SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pirg
New State Laws Aim to Protect Environment, Consumers as Trump Wages All-Out War on Climate
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting. But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level."
Dec 29, 2025
Even as President Donald Trump and his administration have been ripping up environmental and consumer protection regulations, a number of state laws are set to take effect next year that could at least mitigate some of the damage.
A Monday statement from Environment America and the Public Interest Network highlighted a number of new laws aimed at curbing corporate polluters and enhancing consumer welfare.
First, the groups highlighted "Right to Repair" laws set to take effect in Washington, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado, which give people the right to repair their own appliances and electronics without burdensome costs or barriers.
The groups lavished particular praise on Colorado's "Right to Repair" laws that they said provide "the broadest repair protections in the country," with new regulations that will give businesses in the state "access to what they and independent repair providers need to fix their electronics themselves."
Illinois, meanwhile, will fully phase out the sale of fluorescent lightbulbs, which will be replaced by energy-efficient LED bulbs. The groups estimate that eliminating the fluorescent bulbs will collectively save Illinois households more than $1.5 billion on their utility bills by 2050, while also reducing energy waste and mercury pollution.
Illinois also drew praise for enacting a ban on polystyrene foam foodware that will take effect on January 1.
The groups also highlighted the work being done in Oregon to protect consumers with legislation mandating price transparency to eliminate surprise junk fees on purchases; prohibiting ambulance companies from socking out-of-network patients with massive fees for rides to nearby hospitals; and placing new restrictions on the ability of medical debt to negatively impact a person's credit score.
California also got a mention in the groups' release for closing a loophole that allowed supermarkets to continue using plastic bags and for creating a new privacy tool for consumers allowing them to request that online data brokers delete all of the personal information they have gathered on them over the years.
Emily Rusch, vice president and senior director of state offices for the Public Interest Network, contrasted the action being taken in the states to protect consumers and the environment with a lack of action being done at the federal level.
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting," said Rusch. "But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level. As we build on this progress in 2026, we look forward to working with anyone—Republican, Democrat, or independent—with whom we can find common ground."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Major Victory': New Law Makes NY Second State to Hold Big Polluters Accountable
"The billions begin to add up. This is, more or less, how the states slowly and then quite rapidly took down the tobacco industry," said climate leader Bill McKibben.
Dec 26, 2024
Climate advocates in New York on Thursday celebrated a "massive win" for working people, youth, and the climate as Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul made the state the second to pass a law to make fossil fuel giants financially responsible for the environmental damages they cause.
Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law after years of advocacy, delivering what Blair Horner, executive director of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), called "a welcome holiday gift for New York taxpayers."
The law is modeled on the 1980 State and Federal Superfund law, which requires corporations to fund the cleanup of toxic waste that they cause, and will require the largest fossil fuel companies, which are responsible for a majority of carbon emissions since the beginning of this century, to pay about $3 billion per year for 25 years.
The money—which otherwise would have to be paid by taxpayers, many of whom are already suffering from the extreme weather caused by fossil fuel emissions—will be used to restore and safeguard wetlands, upgrade public infrastructure, improve storm water drainage systems, and pay for climate disaster recovery efforts.
The law will "reinvest $75 billion into the communities most impacted by toxic air pollution, record-breaking storms, and dangerous heatwaves," said Theodore Moore, executive director of the Alliance for a Greater New York.
Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which lobbied for the new law, told The New York Times that "nothing could be fairer than making climate polluters pay."
New York state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-28), who sponsored the legislation, told the Times that repairs from extreme weather disasters and climate adaptation is projected to cost half a trillion dollars in New York by 2050.
"That's over $65,000 per household, and that's on top of the disruption, injury, and death that the climate crisis is causing in every corner of our state," Krueger said.
State Rep. Phara Souffrant Forrest (D-57) said the new law adopts a "they broke it, they bought it" approach for climate disasters and fossil fuel emissions.
New York taxpayers learned in 2024 that they would be funding $2.2 billion in climate-related infrastructure repairs and upgrades, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates $52 billion would be needed to protect New York Harbor.
"On top of that, we’ll need $75-100 billion to protect Long Island, and $55 billion for climate costs across the rest of the state," said NYPIRG. "The state comptroller has predicted that more than half of local governments' costs will be attributable to the climate crisis."
Looking at the industry and its $1 trillion in profits over the last four years, one would never know that the emissions of the world's largest polluting corporations have helped rack up $5.4 trillion in climate damages over the last 26 years.
"Our future is on fire, New York is on fire, and meanwhile the fossil fuel industry is bringing in trillions of dollars in profit year after year," said Keanu Arpels-Josiah, organizer for Fridays for Future NYC. "It's high time for them to pay their fair share in New York. The signing of the full Climate Superfund Act, as youth across the state have advocated for year after year, is a critical step toward that—let this be the beginning of a shift on climate from this governor."
NYPIRG emphasized that the costs will not fall back on consumers.
"According to experts, because Big Oil's payments would reflect past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, oil companies would have to treat their payments as one-time fixed costs," said the group.
New York is the second state to pass a law ensuring big polluters will play for climate damages. Vermont passed a similar law over the summer—a year after a federal emergency was declared across the state after a storm dumped two months' worth of rain in just two days, causing historic and devastating flooding.
Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, said the Climate Change Superfund Act "kicks open the door for more states to follow."
Similar legislation has been proposed in states including Maryland and New Jersey.
Krueger told The Wall Street Journal earlier this year that she would "prefer this all be done at the federal level," but as author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote Thursday, Hochul's signing of the Climate Change Superfund Act answers the question: "How do we proceed with the most important fight in the world, when the most important office in the world is about to be filled by a climate denier, and when there's a Congress with no hope of advancing serious legislation?"
"One important answer is: We go state by state, and city by city, making gains everywhere we still can," said McKibben, less than a month before President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.
"And now those other states may join in too. The billions begin to add up. This is, more or less, how the states slowly and then quite rapidly took down the tobacco industry," he wrote. "So—many many thanks to the people who but their bodies on the line these past days, and those who have worked so hard for years to get us here. This may be what progress looks like in the Trump years."
Keep ReadingShow Less
88-2: Only Markey, Sanders Oppose 'Expensive, Risky' Nuclear Power Expansion
Calling the vote "disappointing," one campaigner warned: "Nuclear is, at best, a waste of resources. At worst, it's a meltdown."
Jun 19, 2024
Just U.S. Sens. Ed Markey and Bernie Sanders on Tuesday voted against legislation that one scientist warned this week "will only increase the danger to people already living downwind" of nuclear power facilities.
The Fire Grants and Safety Act—which now includes provisions from the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act—passed 88-2, with six Republicans, three Democrats, and one Independent not voting.
Speaking on the upper chamber's floor Tuesday, Markey (D-Mass.)—who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety—stressed his support for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs, and those working to keep U.S. communities safe.
"Unfortunately, the vote today is not just for the lifesaving programs that I am staunchly on record as supporting," he explained. "On the coattails of this noncontroversial bill to protect our heroes, our colleagues in the House tacked on a dangerous additional 90-page package of provisions that merged the Senate's ADVANCE Act and the House's Atomic Energy Advancement Act."
The legislation—now on its way to President Joe Biden's desk—puts "corporate profits over community cleanup," the senator said. "Notably, the provisions from the Senate bill that would have provided a much-needed $225 million for communities affected by nuclear closures and $100 million to clean up contaminated tribal communities are not in the legislation anymore, as it came back from the House of Representatives—but the provisions to prop up the nuclear industry, they remain."
Highlighting that the bill would, among other things, require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rewrite its mission statement to say that its regulation and oversight should "not unnecessarily limit... civilian use of radioactive materials and deployment of nuclear energy," Markey declared that the NRC "shouldn't be the Nuclear Retail Commission."
"We have a duty to set the strongest possible standards for domestic and international nuclear activities, as an example to the rest of the world," he said of the United States. "We also have to clean up our existing messes, particularly in tribal and environmental justice communities, before investing in anything that might make those messes worse. As a result, despite my strong and continued support for the fire safety grants and my respect for my colleagues working on this issue, I must vote no."
"It's disappointing that the Senate chose to promote nuclear power when America is flush with energy options that are better for people and the planet."
Praising Markey and Sanders (I-Vt.), Beyond Nuclear on Wednesday urged the bill's critics to call their offices "to thank them for their courageous, wise, and good NO votes, despite it all," adding that "they spoke truth to power, and have kept some glimmer of hope alive, despite this very dark moment in the cause of anti-nuclear, environmental, and environmental justice activism."
The Senate's approval of the legislation was celebrated by the nuclear industry and its advocates. Environment America noted that in addition to the NRC mission statement rewrite, the bill "promotes nuclear power, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and highly concentrated nuclear fuel, and the export of nuclear materials and technology."
Johanna Neumann, senior director of the group's Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said after the vote, "It's disappointing that the Senate chose to promote nuclear power when America is flush with energy options that are better for people and the planet."
"Nuclear is, at best, a waste of resources. At worst, it's a meltdown," she continued. "Why are we choosing to split atoms when it's cheaper, faster, and better for the environment to cut energy waste and power our lives with wind and solar?"
"Government officials should embrace energy efficiency and renewables as the best solutions to America's challenges," she added.
Isaac Bowers, federal legislative director of Public Interest Research Group, similarly said that "American consumers have better energy options than nuclear power. It makes no sense to perpetuate this expensive, risky industry when America has an abundance of cleaner, safer, and more affordable renewable energy sources."
Critics also spoke out ahead of the vote. Union of Concerned Scientists director of nuclear power safety Edwin Lyman warned Monday that the aim of this bill is "weakening safety and security oversight across the board, a long-standing industry goal," and "a compromised NRC could lead to a catastrophic reactor meltdown impacting an entire region for a generation."
Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said last week that "every dollar wasted on unproven, enormously expensive nuclear energy schemes is a dollar not invested in truly clean, safe, and increasingly efficient wind and solar power. The Senate and President Biden must quickly come to their senses and reject the dangerous and unaffordable false promises of toxic nuclear energy."
While most senators made their positions on the bill clear on Tuesday, Beyond Nuclear is encouraging voters who still oppose the legislation "to express your displeasure and disagreement" to senators who supported it or didn't bother to vote.
Beyond Nuclear is also urging the bill's opponents to contact the White House, to pressure Biden to block it. "In the unlikely event" that he does so, the group acknowledged, "we would have a very tall mountain to climb to prevent Congress from overriding the presidential veto."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular