There is an interesting paradox in our economy, whereby oil companies exploit the ground to extract mineral (or gas), to increase their enormous profits. In the process, they contaminate the land and air, cause countless health problems among our population, including children, and ultimately it is the harmed population themselves – through their taxes and their work – that pays for the damage. And not them.
The main victims, as so often, are low-income people, Latinos and African Americans here in California.
The work done by community organizations and some parliamentarians – especially at the level of the state Legislature – to reverse this injustice is worthy of praise.
We are then facing an impasse. We know that there is an imbalance, but knowing it does not disappear. You have to pressure, fight, make yourself heard.
And the people? What do you think about the subject? Because although on the one hand there are the undeniable facts described above, on the other there is the incessant campaign of “Denial, disinformation and double messaging” by “Big Oil” with the aim of “avoiding responsibility for climate change”, including the damages from drought, forest fires, floods and rising sea levels.
This quotation mark is, precisely, the title of the report released on April 30 by two influential federal legislators, Congressman Jamie Riskin and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, to which the Senate Budget Committee dedicated a session a day the following day. following.
The report details the disinformation campaign that Big Oil has been waging to obstruct action on climate security since 1970.
The good thing is then that there is today a political current whose purpose is to hold those responsible for climate change responsible for their actions. Perhaps the weight of public opinion will prevail, I hope, so that they pay for it.
Responsibility survey
A national public opinion study conducted in April shows that 66% of respondents support the proposed “Superfund climate law” that would force oil companies to pay for their share of climate damages.
This bill S.259 is currently limited to the state of Vermont and, if approved, would establish a fund to recover expenses for damages caused to the state and its residents by the climate crisis. It would be a considerable step forward due to the precedent but modest because it is a small state.
Here’s how the survey asks: “Some lawmakers are considering a ‘Climate Superfund’ bill that would require oil and gas companies to pay a portion of the cost of
climate damage caused by its pollution’”. Do you support it?
Of those who recognized themselves as Democrats, support is impressive, reaching 89%. But when you break down Republican participants, support is only 45% – with an equal percentage of opponents.
More significant and optimistic, I believe, is the finding that the percentage of support among Latinos – three out of four for the project – in the survey is higher than that of the general population. In fact, the Hispanic group is the one that most favors the idea.
That is something that should not be surprising, because Hispanics, along with African Americans, constitute the group most affected by environmental problems, due to a combination of elements such as housing near sources of pollution such as oil wells and highways, low economic level, less access to public health resources and more.
The survey also found that a large majority of Latinos (77%) support a candidate who makes holding oil companies accountable a priority, the demographic most likely to express this opinion.
Excuses from the oil companies
And the excuses of the oil companies? From the natural gas magnates? And his plans to get rid of responsibility, what? And its strong influence in the media, the presence of its lobbyists and its public relations companies in the centers of power? Do they work?
Yes, they work, the survey says. An example is his naive idea of a “personal carbon footprint” (personal carbon footprint) that takes the total greenhouse gases and then divides it, not according to their origin or causes, but by the population as a whole.
The survey, unfortunately, does not ask the public’s opinion on this concept, but only whether they have heard of it.
Of those surveyed, 46% knew of this Big Oil maneuver. 41% ignored it.
In the same way, participants answered the question of whether they were aware that “the oil and gas industry made advertisements in the media that question climate research.” In this case, 47% knew it, and 37% did not know it.
To clarify. The “carbon footprint” staff It’s a dangerous idea. Its purpose is that suddenly, the responsibility for reducing the damage caused “is everyone’s responsibility.” People accept this guilt en masse and accept recommendations that change relatively little, such as: drive less, change your diet, insulate your house, change your heater for a solar one, plant trees around you. Meanwhile, those who really have their hand on the pollution trigger continue to pull it with impunity. Those responsible do not pay.
From Raise Your Voice to Don’t Be Fooled
Another of their stratagems, of course, has been the Raise Your Voice campaign, of the Western States Petroleum Association, which claimed that Latinos oppose electric cars and against which La Opinión published an editorial last June .
In January of this year, activists launched a popular campaign, “Don’t let them fool you,” to counter “Lift Your Voice,” which earned the support of La Opinión in another editorial.
Bills in California
That is the background of action by activists and legislators to right the situation and hold those responsible, well, accountable.
For May 16, the Make Polluters Pay coalition plans a “Lobby Day,” that is, a meeting of activists and representatives in the Sacramento Legislature that will consist of a brief demonstration in front of the Capitol and then dedicate themselves to conversations with legislators throughout the day, in order to advocate for your priorities.
The event is organized through the Last Chance Alliance and has as sponsors the organizations Center for Biological Diversity, Consumer Watchdog, Fossil Free CA, Center on Race Poverty and the Environment, 350 Bay Area Action, Food and Water Watch and The Climate Center.
The purpose of the initiative is to push six bills through the California Legislature (as well as two “Budget asks,” which are general fund funding requests submitted during the state budget approval process that is still in progress). .
These are the six bills that could advance the fight against pollution and hold polluters accountable:
1.
SB 1497 o “Polluters Climate Cost Recovery Act” by state senator Caroline Menjivar, which as detailed in the press release released by Fossil Free Media, which commissioned the survey, would make the state’s largest oil producers pay for damages for extreme weather and climate resilience improvements.
The motion, the text of which can be read here, has the support of environmental legislators such as Lena González and Laura Friedman, but is still in its initial stages of presentation before the state Senate.
2.
The motion for the Cleanup Law of an inactive oil well or AB 1866 by Assemblyman Gregg Hart – forces oil companies to clean up their inactive wells much faster than they currently do. The bill is in its first committee reading. Here is your text.
3.
The proposed Law on Liability of the oil well for damages to health or AB 3155by Assemblywoman Laura Friedman: also presented in April, on May 1 it went to “suspense”, so it could die without debate in the plenary session before the end of the legislative year.
The motion, if passed into law, would help residents with health problems caused by toxic drilling emissions sue oil companies. This is the text of the bill.
4.
The proposed Law on liability for low production wells or AB 2716 from Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, which is also on hold after being sent to committee for debate. Here is the full text of the bill.
This bill would prohibit, beginning July 1, 2026, keeping open a well located within 3,200 feet of a community if it produces less than 15 barrels of oil per day for more than 24 months. Establishes fines of $10,000 per day for offending oil companies. This is the text of the bill.
5.
The debate around the draft Law on Security and Local Environmental Choice or AB 3233 by Assemblywoman Dawn Addis, introduced on April 24, was temporarily postponed. The law would protect the authority of local governments to restrict oil and gas production in their jurisdictions. The full text of the law can be found here.
6.
Finally, the important bill SB 252 o State Senator Lena González’s California Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. The motion was already presented in 2023, but its debate was postponed to the current session. The reason for the postponement: lack of sufficient support and doubts about the likelihood that even if it were approved by the Legislature, the governor would veto it for fear that it would destabilize the state economy.
SB 252 would make it illegal for the California Public Employees’ Retirement Fund Management Systems (Calpers) and State Teachers’ Retirement Fund Management Systems (CALSTRS) to invest in fossil fuel companies. Furthermore, it would require them to dispose of these shares already in their possession, currently worth $14 billion, of the total $469 billion they control, until 2031. This is the text of the law.
The enumeration of these bills helps to corroborate that we are in the presence of a legislative and political offensive to advance, not only in preventing the most serious results of climate change, but also in making the costs to repair this damage borne by who caused them.
That is to say: there is still a lot to do, but we are embarking on the right path.