Vermont’s Republican governor allowed his state to become the first to require oil companies to pay “climate change related costs” without his signature, passing the bill despite his own hesitations about the policy.
259 yearsThe bill passed by Gov. Phil Scott (R) on Thursday would establish a method for assessing liability for greenhouse gas-related costs for any entity that engaged in the extraction of fossil fuels or the refining of crude oil between Dec. 31, 2019 and Jan. 1, 2000.
Check it out — ABC’s host connects solar eclipses, earthquakes and cicadas to climate change:
The legislation would create a Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program at the Natural Resources Agency to collect funds from companies and allocate them to “climate-adaptive or climate-resilient infrastructure projects in the state.”
“Under Chapter 2, Section 11, S. 259 of the Vermont Constitution, the Climate Change Cost Recovery Act will become law without my signature,” Scott said. press release.
Recently, moderate Republicans Announced His reelection campaign has put him at political odds with the state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature, where he was expected to veto the bill but instead pushed it through despite criticizing it.
“Vermont, the smallest state in the nation with one of the lowest GDPs, has decided to recover the costs associated with climate change on its own, instead of coordinating with other states such as New York and California that have far greater resources,” the governor said.
Vermont Republican Governor Phil Scott signs the state’s first major gun control bill into law during a ceremony on the steps of the State Capitol in Montpelier, Vermont, on April 11, 2018. (AP Photo/Cheryl Center)
He further argued that the state is “not positioned for success” because the Legislature has allocated only $600,000 to complete the analysis, which would have to withstand “rigorous legal scrutiny by well-funded defense lawyers.”
“Taking on ‘Big Oil’ is not something to be taken lightly,” Scott argued.
“I am deeply concerned about both the short-term and long-term costs and consequences,” he said. “Just look at the failures in nationwide lawsuits over GMOs, campaign finance and pharmaceutical marketing practices.”
A similar policy Considered The incidents occurred in Maryland, Massachusetts and New York, according to the Associated Press.
Check it out — climate activists disrupt Sen. Murkowski event:
“I’m also concerned that if we lose this legal battle, it could set a precedent that could hinder other states’ ability to sue for damages,” Scott said, explaining why he passed the bill without signing it.
That said, I understand the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that have harmed our state in many ways. I also note that Attorney General Clark and Treasurer Pieciak support this policy and are working on the necessary work. I am also reassured that the Natural Resources Agency is required to report back to the Legislature in January 2025 on the feasibility of this effort, allowing us to reevaluate our own approach. Therefore, for these reasons, this bill will become law even without my signature. I hope that those who supported this policy will act.
“For too long, big fossil fuel companies have been stoking the fires of climate change without having to do anything to put out the fires,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. statement“Finally, perhaps a first in the world, Vermont will hold the companies most responsible for climate-induced floods, fires and heat waves financially accountable for their fair share of the damage they caused.”
The American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas industry lobbying group, said it was concerned that Vermont’s new law “violates equal protection and due process rights by retroactively imposing costs and liability on previously lawful activities and holding companies accountable for their community-wide actions, which are preempted by federal law.”
In a letter to lawmakers obtained by The Associated Press before the bill passed, the groups argued the measure doesn’t adequately inform potentially affected businesses of the specific fees.
