|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By: Jared Evan
In a move that could spell disaster for New York’s middle and working-class families, Governor Kathy Hochul is on the brink of approving a controversial bill that would force oil, natural gas, and coal companies to pay billions of dollars to the state for their alleged role in climate change.
The NY Post exposed this latest case of climate extremism.
This extreme piece of legislation, known as the Climate Change Superfund, threatens to burden hardworking New Yorkers with skyrocketing energy costs, all in the name of what some critics argue is junk science built on flawed climate models.
The bill, which sailed through both the Assembly and Senate this past spring, has been compared by supporters to the federal Superfund program that has sought to hold polluters accountable for toxic waste sites for decades.
But New York’s climate-change version is far more radical and unworkable, critics say. If Governor Hochul signs it into law, it could become a financial nightmare for everyday citizens, as the costs are likely to be passed down to consumers.
According to an analysis obtained by the New York Post, the bill’s sponsors, State Senator Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx), aim to squeeze $75 billion over 25 years from a mix of foreign and American companies. This includes some of the biggest names in the energy sector, such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco, Russia’s Lukoil, and American giants like Exxon and Chevron. Aramco alone could face an annual bill of $640 million for allegedly emitting over 31,000 million tons of greenhouse gases between 2000 and 2020.
But the idea that these energy companies will simply absorb these costs is a dangerous fantasy. As John Howard, former chairman of the state Public Service Commission, pointed out, there is no clear mechanism to ensure that these foreign-owned firms will even pay up. “What’s the crown prince [Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia] going to say?” Howard asked, questioning whether Saudi Aramco or Russia’s Lukoil would comply with such demands.
The reality is that these companies will likely pass the financial burden directly onto consumers, leading to higher prices at the pump and in energy bills across the state.
The New York Post further reports that the bill is likely to face significant legal challenges. Daniel Ortega, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Affordable Energy, has blasted the bill as unconstitutional, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent for businesses in New York. “This bill is a terrible signal to businesses engaged in selling legal commodities anywhere in New York State,” Ortega said. “For a business, it means you could follow every rule and regulation, collect and pay every tax, and then have the Legislature impose penalties on you for it after the fact.”
Supporters of the bill, like Krueger and Dinowitz, claim that the funds raised will be used for critical infrastructure projects, such as coastal wetlands restoration, storm-water drainage system upgrades, and energy-efficient cooling systems in public buildings, including schools and public housing. But the scale of these projects would require far more than the $75 billion being targeted from the fossil fuel industry, raising further questions about the feasibility and effectiveness of the legislation.
