Can Hawaii afford climate change lawsuit settlement?

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.”

Kim Jarrett

Associate Editor

Related Topics:#HawaiiClimateChange #KimJarrett #TheCenterSquare

Up Next

Government services faltering despite Ottawa’s tax hikes

Don't Miss

Karma Catches Up to the Stanford Internet Observatory

Todayville

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

Cloned foods are coming to a grocer near you

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Gondek’s exit as mayor marks a turning point for Calgary

Fraser Institute / 4 hours ago

Ottawa continues to infringe in areas of provincial jurisdiction

Business

Bank of Canada governor warns citizens to anticipate lower standard of living

Published on November 1, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

“Unless something changes, our incomes will be lower than they otherwise would be.”

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem gave a grim assessment of the state of the economy, essentially telling Canadians that they should accept a “lower” standard of living.

In an update on Wednesday in which he also lowered Canada’s interest rate to 2.25 percent, Macklem gave the bleak news, which no doubt will hit Canadian families hard.

“What’s most concerning is, unless we change some other things, our standard of living as a country, as Canadians, is going to be lower than it otherwise would have been,” Macklem told reporters.

“Unless something changes, our incomes will be lower than they otherwise would be.”

Macklem said what Canada is going through “is not just a cyclical downturn.”

Asked what he meant by a “cyclical downturn,” Macklem blamed what he said were protectionist measures the United States has put in place such as tariffs, which have made everything more expensive.

“Part of it is structural,” he said, adding, “The U.S. has swerved towards protectionism.”

“It is harder to do business with the United States. That has destroyed some of the capacity in this country. It’s also adding costs.”

Macklem stopped short of saying out loud that a recession is all but inevitable but did say growth is “pretty close to zero” at the moment.

Canadian taxpayers are already dealing with high inflation and high taxes, in part due to the Liberal government overspending and excessive money printing, and even admitting that giving money to Ukraine comes at the “taxpayers’” expense.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Carney boldly proclaimed earlier this week that his Liberal government’s upcoming 2025 budget will include millions more in taxpayer money for “SLGBTQI+ communities” and “gender” equality and “pride” safety.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) recently blasted the Carney government for spending $13 million on promotional merchandise such as “climate change card games,” “laser pens and flying saucers,” and “Bamboo toothbrushes” since 2022.

Canadians pay some of the highest income and other taxes in the world. As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian families spend, on average, 42 percent of their income on taxes, more than food and shelter costs. Inflation in Canada is at a high not seen in decades.

Business

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Published on October 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, business owners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what’s needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn’t try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.

The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger “industrial policy”) better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.

It’s never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau’s Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the “green” economy.

The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the “green” economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).

Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.

Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.

Consider the share of the total economy in 2014 linked with the “green” sector, a term used by Statistics Canada in its measurement of economic output, was 3.1 per cent. In 2023, the green economy represented 3.6 per cent of the Canadian economy, not even a full one-percentage point increase despite the spending and regulating.

And Ottawa’s initiatives did not deliver the green jobs promised. From 2014 to 2023, only 68,000 jobs were created in the entire green sector, and the sector now represents less than 2 per cent of total employment.

Canada’s economic performance cratered in line with this new approach to economic growth. Simply put, rather than delivering the promised prosperity, it delivered economic stagnation. Consider that Canadian living standards, as measured by per-person GDP, were lower as of the second quarter of 2025 compared to six years ago. In other words, we’re poorer today than we were six years ago. In contrast, U.S. per-person GDP grew by 11.0 per cent during the same period.

Median wages (midpoint where half of individuals earn more, and half earn less) in every Canadian province are now lower than comparable median wages in every U.S. state. Read that again—our richest provinces now have lower median wages than the poorest U.S. states.

A significant part of the explanation for Canada’s poor performance is the collapse of private business investment. Simply put, businesses didn’t invest much in Canada, particularly when compared to the United States, and this was all pre-Trump tariffs. Canada’s fundamentals and the general business environment were simply not conducive to private-sector investment.

These results stand in stark contrast to the prosperity enjoyed by Canadians during the Chrétien to Harper years when the focus wasn’t on Ottawa picking winners and losers but rather trying to establish the most competitive environment possible to attract and retain entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and high-skilled professionals. The policies that dominated this period are the antithesis of those in place now: balanced budgets, smaller but more effective government spending, lower and competitive taxes, and smart regulations.

As the Carney government prepares to present its first budget to the Canadian people, many questions remain about whether there will be a genuine break from the policies of the Trudeau government or whether it will simply be the same old same old but dressed up in new language and fancy terms. History clearly tells us that when governments try to pick winners and losers, the strategy doesn’t lead to prosperity but rather stagnation. Let’s all hope our new prime minister knows his history and has learned its lessons.