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.

A new report highlights steps North Carolina can take as it faces pressing environmental health issues.

The report lays out conclusions from the 9th annual NC BREATHE conference in 2024, which brought together more than 200 people over two days in Durham, including researchers, policymakers and community members.

Emily Wolfe, health manager for the advocacy group CleanAIRE NC, which hosted the event, said one of the report's recommendations is on PFAS contamination, a chemical with major health effects, such as increased cancer risks. Its widespread nature is not well understood.

"The importance of understanding and educating the public, the importance of understanding the research, and then communicating these issues to the public and communities so that they can advocate for themselves," Wolfe urged.

The report said it is important to hold policymakers and regulators accountable and to encourage them to do more to protect public health.

The conference also focused on the effects of extreme heat. Wolfe pointed out it is an issue for everyone but especially vulnerable groups like communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. She noted in winter months, the law prohibits disconnecting someone's utilities even if they cannot pay the bill but it is not the case in increasingly hot summer months.

"It could be extremely hot for days and never cool off at night," Wolfe emphasized. "If a person is unable to pay their power bill, they could still have their power disconnected and then that can become a major safety issue."

Justin Cook, a climate journalist and photographer based in Durham, who spoke at NC BREATHE on a panel about the effects of climate change on mental health, said changing landscapes in North Carolina from extreme weather are making people feel out of place. He added hopelessness in the face of the crisis is a luxury people who are rebuilding from disasters do not have time for.

"Taking action and that feeling of agency is what helps people push through these things," Cook stressed. "It's what makes them feel the most useful and it gives them more of a sense of purpose. And it's actually a really helpful survival tool in the age of climate chaos."

A judge has ruled that elected officials in St. James Parish broke Louisiana's open meetings law by conferring secretly with a Chinese company seeking to build a chemical plant.

The complaint, filed in 2019 by the community group RISE St. James, took five years to work through the courts.

However, on January 6, a state court ruled that parish council and planning commission members met without proper public notice with the Wanhua Chemical Group.

Sharon Lavigne. executive director of RISE St. James, said the meeting shows the level of dishonesty among local leaders.

"St. James is so corrupt until, you know, you have little hope - because we're fighting this other plant, and they voted for it to come in anyway, even though we said no," said Lavigne. "We are loaded. We are full. We can't take anymore. And for the judge to vote in our favor, that was like a miracle."

The chemical plant would have been located along a portion of the Mississippi River known as Cancer Alley.

Statistics show people in the area have a 95% greater chance of developing cancer than the average American.

Lavigne said there are more than 200 heavy industry plants along the corridor, located mostly near low-income communities of color.

She said public officials in St. James and other parishes along the river have a long history of excluding local neighborhoods from the licensing industry process.

"We have to fight so hard to breathe clean air and drink clean water, when our politicians could just tell these industries, 'No. You can't come into St. James because we are full,'" said Lavigne. "But they don't do that. For this Open Meetings Law, I feel that our own Parish Council betrayed us."

Despite being found guilty, parish officials were not fined or sanctioned for their actions - other than having to pay RISE St. James and other plaintiff's attorney's fees.

Lavigne said she was glad but still surprised at the verdict.

"I just thought the judge would rule against us," said Lavigne. "Even though we went to court, and I wasn't expecting a victory. I really wasn't because they do things under cover, and they meet with these industries without our knowledge. It's not the first one, but this is the one we caught."


get more stories like this via email

Illinois plans to spend $1.5 billion through 2027 in significant grid investments to help meet the state's ambitious clean-energy goals, with nearly half of funds going toward addressing environmental disparities.

The Climate and Equity Jobs Act requires at least 40% of state grid investments to benefit underserved and low-income communities.

Brad Klein, managing attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said fulfilling it means first learning more about existing issues.

"That requires new tools to sort of analyze disparities in service. So, do some neighborhoods enjoy better reliability than others? There's new modeling in the plans to try to discover that," he said.

As well as plans to upgrade substations, which include poles and wires, to close any existing gaps - and what Klein calls "full and fair access" for people in all communities to invest in things like rooftop solar, electrification and heat pumps.

The Illinois Commerce Commission rejected initial plans by Ameren and ComEd because they didn't demonstrate how the utility companies would benefit disadvantaged communities or keep monthly costs down for customers. Both companies revised their proposals which now outline both and describe plans for increased reliability, including key upgrades to increase the grid's power demand and make it more resilient to outages. Klein said overall, it means easier access to local clean energy.

"We'll have better options for connecting rooftop solar and community solar to the grid, and if done well, over time that also can help lead to opportunities for energy cost savings for customers and certainly address climate change," Klein continued.

Although officials say increases in monthly bills to customers will vary based on service class and energy usage, the ComEd plan shows an average increase of about $22 per year until 2027, while Ameren estimates an increase of less than $1 per month.


get more stories like this via email