Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

Can Hawaii afford climate change lawsuit settlement?

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By

Hawaii recently entered into a settlement in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit that requires the state to implement climate change initiatives by court order, setting forth a potential template for lawsuits in other states.

Thirteen young people, at least one as young as nine, filed the lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Transportation in June 2022. They said the state DOT needed to do more to protect the state and their future from climate change.

The state spent $3 million settling the lawsuit, money the attorney general’s office said was “well-spent” to avoid a trial that would have started June 24.

The settlement provides a road map of tasks the DOT must do per the court order. These include creating a greenhouse gas reduction plan for the Hawaii Department of Transportation that could cost the state more. Only one price tag is included in the plan—$40 million for public electric charging stations and charging infrastructure for all state and county vehicles by 2030.

The agreement includes a dispute-resolution component that could keep differences out of court. But, the First Circuit of Hawaii will oversee the settlement until 2045 if Hawaii has not met its zero-emission goals.

The Hawaii Department of Transportation must receive “sufficient appropriations” from the Hawaii Legislature, but the settlement does not include a specific amount for the other requirements.

Gov. Josh Green admitted it would not be inexpensive or easy. He said the court order would help him when he had to go to the Legislature and say, “Look, we have to do this.”

“We have these policies in mind but we don’t have the resources that come from the Legislature,” Green said. “We don’t often have the absolute insistence of the courts to do certain things so having a settlement like this creates some guarantees.”

For two years, the governor has pushed for a $25 tourist fee that has not passed the Legislature.

“We have 10 million individuals that come to Hawaii every year,” Green said. “Can you imagine only for a moment if we successfully were humbly asking people to pay $25 when they came to the state? That would be $250 million every single year to pay for the bikeways, extra to bring very advanced analytics to what our carbon impact is from any of the technologies we use, money to get bond to navigate major protections against erosion of the coastline.”

Thomas Yamachika, president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, told The Center Square, “There’s going to be some pain,” when finding money to implement the settlement’s initiatives. The Legislature passed tax breaks this year to increase the standard income tax deduction in odd years and lower tax rates for all brackets in even years. It’s possible those tax cuts could be “walked back,” Yamachika said.

Truth in Accounting, which does an annual financial analysis of the 50 states, told The Center Square that Hawaii is already $11 billion in debt.

“The state doesn’t have money sitting around that can be used for settlements like this,” said Sheila A. Weinberg, founder and CEO of Truth in Accounting. “To pay for this settlement, taxes will have to be raised or services and benefits will have to be cut. The other option is to even underfund the pension and retiree health care benefits even more.”

Hawaii is the first to settle a climate change lawsuit, but it may not be the last. The case may set a precedent in other states where young people have filed lawsuits over climate concerns, according to an op-ed written by Cara Horowitz, executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the institute’s communications director, Evan George.

“Many defendants facing climate lawsuits — notably including Hawaii officials in the earlier stages of this case — often protest that climate change policy should be made by legislatures, not judges,” Horowitz and George said in the op-ed  published in the Los Angeles Times. “This landmark settlement demonstrates that the courts can hold decision-makers accountable if they fail to live up to their promises.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Outrageous government spending: Canadians losing over 1 billion a week to interest payments

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano

Massive borrowing, soaring interest charges unacceptable

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to cut spending following Thursday’s Parliamentary Budget Officer report showing debt interest charges cost taxpayers $54 billion in 2024-25.

“The PBO report shows debt interest charges cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every week,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Massive deficits mean interest charges cost taxpayers more than the feds send to the provinces in health transfers.”

The PBO projects the federal government’s deficit to be $46 billion in 2024-25.

Interest charges on the federal debt cost taxpayers $54 billion in 2024, according to the PBO’s Economic and Fiscal Monitor. For comparison, the federal government spent $52 billion through the Canada Health Transfer in 2024, according to the Fall Economic Statement. That means the government spent more money on debt interest payments than it sent to the provinces in health-care transfers.

A separate PBO report projects debt interest charges will reach $70 billion by 2029.

A recent Leger poll shows Canadians want the federal government to cut spending (45 per cent) instead of increasing spending (20 per cent) or maintaining current spending levels (19 per cent).

“Borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year is unaffordable and unacceptable,” Terrazzano said. “Canadians want

Continue Reading

Automotive

Carney’s exercise in stupidity

Published on

CAE Logo By Dan McTeague

This past Tuesday, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in parliament calling on the Liberal government to immediately end their ban on gas-and-diesel driven Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, which will take full effect in 2035.

Arguing for the motion, Melissa Lantsman rightly said, “Nobody is denying people the choice to drive an electric car. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the government mandating that everybody drive an electric car.”

Unfortunately for all of us, MPs voted 194-141 to keep the EV mandate in place.

The vote itself is unsurprising, since, despite Mark Carney’s campaign-long insistence that he shouldn’t have to answer for the policies of his predecessor, he was a Trudeau advisor and confidant for years, and there is virtually no daylight between their governments on any major issue.

Yes, even on the carbon tax.

Still, this will be the first time that many Canadians even hear about the ICE ban, the implementation of which begins in earnest on January 1st, just about six months from now. At that time, the government will mandate that 20 per cent of all new light-duty vehicles (passenger cars, SUVs, and pickups) must be classified as “zero-emisson,” or Electric Vehicles (EVs).

How, you might ask, does the government expect automakers to ensure that, come January, one-out-of-five car-buying Canadians will choose to purchase an Electric Vehicle? Especially since consumers have been skeptical of EVs thus far, with just 13.7 per cent sold in Canada last year.

(And, as Tristin Hopper recently pointed out, even that number is misleading. “These sales are disproportionately concentrated in a single province…. Of the 81,205 zero-emission vehicles sold in Canada in the last quarter of 2024, 49,357 were sold in Quebec.” That’s 60 per cent!)

Well, the answer to that question is that manufacturers will be required to submit annual reports to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, detailing their compliance with the government’s EV targets. If they don’t meet their EV sales quota, they will face significant financial penalties.

To avoid those penalties, automakers will be forced into one option. As Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant explained, “How will carmakers ensure they sell enough electric vehicles? They will do it by drastically raising the price of internal combustion vehicles!”

That’s right, their only option will be to start increasing the price of the cars and trucks Canadians want to buy, in order to force us to buy ones we don’t want to buy.

This is madness.

To reiterate what I’ve said over and over and over again, the Liberals’ EV mandate is bad policy.

It forces Canadians to buy a product that is expensive. EVs cost more than ICE vehicles, even factoring in the government subsidies on which the EV industry has perpetually relied. Ottawa’s $5,000-per-EV rebate program ran out of money six months ago and was discontinued, at which time EV numbers really began to fall off, which is why the Liberals stated desire to toss more tax dollars at bringing it back.

And it forces us to buy a product that is poorly suited for Canada. EV batteries are bad at holding a charge in the cold, and are just generally less reliable.

We don’t have the infrastructure to support this EV transition. Our electrical grid is already strained, and doesn’t have the capacity to support millions of EVs being plugged in nightly, especially as the Trudeau/Carney Liberals progressively push us to replace reliable energy sources, like oil and natural gas, with unreliable “renewables.”

On top of all that, where do they think we’re going to get all of these glorified golf carts they’re trying to force on the Canadian public? Even with the estimated $52 billion that the Trudeau and Ford governments have thrown at the industry to subsidize the manufacture of EVs in Canada, we don’t make anywhere near enough EVs to support a full-transition.

That’s likely why left-leaning outlets have started calling on Mark Carney to lift the tariff on Chinese EVs. Taking advantage of EV mandates might be smart business for China — flood the markets of gullible nations with EVs which are cheaper than what domestic manufacturers can produce, and then jack up the price once the mandates are fully implemented and they have no competition from either traditional vehicles or other EV companies.

But us going along with that scheme is the definition of bad business. Which is probably why our automakers have started to admit that the mandates are unrealistic and call for them to be repealed.

Tuesday’s vote went the wrong way for Canadians, but kudos to the Conservatives for bringing this motion forward in the first place. I only wish they had started talking about this sooner. A national campaign would have been the perfect time to call the country’s attention to a policy which people are only vaguely aware of and which, if enacted, will make all of our lives harder and more expensive.

But there’s no time like the present. The more Canadians hear about these EV mandates, the more they hate them. If we make enough noise about this, we might just be able to change course and avert disaster.

Here’s hoping.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X