Kirsten Gillibrand wants the fossil fuel industry to pay for climate damages

New York senator and 2020 presidential contender Kirsten Gillibrand’s new plan to fight climate change takes aim at the institutions that have caused and profited off the problem. The proposal aims to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for damages stemming from a warmer world.

“I’ll make climate polluters pay, transform our economy with good-paying green jobs, and protect clean air and clean water as fundamental human rights,” Gillibrand wrote in a Medium post on Thursday. “So as president, I will create a Climate Change Mitigation Trust Fund, funded by an excise tax on fossil fuel production to generate $100 billion annually for climate mitigation projects. The fossil fuel industry — not taxpayers — will pay for projects to lessen the effects of sea-level rise, extreme weather, and other climate-related disasters.”

Gillibrand also wants to start restricting coal, oil, and natural gas supply, arguing that “reducing the consumption of fossil fuels isn’t enough. We have to phase out production — starting now.”

Her proposal doesn’t let the US government off the hook either and argues that the country has a financial obligation to the rest of the world:

Further, as one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, our nation has a responsibility to help developing countries adapt, because they are experiencing some of the most immediate and devastating impacts of climate change. I’ll ensure that we meet our commitments to the Green Climate Fund and other international institutions that fund climate mitigation efforts overseas.

In climate policy discussions, it’s pretty benign to talk about innovation, promoting clean energy, and pricing carbon dioxide emissions as solutions to global warming. Even Exxon Mobil is campaigning for a carbon tax. But naming the fossil fuel industry as the bad guy, holding them to account, and cutting off their core products means picking a fight with a powerful, wealthy, and well-connected adversary. And arguing that the US government is morally culpable for its greenhouse gas emissions can be a tough sell to voters.

In so doing, Gillibrand’s campaign is hoping to set her apart among the more than two dozen Democrats in the race. However, that’s tough when several other candidates have already presented their own extensive plans to deal with rising average temperatures.

And the other planks of Gillibrand’s climate proposal align with what some other Democratic 2020 hopefuls like former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have put out so far: Gillibrand supports the Green New Deal, wants to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, aims to mobilize $10 trillion in public and private clean energy investment, and wants a just transition away from fossil fuels for workers and communities.

Gillibrand also isn’t the only presidential hopeful talking about a reckoning with greenhouse gas emitters. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, whose campaign revolves around climate change, has also proposed punitive measures against fossil fuel producers for contributing to climate change and misleading the public about its consequences.

So will calling out the climate change miscreants pay off for Gillibrand? Right now, she barely registers in several polls. And while climate change is a top-tier issue for voters, it received scant attention in the last round of Democratic primary debates. So it’s unlikely to give her much of a boost when she returns to the debate stage next week. However, climate change has implications that will ripple throughout the US economy and around the world, so Gillibrand adding her voice to the conversation is a step toward giving the topic the attention it deserves.