number of lawmakers want fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions. Last May, Vermont became the first state to pass a climate Superfund law. The concept is modeled after the 1980 federal Superfund law, which holds companies responsible for the costs of cleaning up their hazardous waste spills. The state-level climate version requires major oil and gas companies to pay for climate-related disaster and adaptation costs, based on their share of global greenhouse gas emissions over the past few decades. Vermont's law passed after the state experienced torrential flooding in 2023. In December, New York became the second state to pass such a law. This year, 11 states, from California to Maine, have introduced their own climate Superfund bills. Momentum is growing even as Vermont and New York's laws face legal challenges by fossil fuel companies, Republican-led states, and the Trump administration. Lawmakers and climate advocates told Grist that they always expected backlash, given the billions of dollars at stake for the oil and gas industry — but that states have no choice but to find ways to pay the enormous costs of protecting and repairing infrastructure in the face of increasing floods, wildfires, and other disasters. The opposition 'emboldens our fight more,' said Maryland state delegate Adrian Boafo, who represents Prince George's County and co-sponsored a climate Superfund bill that passed the state legislature in March. 'It means that we have to do everything we can in Maryland to protect our citizens, because we can't rely on the federal government in this moment.' While the concept of a climate Superfund has been around for decades, it's only in recent years that states have begun to seriously consider these laws. In Maryland, federal inaction on climate change and the growing burden of climate change on government budgets have led to a surge of interest, said Boafo. Cities and counties are getting hit with huge unexpected costs from damage to stormwater systems, streets, highways, and other public infrastructure. They're also struggling to provide immediate disaster relief to residents and to prepare for future climate events. Maryland has faced at least $10 billion to $20 billion in disaster costs between 1980 and 2024, according to a recent state report. Meanwhile, up until now, governments, businesses, and individuals have borne 100 percent of these costs. 'We realized that these big fossil fuel companies were, frankly, not paying their fair share for the climate crisis that they've caused,' Boafo said. Recent bills have also been spurred by increased sophistication in attribution science, said Martin Lockman, a climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Researchers are now able to use climate models to link extreme weather events to greenhouse gas emissions from specific companies. The field provides a quantitative way for governments to determine which oil and gas companies should pay for climate damages, and how much. Vermont's law sets up a process for the government to first tally up the costs of climate harms in the state caused by the greenhouse gas emissions of major oil and gas companies between 1995 and 2024. The state will then determine how much of those costs each company is responsible for, invoice them accordingly, and devote the funds to climate infrastructure and resilience projects. New York's law, by contrast, sets a funding target ahead of time by requiring certain fossil fuel companies to pay a total of $75 billion, or $3 billion per year over 25 years. The amount each company has to pay is proportionate to their share of global greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2024. Both Vermont and New York's laws apply only to companies that have emitted over 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their respective covered periods. That would include Exxon Mobil, Shell, and other oil and gas giants. Maryland's law is so far the only climate Superfund-related legislation to pass this year, although it hasn't yet been signed by the state's governor. The original draft of the bill would have required major fossil fuel companies to pay a one-time fee for their historic carbon emissions. But over the course of the legislative session, the bill was amended to instead simply require a study on the cumulative costs of climate change in Maryland, to understand how much money an eventual program would need to raise. The study would be due by December 2026, at which point Maryland lawmakers would need to propose new legislation to actually implement a climate Superfund program. 'I wish it wasn't amended the way it was,' Boafo said, adding that lawmakers devoted much of their energy this legislative session to addressing Maryland's $3.3 billion budget deficit. 'At the same time, passing this new, amended version of the bill acknowledges to the state and to our constituents that we want to research how much actually would come to the state, how this program would be operated, what this would actually look like,' he said. 'It's not the step that a lot of us wanted, but it is a step forward.' In California, environmental groups are optimistic about the chances of a bill passing this year. This is the second year a climate Superfund bill has been introduced in the state, and the sponsors of the new bill have focused on building a broad coalition of environmental, community, and labor groups around the proposal, said Sabrina Ashjian, project director for the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the UCLA School of Law. This year's legislation was introduced shortly after the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January, which could amplify lawmakers' sense of urgency. The bill has now passed out of each legislative chamber's environmental committee and is awaiting votes in their respective judiciary committees. If passed, the bill will next move to the full Senate and Assembly for a final vote. In the meantime, legislators are keeping a close eye on ongoing legal challenges to Vermont's and New York's laws. In January, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, two trade groups, launched a lawsuit against Vermont's climate Superfund law. In February, 22 Republican state attorneys general and industry groups filed a lawsuit against New York's law. Both challenges claim that the laws violate interstate commerce protections and are preempted by federal law. Because the federal Clean Air Act regulates greenhouse gas emissions, the groups argue, states cannot pass laws related to climate damages. Now the Trump administration has joined the legal battle. On May 1, the Department of Justice sued the states of New York and Vermont over their climate Superfund programs, echoing the same arguments raised by the fossil fuel industry. The same day, the department also sued the states of Hawaiʻi and Michigan over their intentions to sue fossil fuel companies for climate-related damages. All four lawsuits frequently use identical language, Lockman pointed out. The lawsuits follow last month's executive order by President Donald Trump that called for the Justice Department to challenge state climate policies, and directly targeted Vermont and New York's climate Superfund laws. Shortly after the Justice Department's lawsuits were filed, West Virginia and 23 other states announced they would join the existing lawsuit against Vermont's law led by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. Legal experts noted that Trump's executive order itself has no legal impact, and that states have well-established authority to implement environmental policies. Patrick Parenteau, a legal scholar at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told the New York Times he expected the Justice Department's cases to be dismissed. A court could end up consolidating the federal suits with existing challenges against Vermont and New York's laws, although given that they raise the same arguments, 'there's really nothing new being added here,' said Lockman. Climate experts told Grist that with huge amounts of money and liability at stake, lawsuits from the fossil fuel industry weren't unexpected. Boafo said that given how much financial and political support the Trump campaign received from oil and gas corporations, it's not a surprise that the Justice Department has sued New York and Vermont. Pursuing these laws invites inevitable opposition — but avoiding the growing costs of climate devastation is even riskier, advocates said. Lawmakers are 'passing these bills because in writing budgets, in dealing with the day-to-day operation of their states, they're facing really serious questions about how our society is going to allocate the harms of climate change,' said Lockman. 'I suspect that the lawmakers who are advocating for these bills are in it for the long haul.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Despite backlash, more states are considering laws to make Big Oil pay for climate change on May 19, 2025.
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Climate watch: As federal climate action dominates headlines, what's happening in PA?
Without question, there's a lot of bad news coming out of the federal government about climate and the environment. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University listed, as of early May, 113 'steps taken by the Trump-Vance administration to scale back or wholly eliminate federal climate mitigation and adaptation measures.' This column, however, will look at things happening in Pennsylvania — some good, some not — because with the firehose of federal news these items might otherwise be missed. Renewables pass coal at PJM In April, the PJM grid, which serves the mid-Atlantic states including Pennsylvania, saw renewable energy sources surpass coal in the production of electricity. Renewables created 11,800 megawatts of electricity while coal generated 11,700 megawatts. That's from an analysis provided by Allegheny Front. The surge in renewables was driven by solar which set three peak generation records for PJM last month on April 1, 16 and 17. Pittsburgh Airport doubling solar Pittsburgh International Airport has its own microgrid, powered by natural gas and solar. It pushes out 23 megawatts of power and saves the airport about a million dollars annually in utility costs. It also cuts carbon emissions by 6 million pounds each year. The airport recently announced that it will add 11,216 solar panels to the 10,000 it already employs, generating an additional 4.7 megawatts of power. Peak energy demand at the airport is about 14 megawatts. The airport sells the surplus back to the grid. Crypto-Currency and fracking A fracking-powered crypto-currency mine in Elk County has been abandoned in violation of Pennsylvania law, regulators say. In 2022 Alabama-based Diversified Energy turned on a gas well in Horton Township that had sat unused for over a decade. The well funneled gas into on-site generators powering crypto-currency mining supercomputers. After a little more than two years, the company packed up and left the well uncapped, the Department of Environmental Protection charges. Unplugged wells leak methane which stokes global warming. Pennsylvania has more abandoned gas wells than any other state. Good news on Philly emissions 'Greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of Philadelphia's economy dropped 31% between 2006 and 2022, with a third of these reductions happening since the city's last inventory in 2019.' That's from a report by WHYY in Philly. A key reason: the sharp decline in the use of coal to make electricity. ' In contrast, greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S. fell just around 15% between 2006 and 2022. PA school district goes solar Steelton-Highspire School District in Dauphin County will save $3.6 million over 20 years by participating in a power purchase agreement for a 1.7-megawatt solar array. It covers 100 percent of the District's annual energy needs, according to an article in Canary Media. Steelton-Highspire also converted its school buses from diesel to electric. The District took advantage of federal rebates created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Same stand, new fossil fuel The coal-fired Homer City Generating Station in Indiana County closed in 2023. But another fossil fuel-burning plant is going to rise in its place. A new $10 billion methane gas-burning plant on the same site is expected to be up and running by 2027. Homer City Redevelopment LLC, backed by Knighthead Capital Management, plans a plant capable of generating 4.5 gigawatts of electricity. The company plans on locating energy-consuming data centers around the plant, declining to share more specifics with PublicSource. Richard W. Jones is a member of the State College chapter of Citizens' Climate Lobby. Reach the chapter at PAStateCollege@ .
New York Times
01-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Hawaii Announced a Climate Lawsuit. So the Government Sued Hawaii First.
On Monday, Gov. Josh Green of Hawaii said his state intended to sue fossil fuel companies over their role in climate change to make them pay for damage from its effects, like the 2023 wildfires that devastated Maui. 'I guess this might be breaking news,' he said during an interview on local television. 'We will be filing suit.' On Wednesday, the Trump administration sued Hawaii first, seeking to block the lawsuit before it could even be filed. The Justice Department also filed a nearly identical suit against Michigan, where Attorney General Dana Nessel has retained three private law firms to pursue climate change litigation but has not yet sued. The main thrust of the administration's argument is that the federal government should determine national energy policy, not individual states. Legal experts said it was highly unusual to sue to block other lawsuits that have yet to be filed. Nine Democratic-led states have already sued fossil fuel companies over climate change, along with dozens of municipalities around the country. The oil industry and its allies have tried to get those cases thrown out by making similar arguments to the ones put forth in the Justice Department filings this week. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Its two lawsuits cite President Trump's April 8 executive order, 'Protecting American Energy From State Overreach,' which argued that state policies inhibiting the energy industry weaken national security and drive up costs for Americans. It also said that the other lawsuits already filed by states over climate change could result in 'crippling' damages to oil companies being sued. Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said it was 'at least highly unusual' to try and preemptively block lawsuits. 'The usual procedure would be to move to intervene in existing lawsuits,' he said. 'I've never heard of a situation where a lawsuit is filed to seek an injunction against somebody else filing a lawsuit.' He predicted that such a legal strategy would not fare well. 'Procedurally, it's wacky,' he said. Both suits, filed in federal courts in Hawaii and Michigan, named the state, its governor and attorney general. The offices of Mr. Green and the Hawaii attorney general, Anne Lopez, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Ms. Nessel called the lawsuit 'at best frivolous and arguably sanctionable.' She said Mr. Trump had 'made clear he will answer any and every beck and call from his Big Oil campaign donors' and called the lawsuits 'perhaps the most surprising debasement of both the White House and D.O.J. yet.' The states that have already sued are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Could Trump's tariffs slow emissions? Sure, experts say, but at great cost overall
President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs have stirred widespread anxiety about a severe economic downturn -- and curiosity, for some, about how it might affect the world's warming climate. Experts say a slowdown in international trade might have a brief and slight benefit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which come in part from fuels like gas and oil that are used to move goods around the world via ships, planes and vehicles. But any such benefit in reducing emissions, which cause climate change, will be swamped by sharply rising costs worldwide that will hurt efforts to transition to green energies. 'I would say it might help the climate in the first year or two if we have a downturn in economic activity or a recession, which no one wants,' said Rob Jackson, head of the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who monitor greenhouse gas emissions yearly. 'But it will hurt the climate long-term because tariffs impact clean tech more than most other industries because of trade with China. 'Any emissions reduction would be temporary," said Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown. 'I'm deeply skeptical that this would have positive impacts on climate change and in particular the energy transition.' Climate experts have closely studied changes in world economic activity the last century, from the Great Depression to the recent coronavirus pandemic, looking for insights to help shape policies to reduce carbon emissions. A major U.S.-China trade war would be a very different dynamic than other recent slowdowns, as China produces much of the equipment needed for a transition to renewable energies, such as solar panels. Trump imposed, then suspended for 90 days, import taxes on dozens of countries Wednesday. He escalated his trade war with China, raising tariffs on its products to well above 100%. China makes more than 80% of the world's solar panels. The tariffs could slow global trade and economic activity. Carbon dioxide emissions dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and during the global financial crisis in 2009, then rebounded within a year. Jackson said he expects at most a 1% drop in emissions if full tariffs are implemented — significant, but far less than the 5.7% that his group calculated for the pandemic's first year. And Jackson noted that the world can't reach net-zero carbon emissions to try to limit future warming without structural changes, namely replacing fossil energy and manufacturing with clean renewable energy. 'A drop in emissions is important. But it boomerangs back to the same levels or keeps increasing afterwards,' he said. 'And we really haven't done anything meaningful to address climate issues.' Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, also thinks there could be a slight, temporary drop in greenhouse gas emissions if tariffs paralyze businesses and people aren't working. But, he said, the higher prices for components for new renewable energy facilities will make some not economical to build and there will be far fewer imports of electric vehicles, both of which will lead to more emissions. The transition to electric vehicles is an important part of the shift to clean energy to reduce emissions from road transport. The United States is a top importer of EVs and China is a top exporter. Renewable energy investor Excelsior Energy Capital announced Tuesday that it has raised just over $1 billion to continue investing equity in solar, energy storage, wind and other energy transition projects across the United States. Co-founder and managing partner Chris Moakley said they need stability and predictable costs — tariffs cause volatility. 'If there is an increase in tariffs, I think there's going to be a time where we will have a slowdown,' he said. 'The overall economics of these investments and transactions, there's going to need to be a reset.' Grid-scale batteries and solar panels, as well as power transformers, are among the hardest hit by price increases on imports, said David Shepheard, partner and energy expert at the global consultant Baringa. Combining batteries with green energy is a fast-growing climate solution. Batteries allow renewables to replace fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal, while keeping a steady flow of power when sources like wind and solar are not producing. Shepheard calculated a 55% price increase for grid-scale batteries if the tariffs are fully implemented on China, where about 80% of these batteries are manufactured, undermining the case for using solar and battery storage to satisfy a surging demand for electricity. If prices for renewables increase, the United States will turn more to fossil fuels, tying the nation to carbon-emitting power sources for decades, Shepheard added. President Joe Biden sought to lock in a trajectory for reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Trump began reversing the country's energy policies his first day in office with a spate of executive orders aimed at boosting oil, gas and coal. He's also moved aggressively against clean energy technologies, including halting offshore wind lease sales in federal waters, canceling clean energy loans and threatening action against states' climate laws. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
11-04-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Could Trump's tariffs slow emissions? Sure, experts say, but at great cost overall
President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs have stirred widespread anxiety about a severe economic downturn -- and curiosity, for some, about how it might affect the world's warming climate. Experts say a slowdown in international trade might have a brief and slight benefit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which come in part from fuels like gas and oil that are used to move goods around the world via ships, planes and vehicles. But any such benefit in reducing emissions, which cause climate change, will be swamped by sharply rising costs worldwide that will hurt efforts to transition to green energies. 'I would say it might help the climate in the first year or two if we have a downturn in economic activity or a recession, which no one wants,' said Rob Jackson, head of the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who monitor greenhouse gas emissions yearly. 'But it will hurt the climate long-term because tariffs impact clean tech more than most other industries because of trade with China. 'Any emissions reduction would be temporary," said Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown. 'I'm deeply skeptical that this would have positive impacts on climate change and in particular the energy transition.' Climate experts have closely studied changes in world economic activity the last century, from the Great Depression to the recent coronavirus pandemic, looking for insights to help shape policies to reduce carbon emissions. A major U.S.-China trade war would be a very different dynamic than other recent slowdowns, as China produces much of the equipment needed for a transition to renewable energies, such as solar panels. Trump imposed, then suspended for 90 days, import taxes on dozens of countries Wednesday. He escalated his trade war with China, raising tariffs on its products to well above 100%. China makes more than 80% of the world's solar panels. The tariffs could slow global trade and economic activity. Carbon dioxide emissions dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and during the global financial crisis in 2009, then rebounded within a year. Jackson said he expects at most a 1% drop in emissions if full tariffs are implemented — significant, but far less than the 5.7% that his group calculated for the pandemic's first year. And Jackson noted that the world can't reach net-zero carbon emissions to try to limit future warming without structural changes, namely replacing fossil energy and manufacturing with clean renewable energy. 'A drop in emissions is important. But it boomerangs back to the same levels or keeps increasing afterwards,' he said. 'And we really haven't done anything meaningful to address climate issues.' Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, also thinks there could be a slight, temporary drop in greenhouse gas emissions if tariffs paralyze businesses and people aren't working. But, he said, the higher prices for components for new renewable energy facilities will make some not economical to build and there will be far fewer imports of electric vehicles, both of which will lead to more emissions. The transition to electric vehicles is an important part of the shift to clean energy to reduce emissions from road transport. The United States is a top importer of EVs and China is a top exporter. Renewable energy investor Excelsior Energy Capital announced Tuesday that it has raised just over $1 billion to continue investing equity in solar, energy storage, wind and other energy transition projects across the United States. Co-founder and managing partner Chris Moakley said they need stability and predictable costs — tariffs cause volatility. 'If there is an increase in tariffs, I think there's going to be a time where we will have a slowdown,' he said. 'The overall economics of these investments and transactions, there's going to need to be a reset.' Grid-scale batteries and solar panels, as well as power transformers, are among the hardest hit by price increases on imports, said David Shepheard, partner and energy expert at the global consultant Baringa. Combining batteries with green energy is a fast-growing climate solution. Batteries allow renewables to replace fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal, while keeping a steady flow of power when sources like wind and solar are not producing. Shepheard calculated a 55% price increase for grid-scale batteries if the tariffs are fully implemented on China, where about 80% of these batteries are manufactured, undermining the case for using solar and battery storage to satisfy a surging demand for electricity. If prices for renewables increase, the United States will turn more to fossil fuels, tying the nation to carbon-emitting power sources for decades, Shepheard added. President Joe Biden sought to lock in a trajectory for reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Trump began reversing the country's energy policies his first day in office with a spate of executive orders aimed at boosting oil, gas and coal. He's also moved aggressively against clean energy technologies, including halting offshore wind lease sales in federal waters, canceling clean energy loans and threatening action against states' climate laws. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
