Do you agree with Vermont’s new climate damages law?

👍 Yes (47%) – "There has been evidence that shows Big Oil knew about the damaging role of oil and gas on the climate in the 50s and yet they swept it under the rug, delaying our response and solutions. They should absolutely be held accountable for the consequences of their actions."

• "Fossil fuel companies knew the damage they were inflicting and the problems they were causing, but did nothing about it. They put profits over the health of American citizens."

"Sustainability was growing around 1995 and existed before the 2000s. Oil companies should understand the negative impacts greenhouse emissions had on communities, and consumers paid a huge price for the outcomes without knowing about anything until the climate change revolution took off. I understand oil companies disagree with the policy because paying huge costs would hurt them financially, but it will give them an opportunity to incorporate sustainability into their business model to provide long-term value for everyone. If they will not adapt, the losses will be on them unless another sustainable oil company becomes big and the oil companies with coal or non-renewable sources partner with them because they have financial capital and help each other build towards a better, healthy future."

• "Someone's going to have to pay for the damages associated with climate change, and with a multi-trillion dollar national debt it certainly can't be picked up by the public anytime soon."

"Big Oil in particular made exorbitant profits by any means possible during this time frame, and there is ample evidence to show they were aware of exactly what their business was doing to the climate. They can and should pay."

👎 No (37%) – "Yeah I'm pretty concerned about the creating a punishment for a past action. I can't see how that's constitutional at all. Vermont can feel free to create all the climate policies it wants, but I'm really struggling to understand how anyone thought it was a good idea to create an ex post facto law. Is there more nuance to this that I'm missing??"

• "1) It is just another tax grab that will collect money and make zero changes to the climate. 2) Vermont emissions cannot control the climate change impact on Vermont. 3) Everyone uses hydrocarbon products and will for decades to come. 4) They will impact the poorer people of the state the most as product prices will increase. 5) Companies will leave the state and impact the finances of the state in all aspects."

"Companies should not be punished for what they did in the past when it was considered reasonable and legal. If the bill instead proposed a fee for ongoing emissions, the policy would be much more palatable."

• "How can you fine anyone for things that were legal when they did the act? All that is going to happen is that you will see companies migrate out of Vermont. Virtue signaling is not leadership."

🤷 Unsure/other (16%) – "I am concerned that this could be challenged as unconstitutional since it holds companies responsible for past actions. I wonder if it might make more sense to impose these restrictions going forward, also putting pressure on oil companies to put environmental practices in place going forward or be fined."

• "If their practices were legal at the time, it seems unfair to charge them on something when they did not "break the law." I like the idea of holding companies accountable, but the methodology must be fair and consistent. There must be factual numbers of C02 output and a direct causation, not just correlation, to climate change."