Relating to harms associated with climate change; declaring an emergency.
This legislation is poised to significantly reshape the accountability landscape concerning climate change in Oregon. By instituting strict liability, it empowers harmed individuals or groups to seek recovery for damages without needing to prove negligence, effectively streamlining the legal process for victims of extreme weather and disasters. The bill also affirms that existing state laws, local ordinances, and rights related to emissions and consumer protection remain intact and enforceable, thereby avoiding potential conflicts with pre-existing regulations.
SB679, officially titled the 2025 Act Regarding Harms Associated with Climate Change, establishes a framework whereby entities responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions are held strictly liable for damages resulting from climate disasters or extreme weather events attributable to climate change. The bill outlines that any party that has emitted at least one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent since 1965 is responsible for compensating harmed parties affected by such climate-induced events.
The sentiment around SB679 is largely supportive among climate advocacy groups and some lawmakers, who view it as a necessary step towards holding industries accountable for their contributions to climate change. However, it has sparked contention among certain business interests and legal advocates, who argue that the strict liability component may lead to excessive financial burdens on companies, potentially stifling economic growth and innovation. Critics argue this could lead to a chilling effect on industries that directly contribute to the state economy.
One notable point of contention within the discussions surrounding SB679 pertains to its stringent liability requirements. Opponents contend that making entities responsible for historic emissions might be disproportionate, as many industries were not aware of the long-term impacts of their activities during earlier decades. This raises questions about fairness and the historical context of regulations involved. Nonetheless, proponents argue that accountability for past actions is critical to addressing the ongoing climate crisis and its disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.