States seek to make fossil fuel firms pay for climate damages

Illinois is set to introduce a bill requiring fossil fuel companies to contribute to a climate superfund amid rising costs from global warming. This effort joins a wave of similar legislation in other states, driven by advocates pushing for polluters to cover expenses like flooding and heat waves. New York and Vermont have already enacted such laws, despite opposition from industry and the federal government.

Illinois lawmakers are preparing to introduce a climate change superfund bill in the state legislature, aiming to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the financial burdens of global warming. The proposal, led by State Rep. Robyn Gabel in the House and State Sen. Graciela Guzmán in the Senate, targets costs such as rising home insurance premiums, utility bills, health expenses, and damages from extreme weather events like flooding and heat waves in the state.

Gabel, an Evanston Democrat, emphasized the need for responsibility: “The costs with climate change are going to be extravagant, and it’s going to end up on the backs of the taxpayers, and the oil companies continue to walk away with huge profits. Polluting companies should be responsible for the damage they cause.” Guzmán added that the bill would establish “a fairer standard for who pays when climate damage hits our towns and neighborhoods.”

This initiative is part of a broader national movement. Advocates rallied in Chicago on Thursday as part of the “Make Polluters Pay” campaign, with events in Connecticut, Colorado, California, New Jersey, and Maine. Rhode Island introduced a similar bill this month, while Washington, DC, announced a study on climate impacts and potential compensation. In Maine, a superfund bill advanced from committee to a full Senate vote on Wednesday.

New York and Vermont have already passed climate superfund laws, modeled after the 1980 Superfund act that requires polluters to clean up toxic sites. Public support is strong, with 71% of likely voters favoring oil and gas companies contributing to climate damages, according to Data for Progress and Fossil Free Media.

However, the measures face resistance. The Trump administration and fossil fuel industry have launched legal challenges against the New York and Vermont laws, with the Department of Justice labeling them “burdensome and ideologically motivated.” The American Petroleum Institute lists fighting such legislation among its 2026 priorities, arguing it would “bypass Congress and threaten affordability.”

Gina Ramirez of the Natural Resources Defense Council, whose Chicago home suffered flood damage not covered by insurance, sees the bill as essential: “It only makes sense as our bills get higher and we pay the price for climate change, that polluters, the oil and gas industry, pay their fair share as well.” Cassidy DiPaola of Fossil Free Media described the push as a “David versus Goliath fight” but affirmed advocates' resolve, noting recent disasters like Hurricanes Helene and Milton have heightened public demand for accountability.

In 2025, the US saw 23 billion-dollar weather disasters costing $115 billion, contributing to over $3.1 trillion in damages since 1980.

Связанные статьи

U.S. Supreme Court building with ExxonMobil and Suncor lawyers entering amid Boulder climate activists protesting, illustrating the climate damages lawsuit appeal.
Изображение, созданное ИИ

Supreme Court to hear bid by ExxonMobil and Suncor to move Boulder climate-damages case out of state court

Сообщено ИИ Изображение, созданное ИИ Проверено фактами

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that let Boulder and Boulder County pursue state-law tort claims against ExxonMobil and Suncor over alleged climate-change harms, a case with potential implications for similar lawsuits around the country.

Climate risks, exemplified by recent Los Angeles wildfires, are destabilizing real estate markets, straining public budgets, and eroding household wealth. Insurers' retreat from high-risk areas like California, Florida, and the Midwest highlights systemic financial pressures. Meanwhile, investments in clean energy technologies continue to surge, offering pathways to resilience.

Сообщено ИИ

A recent National Bureau of Economic Research report reveals that American families face $400 to $900 in yearly climate-related expenses. These costs stem from extreme weather events impacting insurance, energy, taxes, and health. The study highlights rising burdens, especially in disaster-prone areas.

On February 12, 2026, the Trump administration repealed the Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 Endangerment Finding, which had established greenhouse gases as threats to public health and welfare. President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the move at the White House, describing it as the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. The repeal undermines the legal foundation for numerous federal climate regulations.

Сообщено ИИ

Цены на природный газ сильно колеблются, что делает отопление дороже для домохозяйств, поскольку реформа закона об отоплении застопорилась. Федеральный министр экономики Катарина Райхе пропустила январский дедлайн по ключевым пунктам, усиливая неопределённость. Эксперты призывают к более активному продвижению тепловых насосов как более дешёвой альтернативы.

A new report by climate scientists and financial experts cautions that the world has underestimated the pace of global warming, potentially leading to trillions in economic losses by 2050. Governments and businesses are urged to prepare for worst-case scenarios amid accelerating temperature rises. Recent data shows 2025 as the third-warmest year on record, pushing closer to breaching the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold sooner than anticipated.

Сообщено ИИ Проверено фактами

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a closely watched dispute over whether federal law blocks state-court claims seeking damages from oil and gas companies for climate-change-related harms. The justices also directed the parties to address whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision at this stage of the litigation.

 

 

 

Этот сайт использует куки

Мы используем куки для анализа, чтобы улучшить наш сайт. Прочитайте нашу политику конфиденциальности для дополнительной информации.
Отклонить