New Jersey is considering legislation to impose fees on fossil fuel producers to combat the effects of climate change. This initiative, which has garnered attention due to the state’s extensive network of oil and natural gas facilities, aims to create a "Climate Superfund" similar to the federal fund for toxic waste cleanup.
The measure, advanced recently by the state Senate, proposes to implement unspecified charges on fossil fuel producers, which would be funneled to the state Department of Environmental Protection. The funds collected would support programs aimed at making New Jersey more resilient to severe weather and addressing the pressing issues tied to climate change.
“This is simply a cost recovery tool,” said the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. John McKeon, emphasizing the choice between taxpayers bearing the financial load or polluters taking responsibility. "This is about who pays for the damage: either the taxpayer pays, or the polluter pays," he added.
McKeon estimates the revenue from these fees could total around $25 billion, which would be used to finance grants for homeowners needing to adapt their properties to increasing flood risks or to construct sea walls against harsh weather conditions. His remarks resonate with many community members advocating for the proposal. Molly Cleary from Clean Water Action echoed this sentiment during legislative discussions, stressing, "The regular, everyday people are not the ones who created this crisis."
Yet, not everyone sees the proposed legislation as beneficial. The New Jersey business lobby quickly rallied against the bill. Ray Cantor, representing the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, argued the bill would only serve to inflate costs for consumers without genuinely making progress on mitigating climate change. “There are many things wrong with the bill, beyond the fact it seeks to impose retroactive liability on companies providing legal, necessary, and important products to our citizens,” Cantor stated.
He claimed the legislation was vague and could lead to significant legal hurdles, possibly conflicting with federal regulations. Cantor is not alone in his skepticism. Alex Daniel from the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute warned about the bill's overreach, arguing it unfairly penalizes firms based outside of New Jersey for actions deemed legal at the time. "Right now, fossil fuels, for worse or for good, are responsible for most of the energy being produced in this country," Daniel remarked.
On the other hand, proponents of the bill, like Ed Waters from the Chemistry Council of New Jersey, highlighted the economic importance of the state's two existing oil refineries. These operations support roughly 35,000 jobs and contribute approximately $7 billion annually to the local economy. Opposition to the bill has prompted calls for more rigorous evaluation on the actual costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposal includes plans for New Jersey to evaluate the damages incurred by greenhouse gas emissions traced back to the burning of fossil fuels, beginning in 1995. The comprehensive assessment aims to establish strict liability for responsible companies. Ben Dziobek, executive director of Climate Revolution Action Network, articulated the urgent reality faced by New Jerseyans, noting the widespread disasters like floods and fires affecting various regions of the state. "It’s clear big business doesn’t want to pay for the things they have done," he said.
The legislation is still moving through the state’s political machinery, with matching bills pending in the state Assembly, yet to receive committee hearings. This entire process requires passage through both legislative houses before landing on the desk of Governor Phil Murphy. Current assessments indicate strong support within certain communities for holding fossil fuel producers accountable, yet resistance remains firm from business sectors concerned about economic repercussions.
The public hearings on this bill represent part of a broader national discussion among numerous states, including Vermont—a state recently enacting similar legislation—and others like New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and California, all exploring ways to include fossil fuel companies more actively in funding climate resilience initiatives.
How New Jersey balances the business concerns with environmental responsibilities will be pivotal as advocates push for substantive changes to address climate issues. The result of this proposed legislation will not only impact New Jersey’s environmental policies but could potentially shape similar legislative efforts nationwide.
