New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on Thursday ratified the Climate Alert Act, which would see the state seize billions of dollars from U.S. oil, gas and coal companies in restitution for severe weather.
Critics have suggested that the law is likely to face legal challenges, during which it will negatively impact consumers.
so-called
Climate Change Superfund ActThe state has continued to keep the lights on and the engines roaring for years, taking for granted that human-induced climate change is real and a “significant threat to the state's communities, environment, and economy.” The government is asking energy companies that have “borne the corresponding burden''. Pay for infrastructure investments and other costs needed for comprehensive adaptation to the impacts of climate change. ”
The drafters of the bill apparently wanted to ignore the fact that these emissions are a product of New Yorkers' collective demand and use.
Hochul just suggested that he helped improve the safety of New York City's subway system. said “With nearly every record rainfall, heat wave, and coastal storm, New Yorkers are facing billions of dollars in health, safety, and environmental costs due to pollutants that have historically harmed the environment,” the statement said. “We are being burdened more and more,” he said.
“The creation of the Climate Superfund will help hold polluters accountable for the damage they cause to our environment and demand major investments in infrastructure and other projects essential to protect communities and economies. , is the latest example of my administration taking action,” the Democratic governor added.
The New York Democratic Party's punitive climate change alert plan – clearly treating emissions as a stigmatizing local issue and not bothering to mention it.
the worst culprithas so far remained untouched and will increase its competitiveness in China. “It operates on a strict liability basis. Companies are required to pay into the fund because the use of their products caused contamination. No finding of wrongdoing is required.”
“This hasty decision is certain to soon lead to numerous lawsuits and legal challenges.”
The bill was sponsored by state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Democrat who recently proposed that New York and other blue states secede from the Union for the next 25 years following President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victory. , costing energy companies $3 billion each year. year.
When calculating greenhouse gas emissions and allocations to each company, the state would attribute 942.5 tons of carbon dioxide to companies for every million pounds of coal used. For every million barrels of oil used, companies emit 432,180 tons of carbon dioxide. For every million cubic feet of fuel gas used, companies emit 53,440 tons of carbon dioxide.
Of course, the law leaves room for the bureaucrats overseeing the program to tinker with these equivalences.
Mr. Kruger, it seems, is convinced that the law doesn't apply.
backfire Like her efforts to legalize marijuana, he said, “New York fired a shot that will reverberate around the world. The companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable.”
Earlier this month, the New York State Business Council and 30 other business groups and organizations called on Hochul to veto legislation concerned about climate change.
pay attention “This bill is bad public policy that raises serious implementation questions and constitutional concerns,” the Dec. 5 letter said.
“This hasty decision is certain to soon lead to numerous lawsuits and legal challenges.”
The letter said the wealth redistribution plan “will have unintended consequences and increased costs for households and businesses.” It is discriminatory and “targets only the largest fossil fuel extraction and processing companies.” And it “ignores the near-universal uses and benefits associated with fossil fuels.
The Economic Council was disappointed in Hochul's decision,
said In a statement Thursday, the law “would impose 'punitive' assessments on companies that have produced essential fuels to support New York's households, businesses, and the entire economy for the past several decades. ”, suggesting the bill is even more likely to be faced. “Prolonged litigation.”
So did Justin Wilcox, executive director of Upstate United, an advocacy coalition of New York businesses pushing for fiscally responsible policies.
blown up Hochul's decision to pass the law.
“Governor Hochul's decision to sign the Climate Change Superfund Act is a misguided action that disadvantages all New Yorkers who have already paid enough for short-sighted measures related to climate change. [Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act]'' Wilcox said. “This imprudent decision is certain to soon lead to numerous lawsuits and legal challenges, placing the burden of further burden on New York taxpayers.”
Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com and senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environmental Law Institute, suggested that the New York state legislature was too eager to punish energy companies to do so.
Note “There was no warming in New York” during the emissions period, he said.
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here!
