In a few weeks, the comment period will close on the Draft Scoping Plan that outlines how New York will achieve Climate Leadership and the Community Protection Act really no ambition. Despite the fact that any rational observer can only conclude that there is no real plan for a reliable power system and a very low cost information, environmental advocates convinced the State’s most progressive legislators that it was not enough. Above May 26 Congressman Jeffrey Dinowitz, Chairman of the Council Code Committee, and State Senator Liz Krueger, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, along with environmental advocates and experts, announced the introduction of the introduction. Climate Change Super Funds Act (S.9417). In short, it codifies lawsuits against fossil fuel companies as a cash cow for adaptation programs.
The Press Release Statuses:
Given the billions of dollars in damages New York State will suffer as a result of climate change and tens of billions more in the coming decades, the nation’s first law will use the polluter model. infected pay. as evidenced by applicable federal and state superannuation legislation to raise $30 billion over 10 years in climate change adaptation from the parties most responsible for causing the crisis climate – fossil fuel companies.
Right now consumers are facing the pain of their pumps as well as their gas and electricity bills. At the same time, the oil and gas industry is making huge profits. The Climate Change Superfund Act would cut some of the profits from recent windfalls for the oil and gas industry and use them for adaptation costs that would otherwise be charged to state taxpayers. The program is designed to prevent such costs being passed on to consumers.
“The climate crisis is here, right now, and it has caused billions of dollars in damage and a growing death toll in New York State,” said Senator Krueger. “We must start making the necessary investments not only to mitigate future climate change, but also to adapt and protect ourselves from the damage already done. The cost of inaction is unimaginable – in money, in life, and in countless other ways. However, there is a big price to pay for the work we have to do, and it’s only fair that the companies causing the mess should pay to clean it up. The Climate Change Superfund Act is one of the key pieces in funding our state’s climate emergency response.”
“The damage done to our climate and our communities for decades by the company without regard to scientific evidence is irreparable and ubiquitous,” said Congressman Dinowitz. “As we continue to take great strides towards a green future to mitigate the worst potential impacts from climate change, the Climate Change Superfund Act will be a resource critical to investing in adaptive and resilient infrastructure, and it is common sense that people have done the most damage to our climate because of the costs of keeping people alive in our new climate reality. “
Unfortunately, their rationale uses the same line of reasoning that was used to pass the Climate Act. Because “everyone” knows that climate change causes unusual weather, and climate and weather illiterate people think that anecdotes support their case, they really believe that New York already suffer billions of damage from climate change, not just weather.
Invoice language says:
Climate change, driven primarily by the burning of six fossil fuels, is a serious immediate threat to communities, the environment and the state’s economy. In addition to mitigating the further accumulation of greenhouse gases, states must act to adapt to certain irreversible consequences of climate change, including sea level rise, rising temperatures, other extreme weather events, floods, heat waves, toxic algae blooms and threats posed by climate change. Maintaining New York’s quality of life in the future, especially for young people, who will suffer greater impacts from climate change throughout their lives, will be one of the the state’s biggest challenge for the next three decades. Meeting that challenge will require a shared commitment to purpose and large investments in new or upgraded infrastructure.
It’s a weekend and I have other things to do besides trying to understand the implementation language in proposed legislation. If it gets to a point where I can weigh in on the plans, I’ll try to figure out how they account for the fact that New York’s total GHG emissions are less than half of its total. Global. What is the global rate of emissions for New York’s supposed problems? Isn’t that some function of New York emissions? I suspect that the multitude of authors of the law influenced the plans and upon closer examination undermines the whole thing.
My impression when flipping through the law is that this applies to fossil fuel production. Ronald Stein recently pointed out that crude oil’s primary use is “to produce derivatives and fuels that are components of everything necessary for economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper”. If I am correct that this law covers fossil fuel production how do they hope to address that aspect without unduly affecting consumers?
One last point. In another striking example of uncertainty, the basic argument is that the main reason fuel prices are rising is that oil companies are making the expected profits. Somehow, these energy market experts have convinced themselves that if this monstrosity is enacted and withstands the inevitable lawsuits, fossil fuel producers won’t simply pass costs on to consumers. They say they’ll stop it, but other than another magical solution, I can’t imagine how that could work in favor of consumers. At the same time, it was these same politicians who enacted a fuel tax holiday because the cost was too high.
Roger Caiazza blogs about environmental and energy issues in New York at New York’s Pragmatic Environmentalist. More details on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act here. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company he is affiliated with.