A landmark Vermont law requires companies to pay for emissions
Image: Charles Krupa/AP
A newly approved law in Vermont will require companies to pay for the state’s historical costs associated with climate change based on emissions levels, making it the first US state with such a measure on the books.
The bill was officially enacted late Thursday, when Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) allowed it to become law without his signature following a veto-proof majority vote in the Democrat-controlled state legislature.
- Gov. Scott expressed concern about the costs and outcome of Vermont taking on “Big Oil” companies, but also acknowledged that such action is needed to address the recent toll of climate change in the state.
How it works: Under the legislation, Vermont’s treasurer and its Agency of Natural Resources will examine the effects of climate change on local public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing, and other areas.
- Which companies will be charged, and precisely how much, will be determined based on the amount of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere, which state officials will determine using federal data.
- These companies will only be required to pay if the state determines their products emitted the equivalent of 1+ billion metric tons of CO2 between 1995-2024.
The law’s approval sets up a legal battle between Vermont and “Big Oil.” The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s biggest lobbying group, argues that Vermont’s new climate change measure is “bad public policy and may be unconstitutional,” since it imposes costs and liability on previous activities that were legal at the time.
- The lobbying group, along with some individual companies, lawmakers, and legal experts, also contend that the Vermont law violates equal protection and due process rights by holding firms responsible for the actions of society at large.
Looking ahead… Vermont officials have until January 2027 to create their methodology to charge companies for climate damages, with some estimates placing the combined payout in the hundreds of millions. Similar climate measures are also being considered in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.
📊 Flash poll: Do you agree with Vermont’s new law requiring companies to pay for costs associated with climate change based on their emissions levels?
See a 360° view of what media pundits are saying →
Sprinkles from the Left
- Some commentators argue that environmental activists who wish to make big oil companies stop polluting should stop trying to do so via activist investing, and instead focus on government regulation – like in Vermont – that can actually effect change.
- Others contend that companies whose products are responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse gas emissions should be held liable for the costs, instead of taxpayers who bear most of the worst effects of climate change.
- “Investor climate activism isn’t working. Here’s what would.” –WaPo Editorial Board
- “California can make climate polluters pay for the mess they have made of Earth” –LA Times Editorial Board
- “Big Oil Should Pay for the US to Reach Net Zero” –Hugh Helferty and Jessica Nacheman, Common Dreams
Sprinkles from the Right
- Some commentators argue that regulations like the one in Vermont assert that the fossil fuel producers “knew” things years ago that weren’t known then, aren’t known now, and continue to be the subject of sharp disagreement in scientific literature for the foreseeable future.
- Others contend that the US has proven that the best way to reduce emissions is to empower innovation and technological advancements, not double down on onerous regulations that do nothing to keep the air and water clean.
- “Another day, another mindless attack on fossil energy producers” –Benjamin Zycher, Washington Examiner
- “Energy policy should help hardworking Americans, not radical environmentalists” –Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND)
- “Saving Climate From the Greens” –Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., WSJ
Share this!
Recent Discussion stories
Discussion
| May 31, 2024The US housing market is approaching a sales slowdown
🏘️ New data shows fewer Americans are planning to buy a home this summer compared to previous years, as higher mortgage rates apply negative pressure to home sales.
Discussion
| May 29, 2024The Trump hush-money trial has entered its final act
⚖️ Closing arguments were held yesterday in the New York criminal trial of Donald Trump, with the 12-member jury now tasked with deliberating the fate of the first former US president to face criminal charges.
Discussion
| May 24, 2024Breaking down America’s economic disconnect
📈📉 According to much of the official data used by economists, the US is in a pretty good spot – but many Americans have a more pessimistic view of the current situation.
You've made it this far...
Let's make our relationship official, no 💍 or elaborate proposal required. Learn and stay entertained, for free.👇
All of our news is 100% free and you can unsubscribe anytime; the quiz takes ~10 seconds to complete