One of the largest cities in the United States, New York City, is taking decisive action to combat climate change. How will it do so? Taking legal action against ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP, the major oil companies not only in North America, but in the entire world.
This is the decision of Bill de Blasio, the Democratic mayor of New York, who represents the opposite perspective to that of former President Donald Trump, at least when it comes to the climate crisis.
De Blasio was direct and forceful when he stated: "Fossil fuel companies knew about the climate impact and intentionally misled the public to protect their profits. They must pay.The goal is clear: to hold the big oil companies accountable for the damage they've caused and to secure financial compensation that will make the city safer and more resilient to rising sea levels and tropical storms.
Climate change is a real phenomenon, and evidence of this emerges almost daily. Record temperatures are being broken, more dangerous weather events are occurring, and, as if that weren't enough, the scientific community continues to warn about the consequences of inaction. Therefore, it is vital to invest in clean and renewable energy and abandon dependence on fossil fuels. However, oil companies tend to deny their contribution to climate change. ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell, for example, argued that "this type of litigation does not contribute to the solution."
The question that frequently arises is: Is it possible that the oil that has "inadvertently" ended up in the sea so many times, as in the case of Galicia 15 years ago, doesn't affect the environment? Do cars that run on gasoline or diesel really not alter the natural balance of the atmosphere? As New Yorkers face increasingly severe storms and extreme temperatures, it's clear that it's time to reevaluate our priorities and actions.
In addition to the legal action led by New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has signed historic legislation creating a "Climate Superfund." This initiative requires large fossil fuel companies to finance Critical projects to protect New Yorkers from climate impacts, such as floods and extreme heat waves, as has been evidenced in other places also facing climate change, as discussed in the case of the floods in the future.
The importance of the Climate Superfund
The legislation not only seeks to hold companies accountable for damages caused, but also establishes a financial framework intended to strengthen the New York's resilience to adverse climate eventsThe idea is to shift the cost of climate adaptation from citizens to the companies that have historically contributed to pollution.
The new legislative framework means that companies that have emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases since 2000 will have to contribute to a fund intended to finance critical infrastructure projects, such as ecosystem restoration, a measure that is also relevant in other contexts of adaptation to climate change, as reflected in articles on the importance of green infrastructure.
Governor Hochul has emphasized that, “With almost every record rainfall and every heat wave, New Yorkers are increasingly burdened by the economic consequences of the polluters who have damaged our environment.” This translates into new legislation mandating that businesses must bear their share of the cost of climate adaptation, which represents a significant victory for environmental equity and a way to ensure that responsibility is distributed fairly.
The legal battle and its implications
New York's decision to take legal action against Big Oil aligns with a growing movement in the United States and internationally to hold companies accountable for the environmental damage they have caused. This movement has gained momentum in the last decade, with more than 1,000 climate lawsuits filed across the country. Nine cities and counties, including San Francisco and New York, have taken legal action against large energy companies, seeking compensation for damages associated with climate change, a strategy that could help prevent other cities from facing the same dilemma, as has been discussed in the context of the cities that could disappear due to global warming.
The New York case is significant because it represents an attempt to hold accountable companies accused of misleading the public about the impact of their activities on the climate. The state Attorney General has noted that these companies have known for decades about the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels, but have downplayed this knowledge and misled investors and consumers, creating a context where business ethics need to be strengthened.
This type of litigation raises several questions about the corporate responsibility and business ethics. While some corporations have chosen to adapt and evolve towards more sustainable practices, others continue to operate under business models that contribute to environmental degradation, resulting in direct conflict with climate change mitigation efforts and highlighting the need for more robust legal frameworks, as mentioned in studies on the differences between climate change and global warming.
The consequences for the future
The cost of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, storms, and floods, is already being felt in local economies. According to estimates, repairing and preparing for extreme weather caused by climate change could cost more than half a trillion dollars across New York State by 2050. This translates to more than $65,000 per household—an economic burden that should not fall solely on taxpayers but should be shared by those who caused the damage, as we have seen in other places around the world facing similar challenges, such as in the case of Pregnant women who suffer the impact of climate change.
The Climate Superfund legislation is not only a step toward holding polluting companies accountable, but also represents a shift in how we think about environmental responsibility in the business worldOther states could follow New York's lead and enact similar laws, which could have a ripple effect on environmental legislation nationwide, similar to what has happened in other countries actively addressing climate change.
The creation of this fund represents a model for other governments to consider in how companies should pay for the damage they cause to the environment. With every action taken to address climate change, the hope is that more communities and governments will be inspired to follow suit, thus leading to real change in the fight against global warming and its devastating consequences.
The future of the planet depends on our ability to challenge corporations that have prioritized profits over public health and the environment. If we can hold these companies accountable, we could transition to a more sustainable global economy.
