ICYMI: Buffalo News Editorial Endorses Making Corporate Climate Polluters Pay

BUFFALO, NY (05/30/2023) (readMedia)-- This morning, the Buffalo News published an editorial urging the NYS Legislature to pass the Climate Change Superfund Act (S.2129A Krueger/A.3351A Dinowitz) before the end of the legislative session. The Act is first-in-the-nation legislation to put Big Oil, who is still driving the climate crisis, on the hook for climate damages and resiliency. Currently, taxpayers are footing the bill for this mess – and have had to fork over $800 million so far this year for projects related to climate damages and resilience.

The Editorial Board writes: "Making a statewide switch to green energy and protecting New York's infrastructure from environmental damage already occurring on a regular basis isn't an inexpensive proposition. While consumers are being offered a diverse range of incentives to wean themselves off fossil fuel-powered systems, there are huge costs that go along with decarbonization at every level. The sponsors of the Climate Change Superfund Act (A.3351/S.2129), Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and state Sen. Liz Krueger, think that the entities largely responsible for greenhouse gas-related global warming – oil and gas producers – should help pay the costs of climate disruption."

And later, "This is a reasonable ask and – because it is a one-time fixed cost – will help alleviate climate action costs without causing pain to consumers. The Legislature should pass it."

Read the editorial here or pasted below.

The Editorial Board: Albany should pass important environmental bills

Better late than never.

As New York's legislative session enters its final weeks, it's also fair to say that we are within the final decades of being able to avert climate catastrophe for the planet.

Bills now before the Legislature offer viable – and interesting – solutions to environmental problems and how to pay for climate-related damage. This legislation should be given prompt and serious consideration before lawmakers adjourn the 2023 session.

Climate Change Superfund

Making a statewide switch to green energy and protecting New York's infrastructure from environmental damage already occurring on a regular basis isn't an inexpensive proposition. While consumers are being offered a diverse range of incentives to wean themselves off fossil fuel-powered systems, there are huge costs that go along with decarbonization at every level. The sponsors of the Climate Change Superfund Act (A.3351/S.2129), Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and state Sen. Liz Krueger, think that the entities largely responsible for greenhouse gas-related global warming – oil and gas producers – should help pay the costs of climate disruption. This could include paying for infrastructure upgrades to protect against rising sea levels, upgrade stormwater drainage and sewage treatment systems, prepare the power grid for severe weather, create systems to protect people from extreme heat and other climate resilience projects throughout the state.

There's nothing new about this concept. The original federal Superfund program was established in 1980 – shortly after a state of emergency was declared at Love Canal in 1976 – to force parties responsible for environmental contamination of the land and drinking water to either perform cleanups or reimburse the U.S. government for Environmental Protection Agency-led cleanup work.

It was easy then to trace toxic waste back to the chemical companies that dumped it. It's equally logical now to trace greenhouse gas emissions back to fossil fuel companies. By every known official measure, burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation is the largest source of these pollutants.

The new Superfund, as proposed, would raise $75 billion through a $3 billion annual assessment over a 25-year period on the 35 largest greenhouse gas emitters. Given that the five biggest oil companies reported combined profits of $196.3 billion in 2022, it's unlikely such a levy would strain the resources of these industrial behemoths to any appreciable degree.

And there's evidence that this damage was inflicted knowingly for decades. Both University of Miami and Harvard researchers report that ExxonMobil scientists were uncovering information that confirmed the effect of fossil fuel emissions on climate change as early as the 1970s – and then for decades, the company adamantly denied such man-made damage was occurring.

If the bill becomes law, the companies will fight it. But this is a reasonable ask and – because it is a one-time fixed cost – will help alleviate climate action costs without causing pain to consumers. The Legislature should pass it.

Background

The Climate Change Superfund Act is modeled on the existing toxics superfund law (which deals with land and drinking water contamination) that makes corporate climate polluters financially responsible for the environmental damages that they have caused. These costs wouldn't fall back on consumers, according to an analysis from the think tank Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law.

According to a new study in One Earth, the world's 21 top polluting companies are responsible for $5.4 trillion in climate damages over a period of 26 years. Just this year alone in New York State, taxpayers have already been asked to pay more than $800 Million so far for projects related to climate damages and resilience. On top of that, according to the State Comptroller's office, the City planned to spend another $829 million on projects fully intended for climate change adaptation and resilience in FY 2023. The City also planned to spend an additional $1.3 billion on projects that are partially for these purposes.

Meanwhile, while the bills pile up for taxpayers, the industry responsible for this mess is raking in cash. The top Big Oil companies in the U.S. are on track for a second consecutive year of record profits, and the industry globally is performing much better than expected. 2022 was a record profit year for the industry, with the top companies' combined profits reaching an astounding $376 billion. Those record profits allowed them to deliver unprecedented returns to shareholders while doing little to address the climate crisis they knew was coming, but did all they could to undermine climate action. Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for Exxon made "remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet." Yet for years, "the oil giant publicly cast doubt on climate science, and cautioned against any drastic move away from burning fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change."

Big Oil is at fault for climate change, and it can certainly afford the costs - which are uniquely necessary - and expensive - in New York. A new report from Rebuild by Design "Atlas of Disaster: New York State'' identifies the impacts of recent climate disasters across New York State at the county level, for the years 2011-2021. The data shows that every single county in New York has experienced a federal climate disaster between 2011-2021, with 16 having five or more disasters during that time. In that decade, more than 100 New Yorkers died as a result of climate-driven disasters. In 2022 that number grew exponentially when Winter Storm Elliot in Buffalo killed 39 people.

In a separate report, Rebuild by Design estimated that the climate costs to New York could be $55 billion by the end of this decade. Furthermore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that it would cost $52 billion to protect NY Harbor alone. And while storms get worse, sea levels are rising and groundwater poses a higher risk of flooding - and we don't even know how much yet. Clearly, New York is facing staggering – and growing – climate costs.

The Climate Change Superfund Act isn't just necessary – it's popular. According to a poll from Data for Progress, 89% of New Yorkers support fossil fuel companies covering at least some of the cost for climate damages. 200+ groups including key labor unions such as DC37 sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Heastie urging them to include the bill in the one house budgets. In their letter, the groups write that the fossil fuel industry should be subject to the state's climate costs since their "decisions led to global warming; justice requires that they-not New York's other taxpayers-be financially responsible for the tragically enormous climate crisis impacts that they created." NYC Comptroller Brad Lander also sent a letter to Albany leadership calling on them to support the Climate Change Superfund Act and protect NY taxpayers.

The Act was included in the Senate One-House budget bill and has already passed the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee. Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins indicated support for making polluters pay earlier last week, saying on the Senate Floor:

"We will never burden everyday New Yorkers in our climate fight, or ask them to give up more than our greatest polluters."