New York State passes Climate Change Superfund law, forcing Big Polluters to pay. Governor Kathy Hochul signed a new law Monday that will fine big fossil fuel companies to help pay for New York State to pay for the impacts of climate change. The new “Climate Change Superfund Act” requires companies responsible for major greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2018 to contribute to a state fund. This fund is to particularly be invested in the funding of infrastructural projects with special attention directed to repairing damage caused so far and preventing future damages resulting from extreme weather conditions.
In early this year, senators passed the law and signed it into Gov. Kay Ivey. It had attempted to make significant oil and gas companies liable for all the damage caused because of their operations. Under this new law, companies will deposit their fees into a state-managed fund which will finance resiliency projects such as wetlands restoration along the coastlines, improvement of roads and bridges, and upgrading drainage systems in water. The purpose behind such efforts is to minimize the impacts of climate change, especially protecting the infrastructure of New York against more frequent and intense storm-related events, flooding, and sea level rise.
In this case, the new law, it has detected the greenhouse biggest gas emitters between the years 2000 and 2018. The fines imposed from those activities directly go to the Climate Change Superfund. They finance projects that make the state reduce its negative impact on climate, and make the state resilient during extreme conditions.
In this case, instantaneous enforcement of the law cannot be possible. First, the state should set rules that specify who is responsible and whom to notify on the levied fines; second, it should formulate a funding supply system to the infrastructure projects needed; for that, it needs to outline the kind of infrastructures to be financed by Superfund, including upgrading road, upgrading the bridges, and the upgrade of water drainage system. This will also include the restoration measures of coastal wetlands as well as other natural flood/storm surge barriers.
This has certainly generated quite a debate, mostly coming from the oil and gas industry, who opposed such a law. The American Petroleum Institute is the biggest lobbying group of the oil industry and had already come out with a statement labeling the law as “a punitive new fee on American energy” and said that they’ll even go to the level of filing a lawsuit on the law. According to the group, this piece of legislation will hike consumers’ cost and can also prove to be bad economically.
Despite opposition to this law, support has lately been coming from environmental groups and legislators who feel it very important in ensuring that the big polluters are held liable. Such a law comes in succession to Vermont, which already enacted a measure at the beginning of the year, pointing to the trend of states acting on the cost of climate change that fossil fuel companies incur.
The bill was brought forth by Democratic Senator Liz Krueger, who argued that it “was of great significance relative to mitigation of the climate change situation and helping vulnerable communities”. She added further that “the burden of paying for the remediation of their activities is borne by those companies more responsible for greenhouse emissions.”
New York refers to the Climate Change Superfund Act as landmark legislation in a fight against climate change. This state is among the leaders in environmental protection and has faced a lot about renewable energies, reduced emissions, and adaptation projects meant for climatic reasons. New York will be aggressive in this regard in making the firms accountable for their pollution while, at the same time, ensuring that the companies will not be relieved of responsibility to be included within the cost of mitigating effects brought by the climate due to the new law.
Conclusion:It will also act as a precedent in other states and perhaps the whole country if this judgment is upheld. The majority of scholars view it as a landmark precedent that likely reduces economic and environmental consequences to climatic change, which has so far been shouldered by poor communities and future generations. Whether the law will actually be completely effective or not will be seen to some extent by the state’s capacity in enforcing rules created through making a proper mechanism available as to what companies would face fines, and from such funds raised, in which infrastructure development works such amount would go. Legal battle in hand, however, if it won, this very law could help unlock avenues towards such laws in the future within the other states also.