New York’s anti-fossil fuel crackdown could spread to other states — is Watts shocked?

from CFACT

Author: Dr. Bonner Cohen

New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) signed a bill on December 27 that would allow the state to fine oil and gas companies a total of $75 billion over the next 25 years, under the guise of climate fixes. Climate-related damage.

“With nearly every record rainfall, heat wave and coastal storm, New Yorkers suffer billions of dollars in health, safety and environmental consequences from polluters who have historically harmed our environment,” Hochul said in a statement.

“This landmark legislation shifts the costs of climate adaptation from ordinary New Yorkers to the fossil fuel companies most responsible for pollution,” Hochul added.

New York's Climate Change Superfund Act is modeled on the “polluter pays” principle of the 1980 Superfund Act, which stipulates that parties responsible for toxically contaminated sites will bear the responsibility for cleanup. But comparing the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel production and burning in the same way as dealing with pollution from long-term abandoned mines is like comparing apples to oranges.

Carbon dioxide—whether man-made or natural—is not a pollutant; in fact, today’s rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are very beneficial to animal and plant life. One of the surest ways to reduce agricultural productivity is to adopt climate policies that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, attributing weather events such as heavy rains, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, and coastal storms to the use of fossil fuels is pure speculation. Nowhere in the New York statute is causation established.

Hochul and her fellow Democrats in Albany are not interested in such issues; their agenda is extortion. Instead of spending money upgrading the state’s roads and bridges — not to mention New York City’s crumbling subway system — and imposing higher taxes on already overburdened New Yorkers, the oil and gas companies could be overhauled, it seems. An easy way out. Under the new law, companies that emitted more than 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2018 will be held accountable. How much each company has to pay will be decided by state bureaucrats. As many as three dozen or more companies, led by ExxonMobil and Chevron, will have to pay the price.

Vermont passed its own version of a climate Superfund law last summer, and California, Massachusetts and Maryland are considering similar legislation. Using state and local tort laws to replenish depleted government coffers in the name of redressing losses allegedly caused by climate change may go too far legally. That effort suffered a setback in 2021, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed New York City's lawsuit against fossil fuel producers. as recently pointed out wall street journalThe court held that state tort law cannot be used “to hold multinational oil companies responsible for the damage caused by global greenhouse gas emissions.”

The U.S. Supreme Court may need further clarity on the application of state tort law to global greenhouse gas emissions. The court is considering whether to hold a trial Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu. Sunoco is an oil company being sued by the city and county of Honolulu over its impact on the climate. In a petition filed with the Supreme Court in May 2024, the company's lawyers argued that the case against Sunoco was unconstitutional.

“The Hawaii Supreme Court held that state law can impose liability for harm allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate,” the brief reads. “The Second Circuit considered substantially the same claim , rejecting such egregious extraterritorial application of state law. Other courts have also rejected the extraterritorial application of state law to regulate transboundary pollution. The question is whether the unique phenomenon of global climate change allows states to ignore the structure of our constitutional system. State laws extend beyond their borders and are at the heart of ongoing climate change litigation across the country that urgently needs court intervention.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on whether to hear the case in early 2025. As much of a climate agenda as is allowed.

This article originally appeared in Human Events

Relevant