State-Level ‘Climate Superfund’ Bills Gain Momentum Across the U.S.: What It Means for You

As climate-related disasters increase, more lawmakers believe that fossil fuel companies should bear the financial burden of the damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions. This shift in perspective is gaining traction across various states.

In May 2023, Vermont made headlines as the first state to pass a climate Superfund law. Modeled after the federal Superfund law from 1980, it holds major oil and gas companies accountable for climate-related damages. The law requires these companies to cover disaster and adaptation costs in proportion to their share of global emissions from 1995 to 2024. Vermont’s law followed severe flooding earlier that year, illustrating the urgency behind such measures. Shortly after, in December, New York also enacted a similar law.

This year, a total of 11 states, from California to Maine, introduced their own climate Superfund bills. The momentum is increasing, even as Vermont and New York face legal challenges from fossil fuel companies and certain political groups. Advocates argue that finding ways to fund disaster preparation and response is essential, given the escalating costs of dealing with climate disasters.

“These big fossil fuel companies aren’t paying their fair share for the climate crisis they’ve caused,” said Adrian Boafo, a Maryland state delegate.

With growing climate challenges, Maryland’s interest in a climate Superfund also gained steam. A recent state report estimates that Maryland will incur between $10 billion and $20 billion in disaster costs between 1980 and 2024. Up until now, governments and taxpayers have shouldered all of these costs. Boafo emphasized that the burden needs to be shared more equitably.

An important factor fueling this movement is the advancement in attribution science. Experts are now capable of linking extreme weather events directly to emissions from specific companies. Martin Lockman, a climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, explained that this science helps governments determine which companies owe damages and how much.

Vermont’s law includes a system to calculate the costs from 1995 to 2024 that major fossil fuel companies inflicted on the state. It will then bill companies based on their emissions. Conversely, New York has set a $75 billion funding target for major emissions contributors over the next 25 years to speed up climate resilience efforts.

However, not all has gone smoothly. Maryland’s proposed Superfund legislation faced setbacks. Although it was initially drafted to hold fossil fuel companies accountable, it was amended to only call for a study on climate costs, with no immediate requirements for payments. Governor Wes Moore’s veto surprised many advocates, who expressed concerns that this stifles Maryland’s climate progress.

Meanwhile, in California, lawmakers are optimistic about passing a similar bill. After experiencing devastating wildfires in January, there’s renewed urgency among legislators to address climate issues and share costs fairly.

Legal battles surrounding the laws in Vermont and New York are ongoing. Both states are facing lawsuits claiming that their laws violate federal regulations. Legal experts believe these challenges are predictable given the financial stakes involved. Patrick Parenteau, a legal scholar, mentioned that states usually have the authority to enforce environmental policies, so he expects the lawsuits to ultimately unravel.

As society grapples with the financial impacts of climate change, states are exploring solutions. These new laws may pave the way for a more equitable distribution of climate-related costs. The future of climate legislation could depend on how these challenges unfold and whether states can effectively combat opposition from powerful industries.

Source link

climate finance,Climate pricing