Will Big Oil pay for climate destruction? Grist   Despite backlash, more states are considering laws to make Big Oil pay for climate change. As climate disasters strain state budgets, a growing number of lawmakers want fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions.Last May, Vermont became the first state to pass a climate Superfund law. The concept is modeled after the 1980 federal Superfund law, which holds companies responsible for the costs of cleaning up their hazardous waste spills. The state-level climate version requires major oil and gas companies to pay for climate-related disaster and adaptation costs, based on their share of global greenhouse gas emissions over the past few decades. Vermont’s law passed after the state experienced torrential flooding in 2023. In December, New York became the second state to pass such a law. This year, 11 states, from California to Maine, have introduced their own climate Superfund bills. Momentum is growing even as Vermont and New York’s laws face legal challenges by fossil fuel companies, Republican-led states, and the Trump administration. Lawmakers and climate advocates told Grist that they always expected backlash, given the billions of dollars at stake for the oil and gas industry — but that states have no choice but to find ways to pay the enormous costs of protecting and repairing infrastructure in the face of increasing floods, wildfires, and other disasters. The opposition “emboldens our fight more,” said Maryland state delegate Adrian Boafo, who represents Prince George’s County and co-sponsored a climate Superfund bill that passed the state legislature in March. “It means that we have to do everything we can in Maryland to protect our citizens, because we can’t rely on the federal government in this moment.” 

While the concept of a climate Superfund has been around for decades, it’s only in recent years that states have begun to seriously consider these laws. In Maryland, federal inaction on climate change and the growing burden of climate change on government budgets have led to a surge of interest, said Boafo. Cities and counties are getting hit with huge unexpected costs from damage to stormwater systems, streets, highways, and other public infrastructure. They’re also struggling to provide immediate disaster relief to residents and to prepare for future climate events. Maryland has faced at least $10 billion to $20 billion in disaster costs between 1980 and 2024, according to a recent state report. Meanwhile, up until now, governments, businesses, and individuals have borne 100 percent of these costs.  “We realized that these big fossil fuel companies were, frankly, not paying their fair share for the climate crisis that they’ve caused,” Boafo said. Recent bills have also been spurred by increased sophistication in attribution science, said Martin Lockman, a climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Researchers are now able to use climate models to link extreme weather events to greenhouse gas emissions from specific companies. The field provides a quantitative way for governments to determine which oil and gas companies should pay for climate damages, and how much. Vermont’s law sets up a process for the government to first tally up the costs of climate harms in the state caused by the greenhouse gas emissions of major oil and gas companies between 1995 and 2024. The state will then determine how much of those costs each company is responsible for, invoice them accordingly, and devote the funds to climate infrastructure and resilience projects. New York’s law, by contrast, sets a funding target ahead of time by requiring certain fossil fuel companies to pay a total of $75 billion, or $3 billion per year over 25 years. The amount each company has to pay is proportionate to their share of global greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2024. Both Vermont and New York’s laws apply only to companies that have emitted over 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their respective covered periods. That would include Exxon Mobil, Shell, and other oil and gas giants.Maryland’s law is so far the only climate Superfund-related legislation to pass a state legislature this year, although Governor Wes Moore vetoed the measure late on Friday. The original draft of the bill would have required major fossil fuel companies to pay a one-time fee for their historic carbon emissions.

But over the course of the legislative session, the bill was amended to instead simply require a study on the cumulative costs of climate change in Maryland, to understand how much money an eventual program would need to raise. The study would be due by December 2026, at which point Maryland lawmakers would need to propose new legislation to actually implement a climate Superfund program.......read on   https://grist.org/accountability/climate-superfund-law-maryland-california-vermont-new-york-trump-lawsuits/

Corporate America dusts off a familiar playbook . Microsoft, and other major corporations are largely sticking to old tricks from Trump's first term to curry favor and influence policy. Quartz William Gavin Feb 23 2025 Microsoft, and other major corporations are largely sticking to old tricks from Trump's first term to curry favor and influence policy. President Donald Trump has adopted Silicon Valley’s mantra of “move fast and break things,” leaving uncertain companies grappling with a potentially expanding trade war, slews of executive orders, and no end of legal questions. The second administration will “bring about a new era of American governance, with new rules, new norms, and risks” Frontline Government Relations CEO Michael Glassner, a top 2024 Trump campaign adviser said as he launched his new lobbying firm in January. That already appears to be true. But major American companies are already largely sticking to old tricks from Trump’s first term to curry his favor — and influence his administration’s policy. Executives at companies including General Motors (GM) and Ford Motor Co. (F) have traveled to Washington to meet with trade groups and Republicans in Congress, while Airbus (AIR) and others are lobbying to support programs they care about. Trump’s inaugural committee broke fundraising records as companies sought his attention. More than half a dozen firms — from Facebook parent Meta (META) to Coinbase (COIN) — have hired Trump loyalists as consultants or for their boards, as some did during the president’s first term. And lobbyists with connections to Trump have gotten plenty of new clients, Bloomberg News reports. But it was Apple CEO Tim Cook on Monday who showed why companies continue drawing from a well-worn playbook for a successful relationship with Trump.                                                       

Apple’s $500 billion plan......During Trump’s first term, Cook managed to balance developing a good relationship with the president, even as he criticized some of his positions. The CEO built his goodwill with the president through focused one-on-one phone calls and meetings, close relationships with Trump’s family, and a willingness to let things slide, according to the Wall Street Journal. “Tim Cook calls Donald Trump directly,” Trump told reporters in 2019. “That’s why he’s a great executive because he calls me, and others don’t.”After Trump issued the so-called “Muslim ban,” Apple (AAPL) joined a lawsuit opposing the action and Cook penned a memo criticizing the policy. But Trump continued to meet with Cook and mention him throughout his presidency, often labeling him a “great executive” and touting Apple’s investment plans, even if he got the details wrong. 

On Monday, a few days after meeting with Trump, Apple said it would invest $500 billion in the U.S. over the length of his term, with a focus on manufacturing. In a statement, Cook said Apple is bullish on American innovation.Trump rushed to take credit, claiming that Apple wouldn’t invest even as little as 10 cents if it didn’t have faith in his administration. That may help Cook again secure Apple an exemption from Trump’s tariffs.........Quid Pro Quo- the motto of the Trump administration- read on      https://qz.com/apple-donald-trump-corporate-america-ai-investments-1851766158?utm_source=quartz_newsletter_breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2025-02-24_breaking&email_hash=7AO1Tet1pT4IGm3ROuv2FEUsL4NYo21w1A2/EZKavI4=  

Climate Finance Is a Top Story to Watch in 2025 World Resources Institute January 30, 2025 By Ani Dasgupta For more than 20 years, WRI has identified annual “stories to watch.” These are the year’s moments, issues and decisions that we believe will shape the future trajectory of the world. In the past, we’ve highlighted things like dangerous heat in cities, major elections and their effects on geopolitics, food system reform and more. This year is different. There aren’t stories to watch in 2025. There’s just one — but it affects everything from climate action to nature conservation to human rights. It’s a story that too often flies under the radar despite vast implications for the future of life as we know it. It’s climate finance — and this year is a bellwether of the world’s ability to provide it at scale. We also know that without significant emissions reductions from all nations — wealthy and developing alike — the world will not meet its decarbonization goals, exposing everyone to the existential crisis that is climate change. Finance from richer countries to developing ones isn’t charity; it’s an investment in a safer world. Finally, ambition and finance are two sides of the same coin. You can’t get ambitious nature and climate policies without the finance to execute them. Finance and ambition are a virtuous cycle — and this is the year to unlock both. So let’s dive deep into what’s needed to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal, and what to watch this year to see if it’s coming to fruition. 

2025 Is the Year to Care About Finance for Climate and Nature.......At last year’s UN climate summit (COP29), wealthy nations agreed for the first time in 15 years to increase the amount of money they provide for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing nations. The new target — $300 billion annually by 2035 — is better than the previous goal of $100 billion a year by 2020. But it’s still a far cry from what’s needed. That’s why leaders from all nations also agreed that all actors should work together to mobilize $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 for the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This $1.3 trillion recognizes the gap between what developing nations can realistically provide domestically for things like clean energy development and climate-smart agriculture, and what will be needed from external sources. It will be extremely difficult to secure the $1.3 trillion. But make no mistake: We must do it. We know what will happen without adequate climate finance: Resource-strapped communities will suffer the most from increasingly devastating droughts, floods, wildfires and heatwaves, even though they’re least responsible for causing the problem. That’s why delivering the $1.3 trillion isn’t just about finance — it’s about justice. We also know that without significant emissions reductions from all nations — wealthy and developing alike — the world will not meet its decarbonization goals, exposing everyone to the existential crisis that is climate change. Finance from richer countries to developing ones isn’t charity; it’s an investment in a safer world. Finally, ambition and finance are two sides of the same coin. You can’t get ambitious nature and climate policies without the finance to execute them. Finance and ambition are a virtuous cycle — and this is the year to unlock both. So let’s dive deep into what’s needed to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal, and what to watch this year to see if it’s coming to fruition. 

1) What’s the Money For?......In short, the $1.3 trillion must support two goals: building resilience in developing nations while also securing their low-carbon growth.  The effects of climate change are growing ever-more costly and dangerous, but the risks aren’t evenly distributed. Vulnerable nations — those with the fewest resources to respond — are projected to face more than half a trillion dollars in climate-related damages every year by 2030. Meanwhile, finance for building resilience remains paltry, with a $360 billion gap between what’s needed and what’s provided every year. Of the adaptation finance that is flowing, less than one-fifth reaches the communities who need it most......read on     https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-finance-progress-2025?apcid=0065aea2164a6d4199768d01&utm_campaign=wridigest&utm_medium=email&utm_source=wridigest-2025-02-13