The Empty Threats of an Industry Avoiding Accountability
The Los Angeles fires will cost California an estimated $250-275 billion. As state legislators prepare to reintroduce climate superfund legislation, the fossil fuel industry has already launched a predictable defense: if we make them help cover the damage, they'll have no choice but to pass those costs to consumers.
It's a shrewd threat, designed to make climate accountability seem like economic self-sabotage for the American people. But their own actions reveal why this argument falls apart under scrutiny.
Following the Money
Even before any new bill has been introduced, Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Association have launched aggressive ad campaigns warning about consumer costs. Yet these same companies spent over $30 million last year lobbying against California's previous climate superfund bill – the most intense opposition campaign in recent state history.
The intensity of their resistance reveals something crucial: deep down, they know they can't actually pass these costs on to consumers. Here's why:
Market Reality vs. Industry Rhetoric: Oil and gas prices are set by global markets, not individual companies. When New York passed its climate superfund law, companies made the same threats about price increases. But basic market competition prevents any one company – or even group of companies – from unilaterally raising regional prices without losing customers to competitors.
Historical Emissions vs. Current Production: Climate superfund bills assess payments based on past pollution, not current operations. Just as a company can't raise today's prices to pay for last year's lawsuit settlement, they cannot pass on costs for historical emissions without putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
Follow Their Actions, Not Their Words: While threatening economic hardship if made to pay for climate damage, these same companies are spending billions on stock buybacks and shareholder dividends. Their behavior shows they have the capacity to absorb these costs – they just prefer not to.
The Real Economic Choice
The question isn't whether Californians will pay for climate disasters – they already are. Insurance companies are abandoning fire-prone communities. State budgets are strained by endless disaster response. Critical public services face cuts to cover climate costs.
The real choice is whether we'll continue shouldering these mounting costs alone while fossil fuel executives collect record bonuses, or, will we finally require the industry that created this crisis to pay their fair share.
A Proven Path Forward
New York's climate superfund law will raise $75 billion over 25 years without disrupting energy markets or raising consumer costs. Vermont has passed similar legislation. These laws work precisely because they're based on market reality rather than industry threats.
When California's legislators reintroduce climate superfund legislation this session, we'll hear the same warnings about economic disaster from the industry. But this time, we should look at their actions rather than their words. Their fierce opposition to these measures isn't about protecting consumers – it's about protecting their profits while socializing the devastating costs of climate change.
The real economic threat isn't making polluters pay. It's continuing to let them avoid accountability while the rest of us foot the bill.
For more information about the fight to Make Polluters Pay, visit our website at https://makepolluterspay.net/ and follow us on Instagram at @polluterspay