Commentary |
When climate disasters hit, who should flip the bill?

Some states are landing on a straightforward answer: fossil fuel companies.

Tornado damaged police car

Photo: PEXELS

by Sonali Kolhatkar

OtherWords

Rebuilding from California’s recent wildfires will cost more than a quarter of a trillion dollars — an unprecedented amount. The estimated damage from Hurricane Helene in the Southeast is almost as much, on the order of $250 billion.

Who will pay for that damage? It’s a question plaguing localities around the country as climate change makes these disasters increasingly common.

Some states are landing on a straightforward answer: fossil fuel companies.

The idea is inspired by the “superfunds” used to clean up industrial accidents and toxic waste. The Superfund program goes back to 1980, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The law fined polluters to finance the clean up of toxic spills.

Thanks to the hard work of groups such as the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont recently became the first state to establish a climate superfund in May 2024.

It’s an idea whose time has come, especially now that states are less able to rely on the federal government.

Months later, New York followed suit, again in response to pressure from environmental groups. Both bills require oil and gas companies to pay billions into a fund designated for climate-related cleanup and rebuilding.

Now California is considering a similar law in the wake of its disastrous wildfires. Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey may take up the idea as well.

It’s an idea whose time has come, especially now that states are less able to rely on the federal government. The Trump administration is disabling government agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with major cuts and putting conditions on other aid.

At the recent Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference, Trump aide Ric Grenell unabashedly endorsed “squeezing” California’s federal funds unless they “get rid of the California Coastal Commission.” (Trump apparently hates the commission, the Fresno Bee explains, because it prevents “wealthy people from turning public beaches into private enclaves.”)

Fossil fuel companies — the lead perpetrators of climate disasters — spent more than $450 million to elect their favored candidates, including Trump. In return, Trump has promised to speed up oil and gas permits and stacked his cabinet with oil-friendly executives.

Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill to clean up the destruction wrought by this industry, one of the most profitable the world has ever known? As a spokesperson for New York Governor Kathy Hochul said, “corporate polluters should pay for the wreckage caused by the climate crisis — not every day New Yorkers.”

To be fair, a climate superfund is a “downstream” solution to the climate crisis.

Not surprisingly, 22 Republican-led states disagree. They’ve sued to block New York’s law and protect oil and gas profits at the expense of ordinary people. They have no answer for the question of who pays for recovery from climate disasters or helps people reeling from one disaster after another.

Fossil fuel companies can think of paying into a climate superfund as the cost of doing business. If they’re in the business of extracting and selling a fuel that destroys the planet, it’s only fair they pay to clean up the damage.

And the public agrees. Data For Progress found more than 80 percent of voters support holding fossil fuel companies responsible for the impact of carbon emissions.

To be fair, a climate superfund is a “downstream” solution to the climate crisis, one that seeks to raise the costs to perpetrators. A climate superfund can pay to rebuild homes, but it cannot replace priceless family heirlooms or undo the trauma of surviving a disaster. Most of all, it cannot bring back lives lost. It is only one tool in a multi-pronged tool box to end the climate crisis.

Upstream solutions centering the prevention of climate change — that is, reducing carbon emissions at their source — must be at the center of our fight if humanity is to survive. But in the meantime, fossil fuel polluters should pay.

About the author:
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Keywords:

Illinois needs juvenile-justice reform, a proposed bill protects children's rights and safety

Research shows any length of detention has a poor outcome for children, especially those of color, and unnecessarily costs the state tens of millions of dollars each year.

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Illinois News Connection

CHICAGO - A recent report is highlighting the need for a complete overhaul of the Illinois juvenile justice system. It called for a renewed rehabilitative focus while prioritizing the rights, needs and safety of children, which it argued is sorely lacking across the board.

The report by the Illinois Juvenile Justice Initiative found the majority of juvenile detention centers fail to meet even basic standards to keep children safe, which has opened counties up to lawsuits.

Katherine Buchanan, a consultant for the Illinois Juvenile Justice Initiative and the report's author, said the current state-subsidized, county-run model incentivizes the jailing of children and does not provide an ultimate authority on oversight, begging the question of why and how the state jails children.

"The timing is right to really look at when and why children are detained, and how we can really focus the use of detention on those most critical cases," Buchanan contended.

Buchanan pointed out research shows any length of detention has a poor outcome for children, especially those of color, and unnecessarily costs the state tens of millions of dollars each year.

The report found gaps across all centers in behavioral services and education, disciplinary actions and the use of solitary confinement. Overall, children of color are disproportionately impacted, coming into contact with the legal system at much higher rates than their white peers, even when they commit the same offenses.

Buchanan explained how childhood trauma increases the risk of delinquency in adolescents, and detention only serves to retraumatize an already at-risk population while compounding long-term consequences.

"Even short periods in detention can harm children in terms of their educational attainment, their ability to reengage in school, their mental health and also in terms of their long-term future earnings," Buchanan outlined.

The report called for legislation prioritizing community-based efforts and using detention as a last resort. A new bill was introduced last month to initiate efforts for juvenile justice reform across the state and largely mirrors the suggested solutions outlined in the report.

Other interesting articles: