To implement legislation, New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill on December 26 called the “Climate Super Fund” Act. [emphasis, links added]
The new state law blames a small number of energy producers on climate change and pays corresponding financial liability for damages that have been accused of in the past, or may occur in the future.
It forces oil and gas companies to pay $75 billion in fines to the so-called “climate superfund.”
New York is the second state to launch such a super fund. Vermont did so last July and it is fighting the law proposed on December 30.
The state attorney general also filed a civil lawsuit in federal court on February 6 in New York law, representing 22 states, which would be compromised if New York law could limit energy production in those states outside the territory.
States have convincingly charged multiple counts of unconstitutional excessive charges.
In fact, these climate superfund laws are actually blue countries trying to find a new way to achieve what they are forbidden in court.
Blue states and blue municipalities have been trying to convince the courts that they have the right to torture the basic scope of tort laws under the guise of public nuisance or consumer fraud, based on artificial theories that torture the basic scope of tort laws.
But they struggled on that stage. Courts increasingly dismiss the adventure.
For example, on February 5, the New Jersey Superior Court rejected a climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Chevron, Conocophillips, Phillips 66, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, ruling that climate change claims were pre-occupied by federal common law.
This has increased the decline in climate change litigation. Baltimore, San Francisco/Oakland, New York City and many others have also been dismissed.
Considering the defendant's motion to dismiss, the District of Columbia's lawsuit against the energy company will be heard in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
Don't bet on New York, Vermont and other legislative efforts that follow the Climate Superfund legislative model, progress better.
Like the climate case failed, the Super Fund law is New York’s attempt to create climate policy, which the federal government requires to be excluded from states under the Clean Air Act.
Federal law promotes states’ participation in attempts to control transboundary pollution. On this basis alone, a state effort can be prohibited when a court intervenes in areas seized by federal legislation.
But there are many other flaws. It's easy to see that the climate super fund law is a cash shortage of New York blatantly attempting to choose some out-of-state pockets to pay for countless contributors.
Forced some energy producers to cough hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars in fines, simply overload no matter how the fees are stylized.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the imposition of “excessive fines” and the U.S. Supreme Court recently showed a tendency to give the clause its true meaning and enforcement.
These laws violate the assurance precisely because they impose penalties on perfect legal activities.
Fairness issues also participate in these laws because they are retroactive – selecting fund contributors based on past market share to punish them for their successful keeping our lighting, warmth and economically functioning.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that state laws not “deprive any person, freedom or property without proper legal proceedings”, the court made it clear There is no due process when the law retroactively and punishes past legal acts.
These laws violate the assurance precisely because they impose penalties on perfect legal activities.
Indeed, they are still legal today. New York has not yet chosen to ban energy production. It can't get rid of it. But it also tries to eat the cake and eat it. Energy production is legal and if you continue to do so, you will be fined.
Like the climate case failed, the Super Fund law is New York’s attempt to create climate policy, which the federal government requires to be excluded from states under the Clean Air Act.
Another legal disease that destined these new climate superfund laws is that they give the obligation to prove causality – another claim may be made before liability is assumed.
Usually, the plaintiff has a burden to prove that the defendant made a mistake, and the error is the direct cause of the injury. Moreover, the defendants' liability is limited to the portion of the adverse effects they have caused.
A few cannot even take any responsibility for the world's emissions, even assuming that the country overcomes the first obstacle, even these few have illegal effects on the climate.
You cannot simply legislate through the legislature to impose penalties on legislatures that you cannot impose through the judicial system, thus reflected in our causal requirements.
The court ruled that challenges to New York and Vermont laws, as well as other courts that would receive cases from other followers states, should adopt constitutional principles and invalidate those laws.
Fleecing has never been a legal end for the state.
Read more on Fox News
