Since climatic disasters pressure the state budgets, an increasing number of legislators want fossil fuels to pay for the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Last May, Fermont became the first country To pass the Superfund Climate Law. This concept is designed after 1980 Federal Superfund Law, which carries companies responsible for cleaning the dangerous waste spill. The climatic version at the state level of the main oil and gas companies requires the payment of disasters and climate -adaptation costs, based on its share of global greenhouse gas emissions over the past few decades. The Fairmont Law was issued after the Ghazra state witnessed Flood in 2023. In December, New York It has become the second country that passes such a law.
This year, 11 states, from California to whoThey provided super climate bills. The momentum grows even as the Fairmont and New York laws are facing legal challenges by fossil fuel companies, the states led by Republicans, and the Trump administration. The legislators and climate preachers told Grist that they always expect a violent reaction, given billions of dollars at the test of the oil and gas industry – but the countries have no choice but to find ways to pay the tremendous costs of protecting and repairing infrastructure in the face of flooding, wild fires, and other disasters.
Marchland delegate, Adrian Pavo, who represents Prince George’s province, said a climate bill sponsoring the state legislative council in March that the opposition “encourages our battle more.” “This means that we must do everything we can in Maryland to protect our citizens, because we cannot rely on the federal government at this moment.”
Michael M. Santiago / Getty Emp
While the concept of climate Superfund was present For decadesIn recent years, countries have begun to think seriously about these laws. In Maryland, Pavo said the federal inaction of climate change and the burden of climate change on government budgets has increased interest. Cities and provinces are exposed to significant unexpected costs of damage to storm water systems, streets, highways and other public infrastructure. They are also struggling to provide immediate relief for disasters for residents and prepare for future climate events. Maryland has faced at least $ 10 billion to $ 20 billion in disaster costs between 1980 and 2024, according to L. Country Report. At the same time, until now, governments, companies and individuals carry 100 percent of these costs.
“We have realized that these large fossil fuel companies were, frankly, do not pay their fair share of the climate crisis it caused,” said Pavo.
Martin Likman, a climate colleague at the Sabine Climate Change Center at the University of Colombia, said that recent draft laws are driven by increasing development in the science of support. Researchers are now able to use climate models Link harsh weather events For greenhouse gas emissions from specific companies. The field provides a quantitative method for governments to identify oil and gas companies that must pay for climate damage, and how much.
The Fairmont law creates an operation for the government first Determines costs One of the climatic damages in the country caused by greenhouse gas emissions to the main oil and gas companies between 1995 and 2024. The state will then determine the amount of these costs responsible for each company, and a invoice for it accordingly, and the money is devoted to climate and flexibility infrastructure projects. In contrast, the New York Law The goal of financing Early by asking some fossil fuel companies to pay a total of $ 75 billion, or 3 billion dollars a year for 25 years. The amount that each company must pay with its share of global greenhouse gas emissions is suitable for 2000 and 2024. Fairmont and New York laws apply to companies that send more than a billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions during the covered periods of each. This will include Exxon Mobil, Shell, and others Oil and gas giants.
The Maryland State Law is so far the only legislation related to the climate related to the superior financing it passes this year, although the state governor has not yet signed it. The original draft of the bill required major fossil fuel companies to pay one -time fee for historical carbon emissions. But throughout the legislative session, the draft law was simply amended A study of cumulative costs of climate change requires In Maryland, to understand the amount of money that the final program will need to collect. The study will be due by December 2026, and at this point, legislators in Maryland will need to propose new legislation to implement the climate Superfund program.
“I hope that has been modified,” Pavo said, adding that the legislators have devoted a lot of their energy to this legislative session to address Maryland $ 3.3 billion budget deficit. He said: “At the same time, the passage of this modified new version of the draft law is admitted to the state and we want to search for the extent of this reaching the state, how this program will work, and what this will seem to be already.” “It is not the step that many of us want, but it is a step forward.”
In California, environmental groups are optimistic about the chances of a draft law that passes this year. This is the second year in which a draft law on the excessive climate in the state has been presented, and the sponsors of the new draft law focused on building a wide alliance of environment, society and employment groups on the proposal, said Sabrina Ashjian, the project manager of the Emit Institute on Climate Change and Environment at the College of Law at the University of California. This year’s legislation was presented shortly after the destroyer Los Angeles fires in JanuaryWhich can amplify the urgency of legislators. The draft law is now approved by an environmental committee for each legislative room and awaits votes in their judicial committees. If it is approved, the draft law will move to the Senate and the full gathering of the final vote.
Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Meanwhile, legislators closely monitor the ongoing legal challenges of Vermont and New York laws. In January, the American Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, two commercial groups, I filed a lawsuit Against Fermont Climate Law. In February, 22 state lawyers and industrial groups filed a lawsuit against New York Law. Both challenges claim that the laws violate the protection of trade between states and are prohibited under federal law. Since the Federal Clean Air Law regulates greenhouse gas emissions, groups cannot pass laws related to climate damage.
Now the Trump administration has joined the legal battle. On May 1, the Ministry of Justice filed a lawsuit against states New York and Vermont On its high climatic programs, echoing the same arguments raised by the fossil fuel industry. On the same day, the department filed a lawsuit against states Hawaii and Michigan In their intentions to prosecute fossil fuel companies for climate -related damage. Lukman pointed out that all the four cases use identical language. Judicial cases follow last month Executive order By President Donald Trump, who called on the Ministry of Justice to challenge climate policies in the state, and directly targeted Vermont and climate laws in New York. Soon after the Ministry of Justice’s lawsuits, West Virginia and 23 other states They announced that they will join the existing lawsuit against the Fairmont law led by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute.
Legal experts have noticed that Trump’s executive is his own No legal effectAnd that countries have a firm authority to implement environmental policies. Patrick Peronto, a legal researcher in the state of Vermont and the College of Graduate Studies, said, New York Times It is expected that the Ministry of Justice issues are rejected. Lukman said that the court may end up to unify federal cases with the current challenges against the laws of Vermont and New York, although it raises the same arguments, “There is nothing new in fact.”
Climate experts told Grist that with huge amounts of money and responsibility at stake, lawsuits from the fossil fuel industry were not unexpected. Pavo said that, given the amount of financial and political support for the Trump campaign Receive oil and gas Companies, it is not a surprise that the Ministry of Justice has filed a lawsuit against New York and Vermont. The defenders said that following these laws calls for an inevitable opposition – but avoiding the increasing costs of climate destruction is more dangerous.
Lukman said that the legislators “pass these bills because in writing budgets, in dealing with the daily process of their countries, they really face serious questions about how to allocate our society to the damage of climate change.” “I think legislators who defend these bills are in the long distance.”
