On December 26, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law. This legislation seeks to collect $75 billion from fossil fuel companies over 25 years to fund climate-related infrastructure and adaptation projects. Framed as a mechanism to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, the law raises serious questions about its legal, economic, and scientific basis.
The Framework and Purpose of the Law
The Climate Change Superfund Act requires fossil fuel companies deemed responsible for over 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2018 to contribute to a state-run fund. This fund will distribute $3 billion annually for projects including coastal restoration, stormwater drainage improvements, and infrastructure upgrades in areas labeled as “disadvantaged communities”.
The law is modeled after state and federal superfund programs for toxic waste but operates under strict liability. Companies are required to pay based on their historical emissions, regardless of whether they acted within legal boundaries at the time or whether their products were essential to modern life.
Legal and Economic Concerns
Federal Preemption and Constitutional Issues
The fossil fuel industry has signaled its intent to challenge the law on the grounds that it conflicts with federal regulations governing energy and environmental policy. The principle of federal preemption under the U.S. Constitution could be a major obstacle for the state. Additionally, the retroactive application of liability raises due process concerns. Holding companies financially responsible for activities that were lawful at the time represents an unprecedented legal approach.
Economic Impact
The financial burden placed on fossil fuel companies will almost certainly lead to higher costs for energy and other goods, as these companies pass expenses onto consumers. New York residents, already struggling with high taxes and living costs, may indirectly bear the weight of this legislation. The state asserts that these fines will offset taxpayer expenses for climate adaptation, but it is unclear whether the funds will be used efficiently or effectively.
Legal Precedent for Other States
Vermont recently enacted a similar law, and New York’s approach may inspire other states to follow suit. However, this could lead to a fragmented regulatory landscape, complicating interstate commerce and increasing operational uncertainty for businesses. Such a patchwork of laws could discourage investment and innovation in the energy sector.
Questions About the Law’s Scientific Basis
The legislation asserts that it is now possible to calculate, with “great accuracy,” the share of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to specific companies. This claim is highly debatable given the inherent complexity of attributing emissions to individual actors in a global system.
Selective Timeframe
The law targets emissions from 2000 to 2018, a period chosen on the grounds that climate science was allegedly “well-established” by 2000. However, this timeframe excludes earlier decades when industrial activity also contributed to atmospheric changes. Such selective accounting raises questions about the fairness and objectivity of the law.
Ignoring Broader Responsibility
Fossil fuel companies are not the only entities contributing to emissions. Governments, industries, and consumers who relied on these products played an active role in the demand for fossil fuels. By focusing exclusively on producers, the legislation narrows the accountability framework, ignoring the interconnectedness of energy consumption and economic development.
Policy and Practical Implications
Funding Allocation and Efficiency
While the law outlines a broad scope of projects for its Climate Change Superfund, history suggests that government-managed programs are prone to waste, corruption, and inefficiency. The provision mandating that 35–40% of funds benefit disadvantaged communities adds a layer of complexity and likely waste, creating mass potential for political and bureaucratic inefficiencies in fund allocation.
Alternative Approaches: A Call for Prudence
Rather than rushing into punitive measures or alternative schemes, policymakers should first grapple with the inherent uncertainties in climate science. Predicting future impacts and attributing past effects to specific actors remains a highly speculative exercise. Imposing penalties or market-driven mechanisms like carbon pricing assumes a degree of precision that current climate science simply does not support.
Instead, energy policy might better focus on resilience and diversification, decoupled from climate assumptions. This includes ensuring reliable energy grids, maintaining affordable energy access, and encouraging voluntary, market-driven innovation—not as a reaction to apocalyptic scenarios but as a path toward general technological advancement and economic stability.
Conclusion: Questioning the Premise
The Climate Change Superfund Act exemplifies the risks of policymaking built on uncertain science. It presumes the ability to quantify historic emissions accurately, assign blame equitably, and predict future consequences reliably. None of these premises hold up under scrutiny. The law’s retroactive liability framework and its economic consequences—both direct and indirect—introduce risks that could outweigh any speculative benefits.
While it claims to champion accountability and adaptation, the Act sets a troubling precedent. By targeting fossil fuel companies without addressing the broader societal reliance on these fuels, it distorts the very nature of responsibility. Worse, by embracing an uncritical view of climate science, it risks committing New Yorkers to years of increased costs and litigation with no guarantee of measurable benefits.
Rather than adopting policies driven by climate alarmism, governments should adopt a position of restraint. Policies based on uncertain science and contested models may well cause more harm than good. Policymakers should prioritize transparency, resist dogmatic pressures, and ensure that any interventions are grounded in sound science, clear economic benefits, and respect for legal principles. New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act may be ambitious, but misguided ambition without clarity is more likely to harm than to help.
I think this silly law has zero chance of coming into force but it will be fun to watch.
Can they hold any more egg on their faces ?
😉
Yes. We are talking about New York, after all.
In my opinion, this is just so that Hochul can claim that her inane net-zero transition will not cost anything because the evil oil companies will be forced to pay. In the real world of course even if this was not successfully challenged in court the costs would still hit New Yorkers. I am embarassed to be from New York.
As with the tobacco litigation, ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are tolerated if called “civil law”.
Yes. So the most important step is to have CO2 removed from the list of toxic/harmful gasses.
If you were serious about reducing CO2, then you need to kill of all animals because we are all releasing CO2 back into the environment.
Perplexity AI drew a line at killing off humans when I pointed out it was logically the only way to reduce CO2 emissions.
When New York Governor Kathy Hochul is proven wrong hit her personally with a $75 billion class action lawsuit demanding all the money back. I’ll bet my entire net worth (which is not a lot!) that she has burnt some of the fossil fuels that have caused what she idiotically thinks is a huge problem. The fossil fuel companies are not the ones who burn the stuff, it is the consumers which includes every single activist and activist politician. If these hypocritical intellectual dwarfs who call themselves law makers are putting the argument that climate science has been settled since the year 2000 then why haven’t they personally weaned themselves off fossil fuels completely, for example, like leaving NYC and going into an off grid self-righteous renewably powered commune? New York, you have a problem!
She is a CO2 emitter like all humans. So it is quite clear what has to be done if you are serious about reducing CO2 emissions. I suggest she leads the way.
In response to a BBC article in which someone suggested the answer to climate change was to reduce population, I said, “You first”.
My comment was removed, but the original comment remained.
Perfect! If the passage and signing of this bill doesn’t wake up the vast majority of NY’ers that they live under a one-party dictatorship, nothing will.
The downside is that CT and the rest of NE are probably close behind.
The residents of NY elect who they want.
Check out an electoral map of NY. The residents of NYC and a few other ‘downstate’ counties habitually elect loons, effectively disenfranchising the significant minority of residents who live in the majority of the NY’s other counties.
Yes, the majority get who they want. As in a Democracy
Or a Republic–like the US.
Same thing. A Republic is defined as a representative democracy — we elect Congressmen and Senators who in turn write the laws. The only direct democracy — where people made the laws — was ancient Athens.
So today, all democracies are Republics. So the US is not unique .
Please advise where the term ‘democracy’ occurs anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.
The US is a Republic — which is defined as a representative democracy.
Nonsense. Your definition is made up. Congress is a representative democracy, which is only one third of our government.
Before the 17th amendment, not even congress was a representative democracy, only the house.
“Same thing.”
Nope. It’s not the same thing. And some towns in the US are direct democracies. (Not to mention various organizations and clubs.)
We’re talking the national government , not the PTA.
Government is government. I’m talking in general. You’re talking nonsense.
The definition of a Republic, by Webster, Britannica, and other sources:” a government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law”
Sounds like representative democracy to me.
As Jim said, it’s a republic – in our case, one that is tasked with protecting our inalienable rights. Tell me, do you believe that individuals possess inalienable rights or are our rights always subject to the will of the ‘collective’?
False choice.
Yes America is a Republic — that is, a Representative Democracy. And our Constitution states and guarantees our inalienable rights. Which do not prohibit you from being taxed as part of the collective body of citizenry. More examples abound; You must get a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Congress has the ability to pass a law establishing a military draft, and then you might be forced to serve. And so on.
‘. . . to pass a law establishing a military draft . . . .”
“Vice President Kamala Harris falsely claimed during an appearance on the ‘Call Her Daddy’ podcast that there were no laws that allowed the government to control a man’s body.” I guess the draft slipped her mind–if she has one.
The draft is for all sexes.
Really? I quote: “Women are not eligible for selective service registration.”
Uh, Jim, there is no draft in force today.
But Selective Service is in force, and has been for decades.
No drafting going on now
Are you really that stupid Warren? (I have avoided using that word around here but I can’t think of any other). Or are you truly that dishonest?
You MUST register. That’s a law that applies to males only. Just because there is no current draft doesn’t mean that it can’t be enacted at any moment.
Applies to males only.
So: “The draft is for all sexes.” – demonstrably false, see above.
This is all in regard to “Harris falsely claimed … that there were no laws that allowed the government to control a man’s body” – the fact that there is no current draft does NOT negate the fact that there IS a law regarding it (selective service registration) that applies to men only.
You are flat-out wrong.
I said that if and when there actually is a draft ((I was right there is NO draft now), that the draft will not be limited to males only. No political leaders are dumb enough (except possibly Trump) to allow a draft without including women.
the draft will not be limited to males only
1) That is not the case under current law, which is what is being discussed.
2) What evidence do you have of that, other than your feelings?
A) I agree that is the current selective service registration requirement. But there is no draft. None. But if a draft is ever enacted again, I believe it will have to be consistent with the current fighting force, which includes women in combat roles
I still have one of my draft cards from 1971, and it says on top: “Selective Service System.” My active card had to be turned in when I went on active duty.
No drafting going on now. Especially not ‘males only’
From the Select Service website:
“Almost all male US citizens and male immigrants, who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.”
But there is no draft.
And if there was one, women would not be drafted. You were wrong about that.
You cannot be fined unless you are convicted. And you cannot be convicted of something that wasn’t a crime when you were doing it, per Ex Post Facto. Every other government action requiring payments is a tax and is not enforceable until passage. .
If I were an oil company, I would cease doing business in New York State immediately.
Tobacco companies in US paid injury compensation for misleading the public. This NY legislation is in the same vein as the energy companies are knowingly producing goods that are the root cause of climate change and all the other evils linked to climate change.
Tobacco companies agreed to settlements with governments.There were no laws passed and there were no trials determining guilt. Not a single tobacco user was compensated directly for any injury from the settlements. It was a government shakedown operation just as this New York climate law is.
That said, tobacco use is clearly a health hazard. If you don’t use it, don’t start. If you do use it, quit.
The same can never be said about CO2.
Where is the injury? Fossil fuels clearly have done much more good than harm. In addition to the use made of them by the public, they provided CO2 to increase crop and forest yields, The small warming has been good It moves the frost line north, adds two weeks to the growing season and saves heating fuel.. NYC warming is due to too much concrete and tall buildings.
Except then that Carbondioxide emissions do not change the climate, at least not more than the waffle of climate activists.
“knowingly producing goods that are the root cause of climate change and all the other evils linked to climate change.”
Still waiting for proof of those claims. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As I recall the states argued that they needed massive funds from the tobacco industry to pay for future projected health care costs of smokers. Does anyone know of any state that actually pays the health care costs of tobacco users who have related health issues? How many states just funnel their tobacco extorsion money into unrelated programs to buy votes.
The money is gone. They handed it out as grants and it was used for whatever politicians decided it should be used for.
Remember, it’s democrats who claim that a trickle down economy doesn’t work.
“If I were an oil company, I would cease doing business in New York State immediately.”
***********
I’m not so sure that the oil companies would be very willing to stop doing business in NY State if they are operating there profitably. Remember the obligation they have to their shareholders.
The shareholders will be stripped of all their money in this, so shareholders will be the ones telling companies to stop doing business in NY.
You would be wrong. Phillips 66 just announced they would quit refining and listed for sale all their refinery assets in California, and are moving to Texas. This was just after Gov. Newsom signed legislation requiring them to hold inventory in reserve. They produced 8% of California formula gasoline, marketable no where else and replaceable by no one else, which is obviously profitable to produce. They have obligations to their stockholders too, but apparently accepting business decisions made by a liberal governor is not one of them.
The financial basis is likely dominated by the cost associated with the Nuisance Law.
If the oil companies collectively refused to supply NY. The government and all functions in the state would cease to operate in day. Imagine no heating in Winter, no fuel for vehicles, no gas for power generation! Do this in Winter…i.e tomorrow! The politicians will quickly retract this action.
“If I were an oil company, I would cease doing business in New York State immediately.”
My father-in-law worked in the insurance industry most of his life, he became an insurance consultant, and testified as an expert witness in courts of law. He said there are two kinds of insurance companies in the US: those that only do business in New York, and those that do business in every state except New York.
Why? New York passed a law that any insurance company doing business in New York must charge the same rates in other states. Obviously the New York regulations on insurance companies ensures that New York insurance companies can’t sell policies in other states. Non-New York insurance companies don’t want to deal with the New York nonsense.
Story tip
MIT Engineers believe their Fusion Reactor design is “Very Likely to Work”
After months of intensive research and engineering work, the team from MIT behind the newest “SPARC” compact fusion reactor have revealed the reasons they believe it will actually work.
SPARC: Proving commercial fusion energy is possible
SPARC is paving the way for the urgent transition to clean, safe, zero-carbon fusion energy. In 2027, it’ll become the world’s first commercially relevant fusion energy machine to produce more energy from fusion than it needs to power the process — a threshold called net energy generation or Q>1. That history-making moment will be to fusion energy what the Wright brothers’ Kitty Hawk flight was to aviation: the breakthrough that’ll make a life-changing industry possible.
Let’s see
When it comes to fusion, I am hopeful, but not optimistic. And have been for the past 50 years.
It’s a tokamak, so not going to happen. Even if it could, no one has solved the neutron flux problem so the equipment turns to embrittled swiss cheese in short order. Even if all of that was solved there is still the problem of sustainably removing the excess energy without disrupting the plasma.
Highly radioactive embrittled swiss cheese.
I think the rumor of fusion just around the corner is propaganda to slow or stop the fission rebirth.
Like flying cars, fusion is always just a few years away . . .
Test system is in progress.
First practical generator approval in process in Virginia.
MIT R&D solved several critical problems. The jury is out as to whether all problems are solved.
Easy, just with-hold fossil fuels from New York.
Or put up fossil fuel prices in NY by enough + 50%, to compensate.
I like that. A New York surcharge. I wonder it that could be put in play.
It’s wonderful, just wonderful. Hochul has cut her throat and that of the Democratic party in New York. About time. By by Kathy. Wasn’t so nice to have known you.
It’s bye bye Kathy, but I like your comment.
I wonder which law office(s) will be chosen to litigate this for decades to come.
Three guesses but you only need one.
How many different ways can one call these politicians idiots? What do they care, really, ‘cuz they will be out of office by the time the chickens come home…very imaginative virtue signalling-and very expensive. A fair question might be are these pols really that obtuse, or are they just well purchased crooks?
Yes
Yes.
How many different ways can one call these politicians idiots? What do they care, really, ‘cuz they will be out of office by the time the chickens come home…very imaginative virtue signalling-and very expensive. A fair question might be are these pols really that obtuse, or are they just well purchased crooks?
They could be both.
Yes.
This is what happens when the building block of life is deemed toxic.
Why isn’t every New York citizen being taxed for their toxic emissions of CO2?
The energy companies will for ever regret their failure in letting the climate scam prevail for so long. If only the big lie of Big Energy funding climate skeptics was true. Charles Rotter would be wealthy and more influential..
It is time to tackle the scam head on. Fighting each new tax grab on legal grounds is a waste of effort. Tackle the scammers in court for perpetuating fraud.
Much of government waste is centred on the climate scam. That is what Musk should be focused on. I would be surprised if engineers at Space X could not dismantle the NASA/GISS BS in a few days.
US can save heaps by defunding the UN. This socialist cess pit needs to be eradicated.
Move the UN to Gaza; this would lower NYC crime rates substantially and provide a boom to real estate development! UN diplomats are like 30 year olds living in mommy’s basement!
Kick the UN out of NYC, then sell the building to the city. This can then be converted into living quarters for the illegal aliens.
See how easy it is to solve problems.
See! Solutions are there, if you’re not a liberal.
Just stop delivering energy to New York. If you don’t emit in that ‘state’, then you cannot be held liable… maybe?
But CO2 is global, are they planning to get the China and India to pay the fines? And what about neighboring states? Can they fine a company for emissions not produced in the state of New York?
Are they also going to sue volcanoes?
Over 25 years? Did I read that right?
So we have 25 years to fix the climate not 10?
We’ve had 10 for 35 years now so is this an additional 25 for a total of 35 years? Or is 10 just cancelled as if it never was? Will it be 25 years to fix the climate for as long as 10 was? That would give us 60 years?
I’ll most certainly be dead. Asking for my grandchildren.
It’s new math.
Ah, yes. New math
Thank goodness I was schooled before the “New Math.” It’s really the “New Non-Math.”
“Rather than rushing into punitive measures or alternative schemes, policymakers should first grapple with the inherent uncertainties in climate science. Predicting future impacts and attributing past effects to specific actors remains a highly speculative exercise. Imposing penalties or market-driven mechanisms like carbon pricing assumes a degree of precision that current climate science simply does not support.”
****************
I suggest here that the climate alarmist Left isn’t interested in sound or supportive climate science. They are interested in any science (good or bad) that provides confirmation bias for their preconceived beliefs about Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry in general. That is why (along with lots of taxpayer $$$ doled out to it) the climate alarmist narrative lives on and does not seem to be dying out very quickly.
Climate science has become plaything for politicians — particularly on the Left. Changing that will probably require a sincere effort on the part of politicians and the U.N. to stop using it as such. I’m sorry, but I do not see that happening anytime soon. However, the incoming Trump administration can at least start doing that by making a strong effort to debunk the climate scare nonsense with the disconfirming evidence.
This insanity should be high priority for the new Trump administration to oppose and to expose as a blatant money grab.
Incremental CO2 is not capable of driving ANY metric of climate interest in a bad direction. The oil majors should finally get a grip and directly refute the core claim.
The core claim has been directly refuted many, many years ago, and the refutation goes on. But the voices doing so are not allowed into the public square. Rather, they are shouted down by the climate alarmists and the gaslighting goes on. Let’s start with recognizing the truth about the role CO2 plays in supporting life on the planet. Every voice saying it is a pollutant is emitting CO2 in the very act of saying so.
But oil companies are still playing their game, putting out ads saying how we need to reduce emissions. As long as they’re admitting publicly that there is a problem, they can’t fight this legitimately in court.
True. Good point. They’re walking a public relations knife edge.
If this law is enforced, highly unlikely, the $3B/yr. will just be passed on to the consumers in New York.
Stated in the article.
There is an easy solution for this. All fossil fuel products and their derivatives must be banned in New York until this case is resolved. That goes for all electricity generated by fossil fuels no matter where it was generated. Go ahead NewYork I double dog dare you to walk the walk you cowards.
“double dog dare”
I used that same expression a couple of days ago on a similar topic.
Well done.
These know nothings talk big but would cry like babies if fossil fuel and nuclear power were withheld from them. They are nothing but a bunch of punks.
“. . . walk the walk . . . .”
We were assured that our corporate management would “walk the walk” and when crunch-time came–they didn’t.
They want a last gasp money grab as they know that all things climate are fading in relevance and soon to be dealt a final death blow. Jan 20
But there is no real evidence that CO2 or methane have any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science as has been explained in”The Rational Climate e-Book” by Patrice Poyet. I am the author’s peer and I have reviewed his book so it is peer reviewed. Mankind does not even know what the optimum global climate actually is let alone how to achieve it. Because of this law all fossil fuel companies should stop doing busines in New York State or any state that passes similar laws. Apparently the use of fossil fuels is considered to be bad in those states so the people of those stated should stop makind use of all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. All companies that make use of fossil fuels in any way should no longer do business in those states.
“But there is no real evidence that CO2 or methane have any effect on our global climate system.”
More accurately put is “have any significant or consequential effect….”
If this legal fiasco survived court challenges and became law the customer will pick up the bill which would increase the outmigration that the state is experiencing.
The biggest single contributor to the increase in CO2 emissions in the state of New York is the Democrat controlled legislature shutting down the Indian Point nuclear power plant. The power generated, 2GW represented 31% of the total CO2 free nuclear power production in the state. Should the New York legislature be fined for their willful disregard of the “climate crisis”?
The power supplied by Indian Point was replaced by new gas-fired capacity, primarily built in New Jersey. Using the new law, will New York State’s environmental regulators attempt to fine the owners of this New Jersey plant, and also the fossil fuel suppliers which provide the plant with natural gas?
NY electric sector emissions went up when Indian Point closed. There were two new natural gas units built downstate that run much more than they would have if Indian Point was still in operation.
How do they plan to collect from companies owned by foreign states like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps, they’re already collecting 😉
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
This law will be overturned as Constitutionally-impermissible restraint of interstate and international trade by the State of NY. States cannot massively burden national and international energy companies without it affecting their business in all 50 states and internationally as well. SCOTUS will overturn it years from now when it gets litigated, and in the meantime a Federal stay of enforcement will prevail.
The Federal government cannot allow individual states to control the energy policies of the entire nation, the blue states will kill off energy production nationwide and internationally (the US is the largest oil and gas producer, and the largest exporter of natural gas in the world).
This is mere virtue signaling by blue state politicians. They didn’t learn their lessons in the election last month, obviously.
The legislation demands $75 billion to mitigate the damages that have been done or will be done by climate change. But here’s what I don’t understand, and no one seems to be challenging. What are the damages done by climate change?
Over the past 40 years, there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of hurricanes, floods, droughts, heavy rains or severe weather of any kind. Crop yields or at or near record highs. The Great Barrier Reef recently reached it largest historical extent. No island nations have been washed away by rising seas and no coastal city shorelines have been destroyed by rising seas.
What are the damages the fund is supposed to mitigate? Should she have to show damages first before she can demand compensation for said damages? If there are no damages – if she can’t show any damages – how can she demand money?
You expect logic from New York?