Whether the Rockefellers are pitching climate litigation or climate change “Superfund” legislation, pragmatic local officials often see the pitch for what it is: an ideological campaign that benefits billionaire donors over every day Americans.
As discussed on EID Climate yesterday, Maryland is one of four states considering climate Superfund bills, legislation that would force oil and gas companies to pay for the costs of climate impacts. And now state officials are speaking out in opposition.
Several Democratic state legislators have voiced concerns that a state-level climate superfund bill would simply pass the cost to lower-income residents via higher energy bills, Maryland Matters reports. Democratic State Senator Malcom Augustine, for example, suggested that the draft legislation is a blunt instrument that would ultimately hurt consumers:
“I’m very concerned about passing a $9 billion cost to Marylanders in a very regressive way, and not very targeted.”
Advocates of the bill pointed to a recent poll that indicated Maryland voters “would look favorably on legislators” who supported the bill. The poll in question, however, was released by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), a local, Rockefeller-funded activist group that previously worked with the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) to convince leaders in Anne Arundel County to file a climate lawsuit.
In response, Augustine rebutted, “Should we work on things based on polls or based on facts?” (emphasis added)
Even a co-sponsor of Maryland’s Superfund bill seemed unconvinced that it was the right approach. State Senator Ron Watson “said he was worried” that the legislation would drive energy businesses out of the state and questioned the rationale of Maryland going solo after certain companies when emissions “[come] from a myriad of sources”:
“‘We have a reliance on these companies. … We’re going to continue to have a reliance on these companies.’
Watson said he saw the logic of Van Hollen’s national legislation but wondered why ‘a teeny, tiny state’ like Maryland would want to unilaterally go after polluters when environmental destruction comes from myriad sources and happens everywhere.” (Emphasis added)
A History of Rejecting Activist Efforts
This isn’t the first time that a Rockefeller pitch has met a skeptical audience.
In late 2022, bipartisan elected officials voiced concerns over the possibility of Baltimore County Council filing a climate lawsuit against energy companies, causing the proposal to be withdrawn before it came to a vote. Democratic Baltimore County Councilmember Tony Quirk cautioned against hiring Rockefeller-backed plaintiffs law firm Sher Edling to support a potential climate lawsuit:
“I think the County Council needs to remember that these types of things aren’t just like paid for with some magical pot of gold. Often a lot of these costs, if successful, get passed on to the consumer. They get passed on to regular average people that really often wind up paying the price, through indirect cost.” (emphasis added)
Similarly, when CCI pitched climate litigation to the Maine town of Bar Harbor, local officials were quick to point out the irony of suing the producers of a product that is necessary for modern life. In the words of City Council Chair Valerie Peacock, “it’s almost like we’re suing ourselves.”
And just last year, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted against a CCI-backed measure that would have encouraged state leaders file a climate lawsuit. At the time, Rep. Tom Mannion argued that doing such would hamstring American energy companies at no expense to other nations:
“Foreign countries, not just companies, have energy policies that would not be kept in check. So we’re here shooting ourselves in the face while the rest of the planet gets to continue on with economic development.” (emphasis added)
Bottom line: While left-wing billionaires continue to back campaigns aimed at limiting resource development, public officials and citizens alike are pushing back.
