Vermont v. Oil Companies

The local government was given until January 2026 to assess the costs related to greenhouse gases emitted between 1995 and 2024, including impacts on public health, biodiversity and economic development. the law (Climate Superfund Act) It was voted on by both chambersWhich has a Democratic majority, but support from a few Republican elected officials. And it was Approved by Governor Phil ScottHe is a Republican, although legally he could have vetoed it.

Vermont Inspired by federal law Which, in 1980, forced companies responsible for contaminating thousands of sites with toxic products to pay the costs of repairing the damage, regardless of whether the contamination was intentional or not. But its application to damage caused by climate change is the first of its kind in the United States, and has few parallels elsewhere in the world. In the Netherlands in 2021, a court ruled that Shell was obligated to increase its efforts to reduce its greenhouse gases, under commitments made by the government in the context of the Paris Agreement since 2015.

To be “covered” by Vermont law, businesses must have emitted at least 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases during the period 1995-2024, and have a physical or economic connection to Vermont. To calculate each person's share of responsibility, state officials will have at their disposal mathematical methods that did not exist in 1980 and that make it possible to determine with increasing precision the share of responsibility of man and nature, in the event of extreme weather. Like a flood.

The money won't be very large given the accumulated damage: last year, flooding alone caused a bill of more than $1 billion in Vermont.

Clearly, the companies involved risk challenging the law in court. Last March, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil lobby group in the United States, announced this message She sent to elected officials her opposition to the law that, in their view, “holds corporations accountable for actions taken by society as a whole.” On the contrary, this is exactly the argument used by those who welcomed the adoption of this law: without it, “the costs of climate change will fall entirely on taxpayers.” He lamented Lauren Hurt, director of Conservation Voters of Vermont.