BRICK – Council members voted along party lines on a resolution in support of a proposed New Jersey State Senate bill entitled “Polluters Pay to Make New Jersey More Affordable Act” that would hold large fossil fuel companies financially liable for climate change damages.
During the most recent Township Council meeting, the four Brick council Democrats voted in favor of the resolution while the three Republicans voted against supporting the senate bill, which would see $50 billion in payments from major polluters deposited into a new “Climate Adaptation, Resiliency and Affordability Fund” (CARA) to the Department of Environmental Protection to pay for public health initiatives, flood protection and infrastructure upgrades.
The bill targets companies responsible for high greenhouse emissions between 1995 and 2014 to pay for damages.
Some 51 per cent of the funds must be used for projects benefiting “overburdened communities,” and as a coastal community impacted by flooding and storms, Brick stands to benefit from the funds.
Proponents of the bill say that fossil fuel polluters, not residents, should be responsible for the repercussions of extreme weather, and the bill would help to keep local taxes lower by securing funds from polluters. Opponents say the new law could lead to higher energy costs for consumers.
During the vote on the resolution, Council President Steve Feinman, a Democrat, called voting yes on the bill “a no-brainer – it would be free money. Those who are voting no against free money, I don’t get it.”
Republican council member Gregory J. Cohen said he is not anti-climate, but said there is no such thing as free money.
“That money comes from somewhere,” he said. “This bill will only increase the cost to the taxpayers as it will be passed on to the public. It’s just another feel-good measure that has not been thoroughly thought out. The basis behind it is a good idea – I don’t dispute that. But the oil companies are not going to pay. You, the public, are going to pay in increased costs.”
The bill needs to be re-worked with the promise that the cost of it would not be passed on to the taxpayer or rate payer, Cohen added.
Fellow Republican Lisa Reina said she did not want to get into a dispute about climate change, but had concerns about higher energy costs.
“[The senate bill] fails to include substantial cost-effective alternatives, so that is the rationale for my no vote,” she said.
Council President Feinman said he appreciated the explanations provided by the Republicans who voted in opposition to the bill.
“Councilman Cohen, you said the taxpayers were going to pay, I don’t know how that would work. It seems like the taxpayers would be the ones receiving our portion of the $50 billion…it’s a little bit confusing for me when we have our share of $50 billion on the table,” Feinman said.
The Senate Bill, S2388/A3735, moved through committees early this year and maintains an active status in the state legislature.
