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.

…

By Jo Nova

In the ecosystem of civilization, the OECD is just another batch of multinational barnacles slowing the ship down. These invertebrate filter feeders use taxpayer money to bore the taxpayers kids into submission to The Blob. They presumably hope the kids will grow up to vote for the Big Government Blob, thus boosting the river of money that flows past the barnacles.

In the end, improbably, a foreign committee is pretending it can save children in one of the wealthiest nations of the world from “misinformation”. As if the first world needs some remedial assistance teaching chemistry to their teenagers. The gargantuan arrogance of this is only surpassed by the intergalactic chutzpah. The OECD are, after all,  just a bunch of economists, wiggling their finger at nations full of doctors and engineers, and telling them how to teach their kids science.

The gibberish, it grows: What is “action” in response to “climate anxiety”?

The Guardian (of course).

OECD’s Pisa program will measure the ability of students to take action in response to climate anxiety and ‘take their position and role in the global world’

In 2025, for the first time in nearly a decade, science will be the major focus of the OECD’s program for international student assessment (Pisa) – which runs every three years (give or take Covid interruptions), its focus rotating between reading, maths and science.  … This year it will measure the knowledge and ability of 15-year-old students from 92 countries and economies to act on climate change, under a new heading: Agency in the Anthropocene.

The point of measuring children’s abilities is to collect statistics for the next batch of press releases the OECD want to browbeat the West with.

They say they want to teach children to “distinguish scientific evidence from misinformation” except that they don’t appear to know what scientific evidence is, or what science is either. If they did, they’d talk about the dangers of consensus and computer models, and the importance of observations.

Let’s have a small revolution in logic and reasoning instead:

Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s director of education, describes the refreshed science framework as a “small revolution” addressing students’ capacity to distinguish scientific evidence from misinformation in the context of the “biggest challenge of our times – our environment”.

Look out, a foreign committee influenced by multinational corporate powers wants to provide a “non-political space” for your children.

Amelia Pearson, at the Monash climate change communication research hub, says there have been more “climate change dot points” added to the curriculum, but mainly in subjects such as science and geography.

“Climate change impacts every area of society and our lives,” she says. “So it’s really important that people who might not engage, particularly with [science, technology, engineering, maths], still have the opportunity to learn about these different challenges.”

Education isn’t about persuading children to think a certain way, she says, but providing a non-political space to understand the issues and make up their own minds.

Aren’t our schools supposed to be “non-political spaces”?

I say we survey the OECD instead to see if they know what science is — then toss them out.

The biggest threat to the world today is big-government. We need to teach children that cold weather is terrible, but big government is worse than an ice age..

Thanks to Tony Thomas, and Eric Worrall…