Lawmakers push for unprecedented move to hold major industry accountable: 'It's past time'
Big Oil has been allowed to freely pollute the world with heat-trapping gases that lead to higher global temperatures and climate-driven disasters — but soon those companies may have to pay for the damage they've done because of a law on the table in California.
The Center for Biological Diversity reported on the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act, a bill recently introduced in the state legislature by Sen. Caroline Menjivar and Assemblymember Dawn Addis.
If passed into law, it would create a program under the California Environmental Protection Agency that would require major oil companies operating in the state to pay into a fund that accounts for the more than 1 billion tons of heat-trapping air pollution they produced between 1990 and 2024. The money would be used to address the effects of that pollution.
Those effects are extensive and critical. Higher global temperatures have contributed to wildfires, drought and flood cycles, more intense storms, heat waves, and rising sea levels — all of which come with human deaths and property damage.
The superfund would help address those issues. It would fund disaster response and support the construction of infrastructure that would make communities more resilient against climate disasters.
"The L.A. fires show with heartbreaking clarity how much we need this bill to make the biggest climate polluters pay for the astronomical damage they've caused," said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "The public shouldn't be shelling out billions of dollars every year to recover from severe and deadly climate disasters. By passing this commonsense bill, state lawmakers can put the financial burden of climate damage on giant polluting companies, where it belongs."
California has already attempted to pass similar legislation, but this law could put the state in the driver's seat. It won't be the first to adopt such an approach; New York and Vermont have passed legislation to hold polluters accountable for their far-reaching effects.
"Profiting off destruction has been the Big Oil playbook for far too long," Siegel said. "It's past time we took on these corporate behemoths who've sold off our future and our fragile planet to line their own pockets."
Could America stop using oil and gas by 2050?
For sure
No way
Only certain states could
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 days ago
- The Hill
US proposes endangered species protections for pangolins
The Trump administration is proposing to give pangolins Endangered Species Act protections. The scaly mammals come from Asia and Africa, not the U.S., so the protections would be related to importing them from abroad and preventing people under U.S. jurisdiction from harming them where they are. In a press release, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that pangolins are threatened by poaching, smuggling and illegal trade. It also said that proceeds from sales of these animals can be used to 'fund serious crimes, including drug and arms trafficking.' 'It is a critical conservation concern with significant impacts on the interests of the United States and its partners,' the agency said. The listing was met with cheers from environmental advocates, who say pangolins are close to going extinct. 'I'm delighted the United States is doing its part to save these adorably odd creatures,' said Sarah Uhlemann, international program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a written statement. 'Pangolins are on the razor's edge of extinction, and we need to completely shut down any U.S. market for their scales,' Uhlemann added. The proposal comes as the administration is seeking to loosen protections overall under the Endangered Species Act, particularly with respect to restrictions on damage to habitats.
WIRED
11-06-2025
- WIRED
The EPA Wants to Roll Back Emissions Controls on Power Plants
Jun 11, 2025 4:36 PM "The EPA is trying to get out of the climate change business,' says one expert. Aerial view of the coal powered electricity power station known as Fort Martin outside Morgantown, WV Photograph: Getty Images The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to roll back emissions standards for power plants, the second-largest source of CO2 emissions in the country, on Wednesday, claiming that the American power sector does not 'contribute significantly' to air pollution. 'The bottom line is that the EPA is trying to get out of the climate change business,' says Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. The announcement comes just days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) quietly released record-breaking new figures showing the highest seasonal concentration of CO2 in recorded history. In a press conference on Tuesday, flanked by legislators from some of the country's top fossil fuel-producing states, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused both the Obama and Biden administrations of 'seeking to suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment.' Zeldin singled out data centers as helping to drive unprecedented demand in the US power sector over the next decade. The EPA, he said, is 'taking actions to end the agency's war on so much of our US domestic energy supply.' The proposed EPA rollbacks target a suite of rules on the power plant sector put in place last year by the Biden administration. Those regulations mandated that coal- and gas-fired power plants reduce their emissions by 90 percent by the early 2030s, primarily by using carbon capture and storage technology. Among a swathe of justifications for rolling back regulations, the proposed new EPA rule argues that because US power sector emissions accounted for only 3 percent of global emissions in 2022—down from 5.5 percent in 2005—and because coal use from other countries continues to grow, US electricity generation from fossil fuel 'does not contribute significantly to globally elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.' However, electric power generation was responsible for 25 percent of US emissions in 2022, according to the EPA, making it second only to transportation among the dirtiest sectors of the economy. A NYU analysis published earlier this month found that if the US power sector were its own separate country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter in the world. 'This action would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high,' says Meredith Hankins, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The EPA is also targeting the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, which mandates that power plants maintain controls to reduce the amount of mercury and other toxic air pollutants emitted from their plants. The Biden administration in 2024 strengthened those standards, which date to 2011. Despite progress in reducing mercury emissions since the MATS rule was initially implemented, coal-fired power plants are still the largest source of mercury emissions in the US. The administration has also made it clear that it intends to try to revive the coal industry, which has been on a steep decline since the rise of cheap natural gas and renewables in the 2010s. In a series of executive orders issued in April intended to boost the industry, President Trump tied the future of AI dominance in the US to extending a lifeline to coal. Zeldin and lawmakers who spoke on Tuesday praised the original MATS rule, portraying the 2024 update as an overreach by the Biden administration that imposed undue costs on the fossil fuel industry. ('We're not eliminating MATS,' Zeldin said. 'We're proposing to revise it.') But the coal industry and red states fought hard against the implementation of the original rule, experts who spoke to WIRED point out. 'They do not want to have increased mercury pollution hung around their neck,' Julie McNamara, an associate director of policy with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says. 'Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that affects the most vulnerable. When coal plants finally installed pollution controls, we had massive mercury pollution reductions and incredible benefits associated with that. I think that's why they want to try and keep the mantle of protecting public health and interest, while trying to make it seem like these were just radical amendments.' The rollbacks are part of a larger attack on the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and part of an administration-wide effort to divorce climate science from policy. Earlier this year, Zeldin said that the agency would look to target the endangerment finding, a key determination made by the EPA in 2009 that defined greenhouse gases as dangerous to public health and welfare. That move—outlined in Project 2025—raised public objections even from fossil fuel industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute, which represents utility companies. Killing the endangerment finding would require clearing a much higher legal bar than rolling back power plant regulations. The proposed rules will be open for public comment, with the agency stating a final rule should be issued by the end of the year; experts who spoke with WIRED say that they expect this latest move to be challenged in court. However, they all emphasized the fact that the proposal is above and beyond even what the first Trump administration attempted to do in eliminating climate regulations in its first term. 'This is a very big deal, that the EPA is attempting to sideline itself,' McNamara says. 'This is saying, 'We do not believe that we should regulate carbon emissions from power plants.' If you can't justify regulating power plants, then you can't justify regulating oil and gas emissions.' Meanwhile, the planet keeps getting hotter. Figures from Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawaii released quietly by NOAA last week show that May had a monthly average of 430.2 parts per million (ppm), the first time in recorded history that seasonal averages of CO2 exceeded 430 ppm, and 3.5 ppm higher than last year's May average. This reading comes on the heels of similarly-sobering figures the agency downplayed in April showing the largest-ever jump in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations between 2023 and 2024. 'Another year, another record,' Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 Program, said in a release on the May numbers. 'It's sad.'
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Yahoo
Homeland Security accelerates border wall construction in New Mexico and Arizona
A stretch of the border wall near Columbus, New Mexico along State Road 9. (Photo by Patrick Lohmann / Source NM) The U.S. government this week set aside environmental protection laws in order to speed up border wall construction along approximately 20 miles of New Mexico's border with Mexico. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday signed a waiver of various federal laws to expedite border wall construction in southwestern New Mexico. She also signed two similar waivers for areas in neighboring Arizona on Tuesday and Thursday. Taken together, the waivers allow the federal government to speed up construction of physical barriers and roads along approximately 36 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, the agency said in a news release on Thursday. The waivers 'ensure the expeditious construction of physical barriers and roads, by minimizing the risk of administrative delays,' DHS said. The New Mexico waiver lifts the legal requirements of 24 separate federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, just to name a few. 'Trump is recklessly casting aside the foundational laws that protect endangered species and clean air and water to build a wildlife-killing wall through pristine wilderness,' Laiken Jordahl, Southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Source NM on Friday. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told Source NM on Friday in a statement that she has serious concerns about the waivers, saying they bypass protections for endangered species, cultural heritage sites and Native American artifacts. 'New Mexico's archaeological resources and sensitive ecosystems could face permanent damage without proper environmental review,' Lujan Grisham said. 'While we understand border security concerns, the federal government should engage with state officials before waiving decades of established environmental protections.' The New Mexico waiver designates an area in southwestern New Mexico as 'an area of high illegal entry,' divided into three sections. The DHS news release states that the sections of the border where the laws have been waived total approximately 8.5 miles, but that figure is inaccurate, according to Jordahl, who has traveled to every part of the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his work. 'It is extremely frustrating how difficult they make these waivers to track,' he said. 'Instead of using simple [latitude and longitude] coordinates, they pick landmarks that are almost impossible for the public to map. I believe they may have made an error in their locations in the waiver.' One section starts at a point on the border just south of Antelope Wells in Hidalgo County and extends one-tenth of a mile east, according to International Boundary and Water Commission data. Jordahl told Source NM he found the same measurements using his own map of the border. This section is already walled off, and so DHS is likely adding another layer of wall, he said. Another section begins at a point on the border just south of Wamels Draw, a valley in Luna County, and extends approximately 7.5 miles east. This section of the border already has vehicle barriers, but is not walled off yet, Jordahl said. Building a border wall along this particular stretch would be the most environmentally damaging by far, Jordahl said, because it would threaten the movement and migration of Mexican gray wolves. 'We've seen Mexican gray wolves in this area; we've seen them cross the border,' he said. 'We've also seen them push up against the border wall in New Mexico, wander along it for days and then ultimately have to turn around, being unable to cross.' Jordahl said his organization's focus lies on Arizona's two waivers and potential wall construction, which would also threaten wildlife. 'Throwing taxpayer money away to wall off the Santa Cruz River and San Rafael Valley would be a death sentence for jaguars, ocelots and other wildlife in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands,' he said. 'This is happening while border crossings are at the lowest level in decades. We'll fight this disastrous project with everything we've got.' The third section starts at a point on the border west of Santa Teresa and extends approximately 12.4 miles, over Mount Cristo Rey, to the Rio Grande near El Paso. This section already has older mesh border walls, and DHS may be installing newer walls there, Jordahl said. The sections of the border described in the waiver lie in the same general area as the New Mexico National Defense Area, a newly created military buffer zone which the U.S. government is trying to use — along with novel criminal charges — to discourage people from crossing the border. Gov. Lujan Grisham, in the statement provided to Source, urged meaningful consultation with state and local officials before the federal government begins construction that 'could cause lasting harm to our communities and environment.' 'New Mexico's natural and cultural resources deserve consideration in this process,' she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
