XPost: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.socialism.democratic,   
   talk.environment   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: socialism@vermont.poor   
      
   Note to business leaders.   
      
   Refuse to sell Vermont any petroleum based products and see how that woke   
   ESG shit goes over when they have to start plowing fields with mules   
   again. Even better, cut the natural gas and heating oil so that they have   
   to burn coal to heat homes, and to power their grid that supplies the   
   BEV's that Democrats demand everyone buy.   
      
   The Vermont Legislature is advancing legislation requiring big fossil fuel   
   companies pay a share of the damage caused by climate change after the   
   state suffered catastrophic summer flooding and damage from other extreme   
   weather.   
      
   The state Senate is expected to give final approval this week to the   
   proposal, which would create a program that fossil fuel companies would   
   pay into for climate change adaption projects in Vermont. It will then be   
   considered in the House.   
      
   "In order to remedy the problems created by washed out roads, downed   
   electrical wires, damaged crops and repeated flooding, the largest fossil   
   fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also   
   contribute to fixing the problem that they caused,” Sen. Nader Hashim, a   
   Democrat from Windham County, said to Senate colleagues on Friday.   
      
   Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures, but   
   Vermont's bill is moving quicker through the Legislature.   
      
   Critics, including Republican Gov. Phil Scott, who is up against a veto-   
   proof Democratic majority, warn that it could be a costly legal battle for   
   the small state to go first.   
      
   “Of all the fossil fuel companies in the world, we’re a mosquito compared   
   to a giant,” said Republican state Sen. Randy Brock on Friday after he   
   voted against it. “We might win but the cost in doing so alone is huge.”   
      
   He referenced the fact that Exxonmobil's annual sales are $344.6 billion,   
   while Vermont's annual budget is about $8.5 billion, saying he'd rather   
   see New York or California or another state be first.   
      
   Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer, in consultation with   
   the Agency of Natural Resources, would provide a report by Jan. 15, 2026,   
   on the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of   
   greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2024.   
      
   The assessment would look at the affects on public health, natural   
   resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas.   
      
   It's a polluter-pays model affecting companies engaged in the trade or   
   business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil attributable to   
   more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions during the   
   time period. The funds could be used by the state for such things as   
   upgrading stormwater drainage systems; upgrading roads, bridges and   
   railroads; relocating, elevating or retrofitting sewage treatment plants   
   and making energy efficient weatherization upgrades to public and private   
   buildings.   
      
   Exxonmobil did not immediately provide a comment. The American Petroleum   
   Institute sent a letter to the state Senate last week opposing the bill,   
   saying it believes it's bad public policy and may be unconstitutional.   
      
   The top lobbying group for the oil and gas industry said it's extremely   
   concerned the legislation "retroactively imposes costs and liability on   
   prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due   
   process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society   
   at large; and is preempted by federal law,” the letter states.   
   “Additionally, the bill does not provide potentially impacted parties with   
   notice as to the magnitude of potential fees that can result from its   
   passage.”   
      
   Jennifer Rushlow, dean of the Maverick Lloyd School for the Environment   
   and a professor of law at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said Monday   
   that she thinks Vermont will face legal challenges if the bill becomes law   
   but expects the state to win. Several environmental law clinics have   
   offered to provide support, which could offset the costs, she said.   
      
   “Somebody has to go first. And I think the conditions for passage in   
   Vermont are pretty optimal for depressing reasons ... because the costs   
   we've incurred recently as a result of climate change are very significant   
   and really top of mind and visible," she said.   
      
   House Speaker Jill Krowinski said in a statement on Monday that she looks   
   forward to reviewing the bill and assessing its impact toward the state’s   
   climate change goals. She said she’s eager for House committees to look at   
   this and other climate change policies in the second half of the   
   legislative session.   
      
   Hashim, the Democratic senator from Windham County, said the reality is   
   that severe weather patterns are here and will happen more frequently and   
   become more damaging over time. Adapting and becoming more resilient costs   
   money and Vermont has few options to pay for the damage.   
      
   “We can place the burden on Vermont taxpayers or we can keep our fingers   
   crossed that the federal government will help us or we can have fossil   
   fuel companies pay their fair share,” he said.   
      
   https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/vermont-advances-bill-requiring-   
   fossil-fuel-companies-pay-108724533   
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)