Good News: States Are Challenging Big Oil
With severe storms and wildfires on the rise, it’s time to hold big oil accountable for damage caused by their emissions. I have good news to report: Vermont and New York recently passed laws requiring large fossil fuel companies to pay fees for their emissions from 1995 to the present. California, Maine, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland have proposed similar legislation.
Like the tobacco industry, big oil denied for years that their products were harmful. Then, as extreme storms and fires became common, they shifted away from their denial campaign. Now they claim to be the clean energy leaders. The top five oil companies spend a combined $250 million a year on green advertising to convince us of this.
The facts present a different picture. In 2024, world oil production reached a new high, sending 40 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere. Profits for the top five oil companies also reached a new high too: $102 billion. 2024 was the hottest year on record.
Yes, big oil did invest in clean energy. But the top five oil companies invested just 4% of their total investments in renewables. A whopping 96% of their investment dollars went to oil and gas exploration, and building new refineries, pipelines and ports.
Legislators in seven states are having none of this. They are filing lawsuits and passing laws to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage they’ve caused.
How Climate Superfunds Work
The new laws are based on the “polluter pays” principle which shifts the cost of climate damage and adaptation from taxpayers to polluters. The scale is enormous. In NYC, the cost of upgrading the sewer system to accommodate heavier rains is estimated at $100 billion for example.
The laws would charge fossil fuel companies a fee and deposit the funds into state “climate superfunds”. These monies would be used to clean up from storms and wildfires and build new infrastructure to accommodate climate change.
You may be wondering how polluters will be assessed a pollution fee. Based on decades of research and using advanced computing, it’s now possible to accurately determine the cost attributed to each polluter. Formulas are in place. So far no one is questioning them.
Establishing state “climate superfunds” is a bold move. And there’s legal precedent for it: The national superfund act (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or CERCLA) passed in 1980. Since then, 1340 toxic sites have been cleaned up. Funding for this work comes from corporations and congressional appropriations.
There is no similar law requiring payment for damage from greenhouse gas pollution, and Congress is unlikely to take up this issue any time soon. So the states are stepping up.
State “climate superfund” laws are modeled after CERCLA. They are getting passed by focusing retroactively--on past emissions. This avoids the argument that states are regulating future emissions or regulating the operations of out of state companies, both of which are outside their jurisdiction. Noting the precedent set by CERCLA, lawyers and supporters believe they have a strong case.
The fossil fuel companies have never been complacent, however. True to character, the American Petroleum Institute has sued Vermont claiming that fossil fuel companies operated within the law at the time of past emissions, and that states cannot “regulate” interstate emissions.
A coalition of twenty-two attorneys general from Republican states are suing New York for their climate superfund law, too. Similar to the Vermont lawsuit, they claim that New York is “regulating” emissions in violation of interstate commerce laws. It’s likely to take a while to work through these legal issues.
State Climate Superfund laws are a welcome paradigm shift and well worth the fight to put them in place. For too long our country has allowed companies to externalize the costs of pollution. States and local communities (meaning you and me as taxpayers) end up paying the bill, while oil companies harvest record profits.
In heavily industrialized areas like Cancer Alley---an 85 mile stretch of the Mississippi between Baton Rouge and New Orleans---people are paying for pollution with their health and their lives. The cancer risk there is fifty times higher than in the rest of the country. Almost everyone there carries an inhaler in their purse or pocket.
A Vision for a New Economy
State climate superfund laws raise many important questions. Do people believe polluters should pay for the damage they cause? Will this view catch on in oil producing states? Will the courts support it?
Will climate superfunds lead to a culture shift where we expect polluters to clean up their act? Will it lead to a new kind of economy based not only on profits but on taking care of people and the planet too?
I have a vision of what I call “responsible capitalism”. This would be capitalism that truly cares for people and communities, while still supporting owners and investors.
Can you imagine what that might look and feel like? What would need to change to bring this about? Climate superfund laws are a first step towards corporate accountability and “responsible capitalism”.
I know we have a long way to go to turn things around and build a sustainable economy. But the first step towards change is to imagine a new possibility.
So I’m asking you to join me in thinking about how a new, sustainable economy would work; and how it would look and feel. The more we focus on this, the more likely it becomes. So let’s get going and imagine together!
Sources and further reading:
https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report-december-2024
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/zanagee-artis/unveiling-big-oils-campaign-lies
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/business/oil-gas-companies-profits.html
Maine’s Climate Superfund Bill:
The Maine has proposed a climate superfund law this session. Bill language is being crafted now and will be released within the next two weeks. A public hearing will be held shortly after its release. Maine’s Environmental Priorities Coalition has made this bill a top priority. For details contact: njanzen@maineconservation.org.
A Tough Week for the EPA:
It’s good news to see states stepping up on climate change—-especially as the Trump EPA moves away from it’s mission to protect human and environmental health. In a video and press release this week EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the EPA’s mission is to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home and running a business.”
Sweeping deregulation is afoot at the EPA. Recently 170 employees who worked on environmental justice were fired.
Also this week the EPA dropped a case against Denko, a company releasing high levels of toxic chemicals adjacent to an elementary school in Louisiana. Sadly, the case was ready for trial after years of research and documentation. The community is closing the school.
But we must not forget that the EPA’s mission and regulations are established in federal law. I urge you to contact your Congressional delegation and let them know you expect the EPA to do its job which is to mplement and enforce environmental laws and protect Americans from harm.
Read more about changes at the EPA HERE
New book study group forming…
Wednesdays • 6.00 - 8.00pm (Eastern)
In person at Foreside Community Church, Falmouth, Maine
April 23, 2025
April 30, 2025
May 7, 2025
May 14, 2025
Registration is free, but participants are expected to get a copy of the book.
For info and to register: info@foresidechurch.org or call 207-781-5580.
I look forward to talking with you about the positive messages in Ayana Johnson’s book!
Sue, thank you for this. As I was reading your update, I remembered this: https://www.naag.org/our-work/naag-center-for-tobacco-and-public-health/the-master-settlement-agreement/
Is this a model going forward?
So so so good to read GOOD news! Thanks for the continued efforts to make good things happen and to share the outcomes.