We’re Already Paying for Climate Damage, the Only Question is Why Big Polluters Aren’t

Connecticut legislators arrive at the Capitol every session with a daunting list of responsibilities. Ending homelessness, housing costs, healthcare access, education funding, infrastructure, local aid, public safety, and more, all compete for attention. Climate legislation is often treated as one more item on an already overflowing agenda.

That framing is no longer honest.

Climate change is not a separate issue competing for time, it is actively reshaping nearly every policy area legislators are already struggling to manage. And that is exactly why Connecticut needs a Climate Superfund law now.

Across our state, the costs of climate disruption are no longer abstract forecasts. They are budget line items, emergency appropriations, insurance hikes, and deferred public services.

In Stamford’s South End, where FEMA flood zones overlap with dense coastal development, residents already experience tidal flooding and heightened storm risk as sea levels rise. In Stratford and Milford, repeated coastal flooding increasingly defines municipal planning. In Bridgeport, aging infrastructure meets heavier rainfall and extreme heat, stressing systems that were never designed for this reality. In New Haven, sea-level rise threatens both neighborhoods and major economic assets along the harbor. Inland, and still coastal communities such as Norwalk and West Haven face more frequent flooding from intense storms that overwhelm stormwater systems built for a different climate.

Taxpayers are already paying for this damage. The question is not whether the bill exists, it is who is being forced to cover it.

The Climate Bill is already here

A recent Connecticut-specific analysis estimates that protecting our coastline alone could cost more than $5 billion by 2040, just for basic seawall defenses. That figure does not include heat-related illness, wildfire smoke impacts, inland flooding, agricultural losses, or the long-term strain on schools, roads, and public housing.

Those costs show up in three places: higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, and painful tradeoffs in municipal and state budgets. When disaster recovery consumes funds, other needs wait or simply go unmet.

Meanwhile, the companies whose products drove the climate crisis, and who knew about the damage decades ago, are not paying a dime.

A Climate Superfund law corrects that imbalance by applying a principle most people already accept: if you caused the damage, you should help pay to repair it.

This Is accountability, not a radical experiment

Connecticut is not being asked to invent something new. The model already exists.

The federal Superfund law, passed in 1980, forced polluters to clean up toxic waste sites they created. Industry predicted economic collapse. It did not happen. What did happen was a long-overdue shift of cleanup costs away from taxpayers and onto responsible parties.

Climate Superfund legislation applies that same logic to climate damage, updated for modern science. Using well-established emissions data, states can identify the largest fossil fuel producers, those responsible for the bulk of historic greenhouse gas emissions, and assess fees proportional to the harm caused.

This is not about punishing consumers. It is about accountability for corporate conduct during decades when internal industry research confirmed the dangers of fossil fuels while public-facing campaigns deliberately obscured them.

The counterarguments don’t hold up

Opposition to Climate Superfund legislation tends to recycle the same claims. They deserve direct rebuttal.

“This will raise gas prices.”

Independent economists have examined this claim repeatedly and rejected it. Climate Superfund assessments are based on past emissions, not current production. They are fixed costs, not costs that can be easily passed on to consumers in competitive global energy markets. Economic analysis of Vermont’s enacted Climate Superfund law, along with detailed studies of parallel proposals in states such as California and New York, conclude that these fees would not raise retail gasoline prices..

“This is unfair or retroactive.”

Most proposals focus on emissions during periods when the science was clear and industry knowledge was well documented. This is not ancient history. It is accountability for decisions made after the risks were known and ignored.

“This will hurt the economy.”

The largest fossil fuel companies are reporting record profits and spending billions on stock buybacks and executive compensation. Climate Superfund fees represent a small fraction of those profits. What truly threatens Connecticut’s economy is unchecked climate damage destabilizing insurance markets, property values, and municipal finances.

What a Climate Superfund can do for Connecticut

A Connecticut Climate Superfund should be dedicated to climate repair and resilience, with strong equity requirements. That means flood protection, heat mitigation, grid resilience, building retrofits, and community-driven adaptation projects, particularly in environmental justice communities that are hit first and worst.

Just as importantly, it protects other priorities. Every dollar diverted to climate disaster response is a dollar not spent on classrooms, healthcare, or housing. Making polluters pay preserves the state’s ability to govern responsibly.

Acknowledging the coalition doing the work

This effort exists because advocates have refused to let climate accountability disappear into the background. The Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club has been central to this push, alongside partners such as Connecticut Citizen Action Group and other environmental and community organizations.
They are not asking legislators to abandon other responsibilities. They are insisting that climate accountability is inseparable from them.

This Is not the end of the fight

Passing a Climate Superfund law must be the beginning, not the conclusion. Climate change demands action across multiple systems: energy, transportation, land use, food, and finance.
As a vegan, I am acutely aware that industrial animal agriculture, particularly the heavily subsidized beef industry, generates massive emissions, water pollution, and public health harms while consuming enormous public resources. That conversation belongs alongside fossil fuel accountability, not instead of it.

Climate justice is not a single-issue campaign. It is a long-term effort to align public policy with ecological reality and basic fairness.

A test of leadership

Connecticut has often claimed climate leadership. A Climate Superfund law is a chance to prove it. Legislators carry many responsibilities. Few intersect so directly with fiscal responsibility, public health, environmental protection, and intergenerational justice as this one.

We are already paying for climate damage. The only real question is whether we will keep forcing taxpayers to shoulder the burden alone, or finally require the largest polluters to pay their fair share.

Connecticut should choose accountability.

—

David Michel previously served as state representative for Stamford