Advocates are asking Maryland lawmakers to establish a superfund to help hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the costs of climate change.

Both houses of the General Assembly are debating the "Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather Act." It would establish a Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Fund, targeting the 40 largest companies extracting or refining gas and oil with a fee totaling $9 billion over 10 years.

Sen. Katie Fry Hester, D-Howard, citing the expense of infrastructure upgrades, said the state needs help paying these costs.

"Unfortunately, it has become the responsibility of the Maryland taxpayer to foot the bill for the costs of climate mitigation, adaptation and recovery measures," Hester pointed out. "Not anymore. It's time to ensure that the polluters pay."

The bill would enable the Department of the Environment to use the fund for stormwater and sewer system improvements, bridges and rail infrastructure, flood recovery, clean energy projects and more. In a recent Senate committee hearing, some lawmakers expressed concern about the targeted businesses passing the cost on to consumers.

The Center for Climate Integrity estimated by 2040, Maryland will have to spend more than $27 billion to protect against the possibility of moderate sea-level rise.

Jamie DeMarco, Maryland director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said climate change mitigation is already costing the state hundreds of millions.

"Howard County is spending $228 million to bore an 18-foot diameter drainage tunnel through granite bedrock to prevent flooding," DeMarco noted. "It's the biggest capital expenditure in the history of the county. Annapolis is spending $50 million renovating their dock from nuisance flooding. The same thing is happening everywhere across the state."

Recent polling by Data for Progress found 73% of likely voters support assessing a fee on big oil and gas companies to pay part of the cost of climate change mitigation. Either version of the measure needs to pass one chamber by March 18 in order to have a future in the current session.

Washington D.C. residents are pushing back on a plan to build out existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Washington Gas' $12 billion Project Pipes plan called for upgrading existing infrastructure throughout the nation's capital despite the district's 2045 carbon neutrality goals. Environmentalists worry this will waste ratepayer's money and not address ongoing gas leaks.

Naomi Cohen-Shields, D.C. campaign manager for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said what Washington Gas is doing follows a wider national trend.

"We are seeing things like accelerated pipe replacement programs, that's what Project Pipes is," Cohen-Shields explained. "There are examples of that popping up across the country. Again, it's part of a playbook. Things like building out new gas plants like Dominion is trying to do or new pipelines, again part of the playbook."

Virginia's Dominion Energy is moving forward with a natural gas plant in Chesterfield despite residents' objections and state climate goals. In a statement, Washington Gas said it supports the District's climate goals and believes residents will be best served by a fuel-neutral approach to decarbonization. The company is pledging to help D.C. policymakers achieve the 2030 climate goals.

Washington Gas' parent company, Alta Gas, faced similar community resistance.

Cheryl Maloney, member of the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia and other residents pushed back when the company applied to build up its methane gas infrastructure without much notice. She said Washington Gas' aged company charter should not be considered untouchable.

"They have a 1800-and-something charter that giving them rights to sell oil and gas in perpetuity, so everyone thinks they have this everlasting right," Maloney emphasized. "But it doesn't consider, do the people that hold the money have to spend it on the oil and gas infrastructure?"

The public certainly should not have to, Maloney argued, and she feels ratepayers should have more say in what utility companies invest in. She contended Washington Gas' plan is not a great deal for ratepayers who lose out on alternative clean energy options. New methane gas pipes usually last 40 to 45 years, but she added they will have shortened life spans due to the district's climate goals.

A federal court judge in Montana blocked a large project which would have logged or clear-cut more than 10,000 acres of old-growth forest and threatened an iconic bird nesting in the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

In addition to logging 16 square miles, the project would have bulldozed 40 miles of new logging roads into the Little Belt Mountains.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the decision also protects the Northern Goshawk, an old-growth-dependent species which has declined 47% in the last few years. He pointed out the bird has been under constant threat of clear-cut, which Garrity noted allows competitor species to drive it out.

"Even though they're a fairly big bird, they can fly through very tiny openings by pulling their wings in, and they can make very sharp turns," Garrity explained. "If you accidentally come close to a goshawk nest, they are very protective of their nest and they will attack people with their talons and poke out their eyes."

Garrity emphasized the U.S. Forest Service is required by its own rules to tell the public if the goshawk population declines by 10%, and did not. The Forest Service contended the Horsefly project, as it is known, would not affect the goshawk population but its own numbers showed the drastic decline in nesting sites and population.

It is one in a series of lawsuits filed by a coalition of environmental advocates, including the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, to protect species habitat. Garrity stressed the Horsefly ruling is important for the goshawk but the threats do not stop there.

"It's also important for other mature and old growth forest-dependent species, such as pine martin, lynx and forest birds," Garrity outlined. "Which are all in decline."

The court dismissed other parts of the case, including claims roads would interfere with grizzly bear habitat and threaten the elk population.

Conservation groups are circulating a petition asking the feds to give "America the Beautiful National Parks and Recreation Lands" passes to new citizens at their naturalization ceremony. Members of the group GreenLatinos have met with multiple federal agencies to pitch the idea.

Louis Medina, communications and philanthropy director with the nonprofit Friends of the Inyo, said it would make a great "Welcome to America" gift.

"It would be a great way of giving them the best that America has to offer. It could instill greater patriotism and pride, and it could create new allies in the environmental movement," Medina contended.

The pass normally costs $80 per year and gets one car with up to four adults into all national parks and monuments. Last year, more than 878,000 people became U.S. citizens.

The group also wants to start holding naturalization ceremonies at sites on public lands. And they'd like to reverse the trend of national parks going "cashless," as they have at Yosemite and Death Valley.

Medina added parks may save money by requiring everyone to pay by card, but it risks turning people away who don't have credit cards or mobile payment apps.

"For communities of color and immigrant communities that already are having issues in accessing our national parks, because of costs, because of distance, or because of lack of familiarity, then cashless entry creates yet another barrier," he continued.

The petition currently sports more than 900 signatures and is available on the GreenLatinos website.


get more stories like this via email