XPost: alt.business, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.socialism.democratic XPost: talk.politics.guns
Note to business leaders.
Refuse to sell Vermont any petroleum based products and see how that woke
ESG shit goes over when they have to start plowing fields with mules
again. Even better, cut the natural gas and heating oil so that they have
to burn coal to heat homes, and to power their grid that supplies the
BEV's that Democrats demand everyone buy.
The Vermont Legislature is advancing legislation requiring big fossil fuel companies pay a share of the damage caused by climate change after the
state suffered catastrophic summer flooding and damage from other extreme weather.
The state Senate is expected to give final approval this week to the
proposal, which would create a program that fossil fuel companies would
pay into for climate change adaption projects in Vermont. It will then be considered in the House.
"In order to remedy the problems created by washed out roads, downed
electrical wires, damaged crops and repeated flooding, the largest fossil
fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also
contribute to fixing the problem that they caused,” Sen. Nader Hashim, a Democrat from Windham County, said to Senate colleagues on Friday.
Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures, but Vermont's bill is moving quicker through the Legislature.
Critics, including Republican Gov. Phil Scott, who is up against a veto-
proof Democratic majority, warn that it could be a costly legal battle for
the small state to go first.
“Of all the fossil fuel companies in the world, we’re a mosquito compared
to a giant,” said Republican state Sen. Randy Brock on Friday after he
voted against it. “We might win but the cost in doing so alone is huge.”
He referenced the fact that Exxonmobil's annual sales are $344.6 billion,
while Vermont's annual budget is about $8.5 billion, saying he'd rather
see New York or California or another state be first.
Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer, in consultation with
the Agency of Natural Resources, would provide a report by Jan. 15, 2026,
on the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of
greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2024.
The assessment would look at the affects on public health, natural
resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas.
It's a polluter-pays model affecting companies engaged in the trade or
business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil attributable to
more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions during the
time period. The funds could be used by the state for such things as
upgrading stormwater drainage systems; upgrading roads, bridges and
railroads; relocating, elevating or retrofitting sewage treatment plants
and making energy efficient weatherization upgrades to public and private buildings.
Exxonmobil did not immediately provide a comment. The American Petroleum Institute sent a letter to the state Senate last week opposing the bill,
saying it believes it's bad public policy and may be unconstitutional.
The top lobbying group for the oil and gas industry said it's extremely concerned the legislation "retroactively imposes costs and liability on
prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due
process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society
at large; and is preempted by federal law,” the letter states.
“Additionally, the bill does not provide potentially impacted parties with notice as to the magnitude of potential fees that can result from its
passage.”
Jennifer Rushlow, dean of the Maverick Lloyd School for the Environment
and a professor of law at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said Monday
that she thinks Vermont will face legal challenges if the bill becomes law
but expects the state to win. Several environmental law clinics have
offered to provide support, which could offset the costs, she said.
“Somebody has to go first. And I think the conditions for passage in
Vermont are pretty optimal for depressing reasons ... because the costs
we've incurred recently as a result of climate change are very significant
and really top of mind and visible," she said.
House Speaker Jill Krowinski said in a statement on Monday that she looks forward to reviewing the bill and assessing its impact toward the state’s climate change goals. She said she’s eager for House committees to look at
this and other climate change policies in the second half of the
legislative session.
Hashim, the Democratic senator from Windham County, said the reality is
that severe weather patterns are here and will happen more frequently and become more damaging over time. Adapting and becoming more resilient costs money and Vermont has few options to pay for the damage.
“We can place the burden on Vermont taxpayers or we can keep our fingers crossed that the federal government will help us or we can have fossil
fuel companies pay their fair share,” he said.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/vermont-advances-bill-requiring- fossil-fuel-companies-pay-108724533
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)