What if they had to pay?
What if polluters had to pay for the effects of climate change?
Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.
This year, the Rhode Island General Assembly considered a type of bill that’s been popping up across the country: it aims to make fossil fuel emitters pay for the impacts of climate change.
Rhode Island didn’t end up passing the legislation this year, but Nat Hardy from our Possibly Team spoke with one of the bill’s sponsors about what comes next in Rhode Island.
Nat Hardy: Hi, Megan! Thanks for having me.
I guess PBS is able to operate without all that federal money
Nat Hardy: Yeah, it’s called a climate super fund bill. It’s a pretty new idea to address the impacts of climate change.
Jennifer Boylan: The concept is to make the polluters pay for the damages that they caused.
Nat Hardy: That’s Representative Jennifer Boylan, the lead sponsor in the House, for the Rhode Island Climate Superfund Act of 2026. She’s introduced this bill two years in a row with her colleague, Senator Linda Ujifusa,
Has anyone asked if Jen and Linda still use fossil fuels themselves?
Megan: Who would pay these costs?
In reality, that would be you, Megan. In Reality Land companies will pass those costs on. Or, just stop operating in the state.
Nat Hardy: The bill specifically targets the biggest polluters: companies responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions. So we’re talking companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, B.P., Shell. And the companies would be charged proportionally, based on their emissions over the past few decades.
Megan Hall: Interesting! I didn’t realize states could do something like that.
Yeah, they really can’t, per multiple losses in federal court and multiple lawsuits
Nat Hardy: So climate superfund bills are trying to do the same thing. If you caused the damage, you pay to fix it. And the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel companies are causing the more powerful storms, heatwaves, and other impacts we’re seeing from climate change.
This BS. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that the products of these companies have a massive role in the (minor) temperature increase of the world, that are causing all sorts of Bad Weather: they aren’t doing it in a vacuum, there are people who use those products. Why don’t we make them pay? Why don’t we stick it to the citizens of Rhode Island? That’s where all this breaks down, all these people wanting Something Done, wanting That Guy taxed, but, refusing to pay themselves and refusing to stop doing the things and using the products they say is setting the world on fire.
Yeah!! Like the tobacco companies that used Joe Camel to sell tobacco to kids in the late 80s
Teach were Camels your fav? Or Marlboroughs?
The people who financially profited from pollution should pay.
AS for the “minor” temp increase??? “Minor” temp increase of 6 C. over the last 20,000 years (max glacial) ended the Ice age an average of 0.0003 degrees per year. During Porters lifespan that temp avg increase per year has been .02 roughly 100 times faster.
Climate change is only a theory! Porter in science a theory is THE best possible explanation for the observations and data analyzed.
ya got a better explanation then CO2?
“The people who financially profited from pollution should pay.”
You’ve been told this before but I will try again.
Taxes and fees, instituted by the government are considered “costs” and are just added to the price of goods and services.
Guess who pays for all or part of these?
The consumer. That’s me and you.
James,
That is partly true. A portion of the cost falls on the investors as well.
When we significantly increased the taxes on tobacco, its use declined. That’s how markets work. Eventually the lung cancer rate will decline as well. The pleasure derived from tobacco use was accompanied by what the economists call “negative externalities” – cancers, respiratory diseases, heart disease and even problems from second hand smoke for non-smokers!
So yes, increasing the taxes on fossil fuels and subsidizing alternatives is the smart move. Trump will be gone no later than Jan 2029 (sooner would be better, thank the “gods”) and we can return to normal order.
Americans aren’t as stupid as Donny believes (The Arrogance of Ignorance!). They see the wildfires, floods, heat domes, tornadoes, hurricanes, sea level rise, fresh water depletion, oil wars (see Venezuela, Iran), energy costs and environmental decline.
You inadvertently show what the Left wants.
A decreased use of oil.
The problem is that reducing tobacco use was totally positive.
Increasing the price of gas fuels inflation that increases the price of almost everything. That’s a negative.
And the rest of your blather is just blather.
Keep on suckin’!
What?
Can’t get her to do it anymore?
Well, then again, nobody could blame her.
Sure, Johnny-want me to link the numerous peer-reviewed papers that I’ve posted here many times before?
And again, DO events had much higher rates of change than now
Once again, the only “solution” to climate change is wealth transfer. Funny how that works.
The perfesser ignores the wealth transfer taking place today. Qatar gave Donny an airplane. The trump boyz are making MILLIONS of taxpayer $$$ investing in defense contractors. tRumpInc has made over $2 BILLION in the past year and a half.
Financed by taxpayer debt and tax cuts for the wealthy! There’s a reason why 80% of BILLIONAIRE political donations are going to the Repubicunts this cycle!!
All because the MAGA movement hates non-white, non-christian, non-male, non-straight humans.
King Donny is serving the BILLIONAIRES at YOUR expense. Let’s hope a white, christian plutocracy is worth it!!
“All because the MAGA movement hates non-white, non-christian, non-male, non-straight humans”
Not true. But in your case we can make an exception.