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

40 Canadian professors urge Trudeau government to abolish DEI mandates

Don't Miss

Klaus Schwab pushes ‘fourth industrial revolution’ at WEF’s ‘Summer Davos’ opening

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

Liberal reporter reveals Democrats secretly wonder who’s running America after seeing Biden

National / 8 hours ago

Saskatchewan files injunction against Trudeau gov’t over carbon tax dispute

COVID-19 / 8 hours ago

Heroic Nurses in Horrible Hospitals

Business

No reliable evidence that ESG investing produces above-average returns

Published on July 5, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Despite growing skepticism among investors, as evidenced by their withdrawal of billions of dollars from ESG equity funds so far in 2024, many finance industry leaders continue to claim that ESG-focused investing produces above-average returns.

But is that true?

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) is a movement designed to pressure businesses and investors to pursue larger social goals. According to ESG theory, firms that receive poor ratings from ESG rating agencies should lose investment dollars. Yet the claim that ESG-focused investing can help investors do well by doing good has received surprisingly little empirical support from academic studies.

However, according to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, which tracked 310 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange from 2013 to 2020, neither ESG rating upgrades nor downgrades were related in a statistically significant way to the stock market performance of companies.

Moreover, because the study finds that ESG ratings changes—which, when released, are effectively new information for investors—are not consistently related to financial returns, ESG ratings are likely not relevant to the expected future profitability of publicly listed companies in Canada.

This of course raises the question—if new information (i.e. ratings changes) about a company’s ESG-related practises is not statistically related to equity returns from investing in that company, why do money managers pay for the services of ESG rating companies?

One possible reason is that managers pass a substantial share of the costs along to customers who are willing to sacrifice financial returns (due to higher management fees) to express their commitment to environmental sustainability and other social causes. Another possible reason is that promoting ESG-focused investment alternatives appears to have been, at least until recently, an effective marketing tool.

But again, the empirical evidence suggests there’s no reliable statistical relationship between ESG-focused investing and the risk-adjusted returns earned by investors. And since asset managers typically charge higher fees for ESG-focused mutual funds, ESG investment strategies are more likely to underperform than overperform conventional investment strategies.

Certainly, if some percentage of investors choose to pursue ESG-related investment strategies, even at the cost of lower risk-adjusted investment returns, there should be no legal or regulatory restrictions on doing so. However, securities regulators should closely monitor the investment industry to ensure it provides reliable and up-to-date information about the financial performance of ESG-focused investment products that portfolio managers market to the public.

At the same time, when ESG advocates push for more government-mandated ESG disclosures from companies in Canada, policymakers should be wary of any claims that greater disclosure mandates will improve the financial performance of companies.

Author:

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Business

Taxpayers call on Trudeau to scrap Digital Services Tax as US threatens trade action

Published on July 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg

“Trudeau is determined to make Canadians’ lives more expensive and he’s willing to risk a trade war with the United States to do it”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the Trudeau government to scrap its Digital Services Tax in the wake of warnings from the United States Trade Representative that the United States will “do what’s necessary” to respond to the Trudeau government’s new tax.

“Canadian consumers know that Trudeau’s Digital Services Tax is nothing more than a tax grab, plain and simple,” said CTF Ontario Director Jay Goldberg. “With providers virtually certain to pass along increased costs to consumers, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is sticking Canadians with higher taxes and risking the possibility of a trade conflict with the United States.”

The DST targets large foreign companies operating online marketplaces, social media platforms and earning revenue from online advertising, such as Amazon, Facebook, Google and VRBO. It is a three per cent tax on all online revenue these companies generate in Canada.

The Trudeau government pushed its new DST through Parliament last month and plans to apply it retroactively to as far back as 2022.

Since the Trudeau government first explored the idea of imposing a Digital Services Tax three years ago, the USTR has repeatedly warned the United States would retaliate.

“Should Canada adopt a DST, USTR would examine all options, including under our trade agreements and domestic statutes,” said the USTR in 2022.

USTR Katherine Tai is now warning that the U.S. is looking at “all available tools” to respond to Trudeau’s new tax.

“Trudeau is determined to make Canadians’ lives more expensive and he’s willing to risk a trade war with the United States to do it,” said Goldberg. “It’s clear the Digital Services Tax must go.”