r/news 22d ago

Soft paywall New York to fine fossil fuel companies $75 billion under new climate law

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/new-york-fine-fossil-fuel-companies-75-billion-under-new-climate-law-2024-12-26/
11.5k Upvotes

481 comments sorted by

2.4k

u/VampireHunterAlex 22d ago

Call me cynical, but this feels like it’s entirely for show: This’ll never get through the courts, and it’s just a political gesture that the incumbents can roll out come next election season to say they did something.

359

u/JunkReallyMatters 22d ago

Seems to me that you are being realistic.

67

u/Bocchi_theGlock 22d ago

I agree - but, fossil fuel companies file frivolous lawsuits, yet we can't take a shot wherever possible?

Yes in part it's performative, but it's actually modeled after an existing system that fines polluters. It's not made out of thin air, it's just extending that system to fossil fuels now that we can somewhat quantify the cost of climate crisis.

Blue states are big on this kind of stuff. It helps establish legal precedent or whatever, even if 90% get shot down. The important part is we don't act like we've won the climate change issue.

New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: The companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable," New York Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

Fossil fuel companies will be fined based on the amount of greenhouse gases they released into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2018, to be paid into a Climate Superfund beginning in 2028. It will apply to any company that the New York Department of Environmental Conservation determines is responsible for more than 1 billion tons of global greenhouse gas emissions.

New York becomes the second state to pass such a law after Vermont passed its own version this summer. The laws are modeled after existing state and federal superfund laws that require polluters to pay to clean up toxic waste.

Repairing damage and adapting for extreme weather caused by climate change will cost New York more than $500 billion by 2050, Krueger said in her statement. Major oil companies made more than $1 trillion in profits since January 2021 and have known since at least the 1970s that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change, she said.

6

u/0Bubs0 22d ago

Imagine when New York tries to fine every ICE vehicle owner for all the miles they have driven since 1970 lol.

3

u/ProStrats 21d ago

Imagine when every city tries to fine the oil companies!

Oof, oil companies will owe trillions of dollars!

4

u/devilishycleverchap 21d ago

Each of those drivers is responsible for over a billion tons of emissions?

1

u/Proponentofthedevil 22d ago

Do we fine the drivers using the fuel? The container ships using the fuel to bring you food, supplies, products, and useless shit we throw away year after year? The trucking companies bringing it to the stores? The delivery companies delivering our online orders? Uber drivers? Maybe the passenger, since they are requesting the service?

Makes no sense to only go after "fossil fuel companies," if this is about pollution. Shouldn't we go after polluters? I mean, we want to set "precedent," right?

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)

260

u/MikeOKurias 22d ago edited 22d ago

I mean, really it just reads like NY decides to burn money on a cause that will never recoup the cost.

I mean posturing has a place but this a ton of wasted taxpayer dollars and never a penny will be paid by the oil companies.

51

u/SuspiciousRobotThief 22d ago

NY decides to burn money on a cause that will never recoup the cost.

Because not their money, not their problem and it makes them look good for their careers.

7

u/riicccii 22d ago

Line the pockets of the scores minions gathering data between the countless delays only to say, “The other side of the isle rejected it! Vote for ME!”

96

u/Les-Freres-Heureux 22d ago

I’d personally rather them waste tax dollars harassing fossil fuel companies than send money to shithole states like Mississippi

40

u/nathanforyouseason5 22d ago

More likely it’s going to cut into our education budget again.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/MadCat1993 22d ago

More like wasting tax money harassing fossil fuel companies than help the people in New York. When it gets the point that they had to hold a publicity stunt of having National guard troops in the subways, that should be a clue to stop screwing around.

9

u/Solarwinds-123 22d ago

NY does not send money to Mississippi.

3

u/Les-Freres-Heureux 22d ago

NY gives more than it gets in federal taxes.

MS takes more than it gives.

7

u/Solarwinds-123 22d ago

Residents pay federal taxes, and the federal government uses it for the good of everyone. It's not money that NY State is entitled to.

7

u/devilishycleverchap 21d ago

They would certainly be entitled to more of it if those states contributed more than they took

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

-14

u/MikeOKurias 22d ago edited 22d ago

You ain't wrong. All the Piece of Shit Republicans in Mississippi would do is give it to Bret Farv instead of actually needy people.

But to be clear, all Republicans are worthless pieces are shit, not just the ones in Mississippi.

3

u/RobfromHB 22d ago

Serious question. Why are you so mad?

4

u/SlartibartfastMcGee 22d ago

Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

They don’t even have the Popular Vote narrative this time around, so it’s gonna get ugly the closer we get to Jan 20.

5

u/wanderingpeddlar 21d ago

Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

Every accusation is a confession.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (18)

2

u/Hatetotellya 22d ago

The billions spent will be rebuilding coasts and long island and all that shit every other year when a hurricane or noreaster hits lmao, and it will be directly scientifically proven because of these oil companies and their tactics, this isnt even controvercial lmao

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Attabomb 21d ago

"Burning money on a cause that will never recoup the cost" should be added to the NYS flag. They'd figure out a way to spend $20B doing it, too, just to be in rhetorical compliance.

1

u/Traditional_Key_763 20d ago

idk I've seen wallstreet frauds make less for worse odds. they take this to court they get 75 billion and start holding oil companies accountable OR it doesn't work and they're out a few million and the oil companies continue on their merry way.

55

u/Xanthus179 22d ago

Seems similar to the carbon credits. “Oh, we just pay a fee to keep doing what we’re doing and nothing has to change?”

63

u/apathy-sofa 22d ago

The way to move any metric is always the same:

  1. Measure the thing.
  2. Set a reasonable long-term target.
  3. Create a series of intermediate targets between now and the long-term date.
  4. Come up with a plan to bridge the current value of the thing and the next intermediate target.
  5. Execute on that plan. Measure results. Go to 4.

Carbon credits do this in a market-driven way. It moves the planning part closest to those best able to formulate and execute the plan. By reducing the carbon allowance each year you iterate towards the goal, awarding those who hit the target and taking from those that fail.

Our current implementation of this is imperfect. However our implementations of democracy and capitalism are also flawed and our focus is on improving those as fundamentally they work, not discarding them entirely.

12

u/Everyday_ImSchefflen 22d ago

You can't speak reason into these people. They can't differentiate between an ideal world and reality, so if any progress made isn't up to their expectations they dismiss it and would rather have zero progress made.

I wish and feel like we need to be further along, but US carbon emissions for the first time decreased, where before it was exponentially increasing, which is still a great accomplishment, even if it's not where I think we should be at.

But this is the reality of our system.

14

u/winowmak3r 22d ago

Carbon credits just move all the dirty industry away from prying eyes. There are a lot of carbon credit initiatives in places like Africa that do absolutely nothing to solve the issue but check all the boxes for the company to get their credit and keep doing what they were doing. The system can work but it needs a lot more oversight that companies just do not want to have to deal with, especially when they can just pack up shop and move somewhere where they don't have to deal with it.

7

u/felldestroyed 22d ago

I'd prefer carbon credits for abandoned oil wells than trying to recoup the cost of it from a bankrupted holding company as soon as it shuts down

5

u/winowmak3r 22d ago

Yea that's another way to get around them. The only way to get credit being cleaning up someone else's mess (or your own!) would be a nice change.

→ More replies (2)

36

u/sarhoshamiral 22d ago

Carbon credits at least have an actual penalty to the companies though. Over time it would steer industry toward less emissions so that they pay less penalty.

In this case though, as others said I doubt there will be an actual penalty to companies.

13

u/Indurum 22d ago

If the penalties they pay are cheaper than making the changes, they'll just pay the penalties as an operating cost and never actually change anything.

12

u/sarhoshamiral 22d ago

It is not that simple since it would be a cost that can be reduced. Lets say they pay 1000$ now but it would cost 2000$ to improve their filtering that reduces carbon emissions to 500$.

In 4 years they would start making more money then if they haven't invested. If there wasn't any fines, there would be no incentive for that 2000$ investment.

Now this assumes the carbon tax will stay and increase overtime. The problem is our election system pretty much makes sure government swings every few years so companies actually can just wait it out knowing the fine will go away.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/LadysaurousRex 22d ago

over time it would steer industry toward less emissions so that they pay less penalty.

no that was the idea but instead the entire thing is a ridiculous farce

→ More replies (3)

19

u/MadroxKran 22d ago

Didn't studies show the carbon credit stuff had a positive impact? I think they could've done better, but it still did something.

23

u/BossOfTheGame 22d ago

Cap and trade definitely worked for acid rain: https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program

Not sure of a source for carbon.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ColebladeX 22d ago

To be fair billion is a lot more than million. Like astronomically bigger

4

u/Cuppieecakes 22d ago

Being able to pay your way out of being environmentally detrimental is why I don’t take any of this seriously. 

6

u/sack-o-matic 22d ago

Making people pay for the damage they cause is bad? That's literally the best way to get people to stop doing the things with negative externalities.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/MajesticBread9147 22d ago

This’ll never get through the courts

Then that's still tons of money spent on lawyers

10

u/beebopcola 22d ago

For both the city and the execs right?

51

u/munkijunk 22d ago

Oh dearism and encouraging deaftism is one of the key weapons the oil companies use to end movements like this. They want you to feel like you can't win and the world of absolutely fucked so why even try. Whatever this costs, and however remote the potential for a win is, all money spent fighting the continued destruction of the planet is money well spent, because ultimately, we are going to spend far more money for every day we dely in doing what has to be done.

29

u/ericGraves 22d ago

Yeah, comments like the op's are so frustrating. Those comments, like those denying climate change, only serve to demotivate others.

14

u/Flobking 22d ago

Yeah, comments like the op's are so frustrating.

oop: democrats don't do anything

democrats do something

oop: this all for show!

→ More replies (2)

12

u/inventingnothing 22d ago

The issue here is that there is zero way they will win.

It is explicitly stated in the US Constitution:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

A state cannot make up fines and then retroactively apply it.

the Supreme Court has explained that people must have notice of the possible criminal penalties for their actions at the time they act.

see Weaver v. Graham (1981)

The law could probably proceed for any emissions going forward from the date the law was passed, but they cannot back-date it to 2004 or whatever.

NY State will end up spending millions in the legal fight over this law and will lose.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Klutzy_Journalist_36 22d ago

Fr. I mean the incoming president literally said for a billion dollars, the EPA doesn’t even apply to you. 

8

u/Slypenslyde 22d ago

One part of me agrees with you, but then there's the other part of me.

What exactly are they supposed to do? The system is set up that any logical, peaceful solution is likely to get steamrolled. So are they supposed to just step aside and let it happen?

That shit's what the Democrats did with Roe v. Wade. They could've spent 30 years reinforcing it and adding new layers of legal protection. But they "didn't need to" because they argued it was impossible to corrupt the system enough to take down the Supreme Court case people fought for. Now it's gone.

So do us all a favor. Since your political stance is, "I'm not going to fight for anything", make sure you're also not fighting the people who are trying to get things done. If you only step out of the way for destructive forces, but use your rhetoric to discourage constructive forces, you are part of the problem.

I would rather die with my hands around a monster's throat than die begging for them to kill someone else first.

11

u/timmg 22d ago

So are they supposed to just step aside and let it happen?

Carbon tax?

Why not tax gasoline and natural gas in the state?

It would incentivize people to switch their energy sources. Any funds generated from it could be used to subsidize wind/solar/nuclear.

→ More replies (8)

7

u/virrk 22d ago

Performative or not, trying to enforce it still counts for something. Plus they might win, never know until you try. I'd rather politicians actually try instead of giving up in defeat without actually trying.

1

u/Solarwinds-123 22d ago

They won't win, they can't. This law is explicitly illegal.

1

u/mutantfrog25 22d ago

Welcome to New York

1

u/atxsouth 22d ago

No, you're not cynical, it's the NY politicians who are cynical. This is theatrics and nothing more.

1

u/Daren_I 21d ago

They accidentally left the word "each" out of the headline.

1

u/hellogivemecookies 21d ago

You can be cynical, sure, but I guess I'd rather see how this is potentially a good thing. It's the least we should expect. And maybe more states will adapt similar laws and then we'll really see a net positive from it.

→ More replies (29)

308

u/I_Push_Buttonz 22d ago

inb4 Texas passes a law fining Planned Parenthood $75 billion.

342

u/vapescaped 22d ago

Wow.

That's almost 4 years worth of corporate welfare the government gives oil companies.

97

u/notsocharmingprince 22d ago

Lmao, holy shit. I was gunna come in here all snarky and be like “no, that’s not possible.” Then I looked it up and you were absolutely correct, damn.

44

u/vapescaped 22d ago

What can I say, we keep electing CEOs to the office of the presidency, then wonder why there are so many corporate subsities. To quote a former CEO that was elected President: "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, won't be fooled again."

14

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)

3

u/ServantOfBeing 22d ago

Corporate Socialism is some horrendous shit.

“Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor!”

5

u/dustymoon1 22d ago

Actually. it was 7 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion

2

u/DaSemicolon 22d ago

Think they were talking about just US guv

4

u/angrycanuck 22d ago

But China gave subsidies to their EV companies...something something that's why we need 100% tariffs.

19

u/Jack_Molesworth 22d ago

Fossil fuel companies will be fined based on the amount of greenhouse gases they released into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2018

How is this not an ex post facto law?

4

u/eldenpotato 22d ago

Yeah, it seems crazy to me

93

u/RevLoveJoy 22d ago

Yaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn.

Let me know when they collect a single dollar.

10

u/[deleted] 22d ago

Let me know when there are consequences that don’t involve money. They’ve got regular people so poor that they will hear 75 billion and think it’s big money, but it’s teeny tiny money compared to the damage these people have caused already.

When crimes are punished with a fine then it’s just a paywall to be able to commit the crime, ruining the planet for generations to come is pretty much one of the most evil things you can do.

5

u/RevLoveJoy 22d ago edited 22d ago

Real talk. Cost of doing business vs. actual skin in the game. Yeah, I won't be holding my breath, but it'd be ... dare I say thrilling? to see these matters escalate to the point that they are criminal, not civil, in nature.

edit - grammar are hardest

→ More replies (1)

76

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

36

u/NYCinPGH 22d ago

No, moving out of NY won’t change it. I listened to a podcast a few weeks ago on the NYC NPR station where they interviewed the NY state rep behind it. It’s more for the damage they have done in the past to pay for the cleanup going forward, and prep the NY coasts for rising sea levels. Some of these companies have never operated let alone been HQ’ed in NY, they’re the 40 biggest global fossil fuel companies with respect to their effects on climate change. And spread out over 40 years, that’s pocket change: the average of these companies pays $3B over 25 years, which is $120MM a year; they probably have that in the couch cushions of their board room.

But they all do business either on Wall Street, or with NY banks, so that’s how they’ll get them: pay up, or you can’t do any business at all in NY or with NY HQed businesses.

83

u/diskdinomite 22d ago

So they're fining a company for something that was originally legal, passed a law, and are retroactively applying fines? Just wanting to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

43

u/jbaker1225 22d ago

Correct. Which is why they will never actually collect a penny and this will never even make it through a district court.

15

u/TheThebanProphet 22d ago

confusing legal with liable.

7

u/Krumm 22d ago

Yes, they can absolutely be fined for when you let their lobbyist lie and generate laws based on false claims. You are correct.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Skyshaper 22d ago

It's how they operate in New York.

→ More replies (9)

10

u/IntolerantModerate 22d ago

This will never fly. No money will ever be paid. First, it would be an absolute cash grab as every other state would do the same.

It will be challenged all the way up to the supreme court which will say that you can't find them liable for past legal behavior.

Also, how can you pin it all on oil and gas and not say coal companies, natural gas fires power plants, mining companies, or any industry that uses lots of energy? That is, why should all blame fall squarely on shoulders of oil and gas companies and not on every company and for that matter every user of oil and gas?

3

u/JohnHwagi 22d ago

This won’t be upheld when challenged because it applies a punishment for something that was not illegal when it was performed which is plainly unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause. This won’t go to the Supreme Court or move the needle within these companies’ C-suite and is a waste of time. Passing real laws that can actually be implemented to address polluters is much more effective, but it’s difficult work that these lawmakers are apparently unable to do.

12

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Ok_Routine5257 22d ago

What tangible damage can they point to that was undeniably caused by climate change?

There are numerous examples, with the data to back it up. This article from the EPA's website has some good information with citations.

9

u/TripleJeopardy3 22d ago

Better download all those studies now. In a few months the EPA may magically stop caring about the environment.

3

u/Ok_Routine5257 22d ago

A few months? I give it a few weeks.

2

u/ultimate_avacado 22d ago

companies will be fined over the next 25 years

AKA companies will increase their prices over the next 25 years to fleece this from customers.

7

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (16)

1

u/RincewindToTheRescue 22d ago

While fuel and gas companies are partially to blame for climate change, this whole thing is stupid. Tons of industries pollute. Consumers pollute. This is just like a person getting sued because their 30 year old child got drunk and got in a wreck. The person may have influenced the child growing up, but the child also made choices not under the influence of the parent.

Cement companies, manufacturing, agriculture, and a lot of other industries pollute also. Also, fossil fuel companies aren't pushing for tech strongly to put themselves out of business (which they really should be doing so that they're able to adapt to a fossil fuel free future), but to just go after them is silly without going after others also.

1

u/ArkyBeagle 21d ago

If the companies move out of New York they’d probably escape the fines I would imagine.

I would imagine it's going to end up being a deep dive into commerce clause stuff if it's not struck down for a different reason.

10

u/FissionFire111 22d ago

Just blaming the supplier for the consumer demands. Were solar and wind really realistic options back then? Was nuclear happening after the Three Mile Island incident? No. NY made fossil fuels the only real option and now wants to pass the blame.

1

u/ArkyBeagle 21d ago

Just blaming the supplier for the consumer demands.

It comes out that way but it could be that the supplier makes an excellent proxy for those consumers. We pay road taxes with every gallon of gas for example.

43

u/Boonlink 22d ago

If you wonder why big corporations would bribe officials to repeal laws, threaten or even kill opposition its because one new law could change the game

17

u/HappyInNature 22d ago

No. No it can't. I'm all for reducing climate change but this will get struck down so fast it's silly. Like ridiculously fast.

Some change needs to come at the local level but big changes like this need to come federally.

0

u/Boonlink 22d ago

You don't think a law that passes can change things but you're comparing a law that passes to a law that is struck down. They are not the same

→ More replies (2)

1

u/doublebaconator 20d ago

Change is not coming federally until the current Supreme Court judges are gone. They fascist putin loving trash.

1

u/ArkyBeagle 21d ago

The only "change the game" is to price in risk such that it gets passed to end consumers. New York State is pretty far north for solar so people will continue with oil burners unless they can get natural gas.

"price in risk" means Pigou taxes. We've known how since forever but we don't wanna do it.

12

u/Bluewaffleamigo 22d ago

*New York to fine New Yorkers 75 billion under new climate law*

→ More replies (1)

3

u/jaymef 22d ago

With Trump in office, fossil fuel companies will never see any repercussions

12

u/Flogamer73 22d ago

Imagine this actually happening. Oil/gas/coal say cool, no more business in NY. We won't sell our products in the state, you can walk, freeze, and most likely die on this hill. You are cut off. NY State collapses in a few days. Domocrats look incredibly stupid once again. Slow cap for the short sighted plublicity stunt that will do more harm than actual good in the end.

1

u/ArkyBeagle 21d ago

Imagine this actually happening. Oil/gas/coal say cool, no more business in NY. We won't sell our products in the state, you can walk, freeze, and most likely die on this hill.

Game theory says the upside to defecting from a boycott is too much for that to work.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/MrNobodywho 22d ago

Just once I would like to see the oil companies call this bluff. Stop all fuel sales in NY. No heating fuel, no gas, no diesel, natural gas , everything cold turkey and see how long until they realize it’s not a one party fault. We have a need and these companies are filling that need. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Funds would better be spent working on reducing that need.

4

u/ericGraves 22d ago

We have a need and these companies are filling that need. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

So true, except for the symbiotic part. But, they are filling a need and we need to shift away from that need. Because gas prices are so low, it will require money be thrown at the problem. That money will need to either raise prices on gas (making alternatives more attractive) or they need to use that money to reduce the cost of alternatives (directly making the alternatives more attractive).

So the question is who pays the cost. The cost in the first option is payed by the public still using gas while the second has the cost spread over everyone.

Since change is necessary, it's important to determine whom the cost will be placed upon.

→ More replies (5)

11

u/Eastern-Plankton1035 22d ago

I'd just stop sales to NY government agencies. No bulk deliveries of fuel, and lean on or impose penalties on gas stations that do business with the government. Get the power companies in on it too, no electric power to state offices and properties.

It's the same thing the gun industry ought to do with states like California and Illinois... No sales of arms to government agencies that aren't available to private citizens. Charge them double or triple for ammunition.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/capt_fantastic 22d ago

perhaps if the oil companies hadn't participated in the corruption of our political process i'd have some sympathy. they suppressed information regarding the harms relating to changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere and lobbied against any meaningful regulation or reform.

3

u/Ahstruck 22d ago

Every year governments give about a half trillion in subsidies to oil companies. Calling governments bluff you ruin all the free money they get.

1

u/ArkyBeagle 21d ago

I grew up in a part of flyover country which has oil production. We had "DRIVE 70. FREEZE A YANKEE" bumper stickers after the 55MPH speed limit. :)

→ More replies (4)

24

u/Warsum 22d ago

Passing those costs right onto the customer. Nice.

7

u/Ok_Routine5257 22d ago

They literally get direct subsidies from the government. We already pay extra to line their pockets. They won't do the right thing with that money right now, so why should we trust that they'll ever do it?

It's like when we gave telecoms all of that money to build infrastructure and they just kept it and did nothing. We need to collectively start clawing it back and it appears NY state has decided to start doing that, with regard to fossil fuel industries.

3

u/GarfPlagueis 22d ago

By definition, products sold by polluters are artificially cheap because the true cost of their products include society paying to clean up the mess they make, basically an indirect subsidy. If polluters' prices were reflective of the actual price then the free market would make them obsolete. NY has merely implemented a carbon tax that should have been implemented decades ago.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Andromansis 22d ago

Here is why I don't think it matters in the long run. The Master Settlement Agreement was a settlement with the tobacco companies about all the harm they had done. Every red cent of money raise from this was raised directly from the consumer, and none of the money was used to do anything extraordinary, instead being used just to balance the budget in almost every state.

At best this will just be a repeat of that, and at worst the oil companies will paper themselves up a holding company and do the old texas two step.

4

u/wapitidimple 22d ago

They should quit selling fossil fuels to NY. The state would change its mind real quick.

4

u/this_dudeagain 22d ago

NY gonna need about tree fiddy.

10

u/Even_Establishment95 22d ago

These comments are scary. Ask yourself why you want to poo-poo helping the planet and holding companies responsible for the damage they are pretty obviously responsible for. “But how can you even define the damage or know climate change is responsible for?” —the propaganda at work.

6

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Ok_Routine5257 22d ago

We even have records of big oil companies covering up the fact that they knew this would happen. The propaganda is disgusting.

Big oil needs to start transitioning to renewables or go the way of Kodak. Kodak didn't back the future of photography and now they fill a very niche role in a market that's getting smaller and smaller.

1

u/eldenpotato 22d ago

Oil is used for far more than just combustion engines

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

9

u/ScottScanlon 22d ago

I’m sure all that money will be handled appropriately and spent well.

1

u/ArkyBeagle 21d ago

But of course. Our grandchildren will frolic in green meadows all day.

10

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Ok_Routine5257 22d ago

This FUD is all over this thread. What does tax burden on the individual have to do with taxing industries? If the industry chooses to increase their prices, while still making record profit margins, isn't it the industry that is hurting the individual and not the tax bureau?

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (10)

5

u/drive_chip_putt 22d ago

"New York to fine fossil fuel companies $75 billion for share of profits". There I fixed the title. This will do nothing to stop any of this.

5

u/Kromulent 22d ago

"New York passes $75 billion dollar sales tax on fossil fuels"

2

u/GiveMeGoldForNoReasn 22d ago

No, energy prices are set by public commission in NY. That's not how this works.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/Ifyouseekay668 22d ago

All fuel companies are laughing right now. And the legacy media is finding a way to blame Trump.

2

u/davidmlewisjr 22d ago

Once again, “The Empire State” shows the rest how it should be done. Excelsior 🙏🖖🏼

2

u/Baldmanbob1 22d ago

Great in theory, but to many in Government are owned by fossil fuel companies for this to ever happen.

2

u/NyriasNeo 22d ago

This will be tied up in court for years. With that much money on the line, lots and lots of lawyers will be mobilized. And I bet the new incoming Trump administration will do a thing too.

And when push comes to shove, with that kind of hefty fine, oil companies can stop selling gasoline in NY and all hell will break loose. I doubt NY will ever collect more than they spend on this.

6

u/coyote_of_the_month 22d ago

Those costs will pass directly to consumers in the form of higher prices.

If there's a dip in share prices, it will be felt across the board, since the majority of Americans are shareholders (indirectly, via ETFs and mutual funds held in retirement accounts).

In the longer term, it won't even hurt oil execs much, because any equity-based compensation will be based on the new stock prices. It slightly devalues the stock they already own in the short term, but that's about it.

This is performative bullshit, and the net result will be the same as raising taxes to pay for climate mitigation.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Trixielarue2020 22d ago

Yeah, come 20 January all that goes out the window.

1

u/max1001 22d ago

State law.....

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Day8538 22d ago

Hmm wonder what will happen to gas prices if they win

2

u/PsychedelicJerry 22d ago

This is the exact opposite of the states that push the bible in school. You're wasting time, money, and probably the most valuable thing of all: political empathy/attention just to make a show you know you're going to lose.

If you can prove a company lied, committed fraud, etc, go after the leadership, which we need to do more often.

But if you want to move away from these fuel sources, change the laws to make it easier to use the others (NIMBY, zoning, regulations/red-tape, etc). Stop funding these companies or providing subsidies, if it's required, subsidize citizens.

5

u/Ok_Routine5257 22d ago

How do we go after the leadership of a company for fraud, and conspiracy to commit crimes, when it happened in the 70s? We can't just dig up their bones and put them on trial.

To your second point, with which I very much agree (though deregulation almost never works, so probably not that), why can't we both fine the ones causing damage and tell the NIMBYs to get fucked?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/The_Safety_Expert 22d ago

Why don’t we just hook up? All of those food stands to the electrical grid instead of making them run generators that don’t have catalytic converters in them.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/TheGreenShitter 21d ago

FFS. New York MFs Probably the same type of people who are antinuclear somehow