Trump Opposes Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act: Why He Calls It ‘Burdensome’ and ‘Ideologically Motivated’

Last summer, Vermont passed the Climate Superfund Act to tackle climate change. New York followed suit in December. Just days later, the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute filed a lawsuit against Vermont, claiming the law unfairly burdens the industry.

On May 1, the Trump administration added fuel to the fire by suing both states, aiming to block these new climate laws. The goal? To hold major fossil fuel companies accountable for their emissions, which have contributed to costly climate disasters from 1995 to 2024.

Now, Vermont faces two significant challenges: legal battles and pressing climate issues. State Treasurer Michael Pieciak is working to calculate the cost of environmental damage caused by specific fossil fuel products. This relies heavily on complex climate attribution science.

The basis of Vermont’s law is the “polluter pays” principle, adapted from the existing Superfund law used for hazardous waste cleanup. But with natural disasters growing in frequency and severity, the key question remains: How will Vermont afford necessary adaptations?

Experts warn that the Justice Department’s involvement makes the legal process more complicated and costly. Yet, advocates like state Sen. Anne Watson remain determined. She believes the swift response from the oil lobby signifies that the superfund strategy has merit and is capturing attention from those in the fossil fuel industry.

Ben Edgerly Walsh, director at the Vermont Public Interest Group, echoes this sentiment. He points out that the lawsuit reflects the fossil fuel industry’s fear of being held accountable. While these legal moves from the Trump administration may appear unprecedented, they resonate with past efforts to shield big oil, indicating a strong pushback against any state actions that could impose costs on the industry.

Vermonters have felt the effects of climate change first-hand. Just last year, Hurricane Beryl caused severe flooding. In 2021, an unprecedented flood inflicted nearly $1 billion in damages. The frequency and intensity of these events are a wake-up call for many residents, raising concerns about the state’s preparedness.

Politically, the divide on climate issues has also grown. Republicans have introduced legislation to dismantle the superfund program entirely. Gov. Phil Scott has been cautious, having previously refused to support the act due to concerns about the financial impact. Yet, Vermont’s lawmakers have largely pressed on, undeterred by the federal lawsuit.

Back in the courtroom, Vermont’s position is strengthened by the support of regional organizations, like the Conservation Law Foundation. As both parties work toward a shared legal timetable, the lengthy process is a source of stress for many Vermonters at risk from ongoing severe weather.

In a broader context, many other states are looking at Vermont’s superfund model. A recent Greenpeace survey showed that 80% of people worldwide support taxing fossil fuel companies for climate damages, demonstrating a growing consensus for accountability.

As climate change continues to shape our environment, Vermont’s approach may serve as a litmus test for other states, showing the potential for legislation that forces fossil fuel producers to bear the costs of their emissions.

Source link