 |
| Vermont just enacted a first in the nation climate superfund law, which bills fossil fuel companies for climate related disasters and costs, like last July's severe flooding across the Green Mountain State. |
Basically, what Vermont has now enacted is a make fossil fuel and other industries pay up for climate related disasters that have cost us big money.
Republican Gov. Phil Scott had threatened to veto the measure, but instead last week, he just didn't sign it, meaning it went into law.
In Vermont, if a governor doesn't sign a bill instead of signing or vetoing it, that just signals the governor's relative displeasure or ambivalence about a proposal.
As the Associated Press reports:
".....he is very concerned about the costs and outcome of the small state taking on 'Big Oil' alone in what will likely be a grueling legal fight. But he acknowledged that he understands something has to be done to address the toll of climate change.
'I understand the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that has hurt our state in so many ways,' Scott, a moderate Republican in the largely blue state of Vermont, wrote in a letter to lawmakers."
Still, give Scott credit. He's probably one of the few Republicans anywhere who isn't have a screaming fit about annoying those poor little fossil fuel companies, most of whom have been making record profits later.
That's one of the reasons the Vermont legislature went this route. They smelled blood. Of course the much bigger reason Montpelier took this step is because that city - and much of the rest of Vermont - was inundated last summer by some of the worst flooding in the state's history.
Floods and other climate extremes have been becoming more common in Vermont with climate change. That, of course follows global trends as the world's climate continues to go off the rails.
One piece of the legislation that appeased Scott a little was a provision in the law that the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources just report back to the Legislature on the feasibility of the effort, the AP reports.
I'll be really interested to see how the state calculates the financial effects of climate change in Vermont and who is to blame. Here's a rundown of how that will work, as the AP describes it:
"Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, would provide a report by Jan, 15, 2026 ton the total coset to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995 to Dec. 31, 2024
The assessment would look at the effects on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas. The state would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company."
Sounds really complicated, but Vermont State Treasurer Mike Pieciak said he is up to the task. A state treasurer ought to be good at math, but Pieciak better be a genius at it.
I don't know all the mechanisms of this plan. Like, how do you pick out which part of a disaster was "caused" by climate change and what part might have happened anyway? After all, in general, climate change often is not causing weather extremes. It's just making them even more extreme than they otherwise would be.
Litigation over this is inevitable. Predictably, the fossil fuel industry is not amused by all this stuff going on with those crazy Vermonters.
The American Petroleum Institute sniffed that the Vermont law "retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large, and is preempted by federal law."
Before you say the American Petroleum Institute has a slam dunk case, remember, selling cigarettes is and always was legal in the U.S. Yet, laws went after tobacco companies for the harm their products caused.
I get it they're not exactly the same thing, but the model might just work.
Anyway, the American Petroleum Institute also informs us that the Vermonters behind this proposal and law are un-American heathens bent on destroying the United States. "This punitive new fee represents yet another step in a coordinated campaign to undermine America's energy advantage and the economic and national security benefits it provides," said an API spokesman.
Huh.
You can definitely accuse the Vermont Legislature of being liberal, and it's fair to disagree with some or even all that they do. But I haven't seen in the news any of our fine lawmakers saying the want to destroy America and our way of life.
Maybe I missed the fine print or something.
There's going to be a lot of fighting and twists and turns over this, and some lawyers are probably going to make a lot of money either supporting or fighting this climate superfund idea.
They main thing to watch is whether Vermont started a whole movement much bigger than the taming of the cigarette companies over the decades. Or will this be a flash in the pan. I'm betting against the flash in the pan scenario, since other states are considering following Vermont's lead.
This is not just entertainment, folks. This is a big deal, if only because climate change is the ultimate big deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment