Vermont Becomes 1st State To Enact Law Requiring Oil Companies Pay For Damage From Climate Change (apnews.com) 130
Vermont has become the first state to enact a law requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a share of the damage caused by climate change after the state suffered catastrophic summer flooding and damage from other extreme weather. From a report: Republican Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law without his signature late Thursday, saying he is very concerned about the costs and outcome of the small state taking on "Big Oil" alone in what will likely be a grueling legal fight. But he acknowledged that he understands something has to be done to address the toll of climate change. "I understand the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that has hurt our state in so many ways," Scott, a moderate Republican in the largely blue state of Vermont, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
Scott, a popular governor who recently announced that he's running for reelection to a fifth two-year term, has been at odds with the Democrat-controlled Legislature, which he has called out of balance. He was expected by environmental advocates to veto the bill but then allowed it to be enacted. Scott wrote to lawmakers that he was comforted that the Agency of Natural Resources is required to report back to the Legislature on the feasibility of the effort. Last July's flooding from torrential rains inundated Vermont's capital city of Montpelier, the nearby city Barre, some southern Vermont communities and ripped through homes and washed away roads around the rural state. Some saw it as the state's worst natural disaster since a 1927 flood that killed dozens of people and caused widespread destruction. It took months for businesses -- from restaurants to shops -- to rebuild, losing out on their summer and even fall seasons. Several have just recently reopened while scores of homeowners were left with flood-ravaged homes heading into the cold season.
Scott, a popular governor who recently announced that he's running for reelection to a fifth two-year term, has been at odds with the Democrat-controlled Legislature, which he has called out of balance. He was expected by environmental advocates to veto the bill but then allowed it to be enacted. Scott wrote to lawmakers that he was comforted that the Agency of Natural Resources is required to report back to the Legislature on the feasibility of the effort. Last July's flooding from torrential rains inundated Vermont's capital city of Montpelier, the nearby city Barre, some southern Vermont communities and ripped through homes and washed away roads around the rural state. Some saw it as the state's worst natural disaster since a 1927 flood that killed dozens of people and caused widespread destruction. It took months for businesses -- from restaurants to shops -- to rebuild, losing out on their summer and even fall seasons. Several have just recently reopened while scores of homeowners were left with flood-ravaged homes heading into the cold season.
Alternate Headline (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be some sort of legal issue, i.e. retaliation for making a legal complaint? Under the British system that sort of thing usually makes things worse for the defendant, is it not like that in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be impossible to do business there? It sounds like they are saying that the oil companies can be sued for the cost of dealing with climate change related disasters like floods. They would be liable regardless of if they sold any products in Vermont.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why did you snip out the part about "where it is not possible to make a profit"? Was it because if you leave that in, you look stupid?
Free hint: You look stupid snipping it out, too.
Re: (Score:2)
No that's the point, they are getting sued anyway. It's not a tax. Even if they stop all sales, they still have to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, no, that's not how it works....
If they stop doing business in Vernont, the state can still sue them for destroying the planet but it won't go anywhere.
They can not just arbitrarily assign a fee to companies that aren't even doing business in their state and expect it to be paid.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to think they can.
Does the law work like that in the US? If you try to sue some company they just pull out of your state and you are SOL?
Re:Alternate Headline (Score:5, Informative)
You can sue anyone for anything but they're:
A) going to have a tough time proving damages specific to these companies and putting a dollar value on it
B) they can not force the companies to sell oil to their cold wintery state in which most people will literally freeze to death without heating oil this December/January.
It's a virtue signal bill they expected the governor to veto. This is just a stupid political game inside Vermont we're seeing from the outside because we're close to an election. He ninja'd them by letting it pass without his name on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what the law is to help with? Presumed casual link between climate change and extreme weather events.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a virtue signal bill they expected the governor to veto. This is just a stupid political game inside Vermont we're seeing from the outside because we're close to an election. He ninja'd them by letting it pass without his name on it.
Yep, that's it exactly.
"Ok, have your way. What's that ... it didn't work out? Hmm, how about that."
Re: (Score:2)
The law generally requires proof. You can't just walk into a court room and say, "Well everyone knows AGW is real and _those_ guys (pointing at oil execs) caused it!". It would get laughed out of court. Real court is not like Hollywood court. No one's personal belief or "the science is settled!" or "99% of scientists agree!" works in a real court.
Those expensive oil lawyers are going to subpoena the shit out of everyone and demand access to source code, raw data and methodology. Vermont is not going th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's what this law is for, to establish standing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's a weird place but this case would be in federal court. Vermont can come up with any state ruling they like. A company or doing business there can ignore any state level ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you're right tobacco companies didn't stop selling. If the cost is too high, the oil companies can bail on Vermont.
And no the evidence was not the same. There was clear A/B scientific/medical evidence showing smokers got way fucking more lung cancer and other diseases than non smokers. The cost of lung cancer is calculable. The same is not true of AGW as we do not have a second planet to compare against nor is the damage calculable in the same way as lung cancer. What math can you do to show how mu
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:1)
The law does not work retroactive like it does in the EU. You can only be convicted if you actively violated some law, you can only be taxed if you actively make a profit. You can constitutionally not be taxed on potential earnings or holding a promissory note, again, unlike the EU where this is perfectly fine.
If the companies see that the government will tax them out of business, they will stop doing business, you cannot sue for that (unlike the EU that thinks it can sue outside its jurisdiction for things
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to think they can.
You abuse the word "think." (But so do they.) There's no thinking involved.
Does the law work like that in the US? If you try to sue some company they just pull out of your state and you are SOL?
Pretty much, yes. The state cannot enforce its laws on companies that have no presence in their jurisdiction. There's quite a lot of case law on the subject. For it to be any other way would be even more insane than the left is now.
(Depending on how much of their business comes from that state, the company may well be SOL, too. They couldn't survive pulling out of, say, California, but I doubt Vermont will be more than statistical no
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
The state would have to sue in Federal court, but the Vermont laws do not exist in Federal court. Vermont would have to find a Federal law or come up with some legal theory on why the state has been damaged and that there is a remedy the court can apply.
Re: (Score:2)
They sold their products in Vermont. Surely they can't just leave the state the moment they get sued and have no liability for all past damage done?
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
The ultimate goal of this law is to make petroleum fuels and products more expensive. If a company leaves Vermont, prices will go up due to reduced competition and supply. That aligns with the goal behind the law, so it still is a win.
Re: (Score:2)
no liability for all past damage done
They'd have no liability for any "damage" done prior to the law passing. In the US, you can't pass a new law and then retroactively apply punishment / penalties for something that occurred prior to the law being in effect.
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
I suppose it could be considered a win for the limousine lefties who can afford to pay those increase costs. I doubt that the citizens of Vermont living on the lower end of the economic ladder, the ones who will be disproportionately affected by those increased costs, will see it as a win.
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarettes were legal too, didn't protect them when it could be shown they knew about the harmful effects. There is plenty of evidence that oil companies knew about climate change many decades ago, but actively buried it and tried to discredit any other research.
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
The Vermont government wasn't in the habit of shutting down nuclear. Their nuclear industry was put out of business by cheap shale.
So, it stands to reason that if you'd prefer nuclear in Vermont, you'd support this legislation which will make petrochemicals less competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
If they stop doing business in Vernont, the state can still sue them
Yes, but motion to transfer venue to the defendant's home state or federal district court due to the company conducting no business in Vermont, and Vermont having no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction all the claims involving business conduct that occurred in a different state that is for actions outside Vermont's territorial jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Home heating oil is going to be the most expensive commercially available product in Vermont, after gasoline and diesel fuels. I suggest $400/gal for gasoline, $800/gal for diesel, and $1000/gal for heating oil. Imagine paying $45 for a Bic lighter when you can drive to New Hamshire and pay $1.50.
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:1)
Because Europe doesnâ(TM)t have a constitution nor constitutional protections against legal overreach. Yes, it is perfectly fine for an EU state to sue a US company for GDPR violations, just like Iran can convict gays worldwide and Putin can convict US and Ukrainian politicians.
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
So oil companies hiking their prices for products sold in Vermont due to this law constitutes retaliation but Vermont enacting legislation that unilaterally decides those same oil companies are at fault for damages from climate change is not retaliation?
Companies routinely charge more for products that are sold in states where the cost of doing business is higher than others. The aftermarket car parts industry is an example of this, where certain kinds of parts are more expensive in states like California t
Re: (Score:2)
State governments can't pass laws holding companies that act out of state liable for anything.
The states can, but there are more limitations. The company will be able to more persuasively argue that the state has no personal jurisdiction over their company with no business there Nor any jurisdiction over their conduct in another state. The potential counterargument is that the Company's actions in another state caused damage to the physical property located within Virginia bringing the conduct wi
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
If a company in a state causes damages in another, then that crosses the borders and becomes a federal issue. Interstate crimes are under the explicit purview of the federal government through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but refusing to do business in a state where it is not possible to make a profit isn't against the law in the U.S
Seeing as it's a New law. They can pull out before the law comes into effect and avoid causing damages pursuant to the law. And to also eliminate the state having personal jurisdiction over their business entity.
A state cannot pass a law Retroactively declaring something you already did as Illegal.
A state Also cannot regulate the conduct of or lay a tax upon Individuals or Businesses t
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be retroactive -- it's long been illegal to damage other peoples' property. It's not like the legislators nor the courts have to go around saying "OK, from now on it's illegal to damage property ... with spraypaint/a molotov cocktail/CO2" Proving the damages will be difficult though, as might collecting the fines.
Re: (Score:1)
oil companies don't burn oil, they sell it. YOU burn oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They burn a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil out of bitumen, so dig up two barrels worth of bitumen and end up selling a barrel of bitumen based oil. There's also all the methane leakage associated with producing oil and natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Alternate Headline (Score:2)
Not sure the state can compel a company to sell a product within that state.
Could the state force a store to sell cigarettes if the owner doesn't want to? Cigarettes are heavily taxed, among other things to fund children's healthcare.
I can easily see "big oil" simply refuse to allow it's product to be sold, arguing that to offer their product puts the environment at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
The major legal issue here is the blatant violation of the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution. Congress has legislated in this area, and states cannot impose liability based on some generalized theory that group X must pay merely because they supposedly contribute to an environmental effect A.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a pretty clear link between you breathing and climate change, too, but a US state cannot tax or fine you over it. Not even if they waited until you happened to breathe within the borders of that state.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with Vermont suing China. They breath the same air they pollute, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vermont could be shooting themselves in the foot with a lawsuit line that
Then they'll just outlaw guns.
Two can play at that game (Score:5, Insightful)
If Vermont wants to play this game the providers can play too. Just halt all sales in Vermont of products made directly or indirectly from fossil fuels
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I am unclear on what you want, isn't the goal to stop them from selling you oil products? Looks like you want that and so you will get that, why the complaining?
Re: (Score:3)
No need for that. Just add a 'delivery region surcharge' and start piling that money up to pay the eventual settlement and or legal fees with.
Rates up, and you get benefit from the interest in the mean time. Its the people trying to stay warm in NE winter and drive to work who lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm, yeah, nothing like $15/gallon to piss people off and vote in a new legislature.
The bill is virtue signaling but unlike most v.s. this one has serious real world consequences they haven't considered or just don't care about.
They do not care or understand that when they pass legislation there will be a change in company behavior to that legislation which will reduce the pain on the companies but will increase the pain on everyone else.
Re: Two can play at that game (Score:2)
Too complex, stop selling heating fuel in VT, let them figure out the ramifications as fall turns to winter in Vermont.
But hey, if their oil is destroying the planet, selling less has to be good for the environment. Of course, the loss of tax revenue from gas and oil sales may hurt the state, but hey - it's for the planet!
Re: (Score:2)
Too complex, stop selling heating fuel in VT, let them figure out the ramifications as fall turns to winter in Vermont.
But hey, if their oil is destroying the planet, selling less has to be good for the environment. Of course, the loss of tax revenue from gas and oil sales may hurt the state, but hey - it's for the planet!
Wow that's a good one. 38% of homes use oil, 18% propane, 18% utility natural gas
Oil companies don't burn oil.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But uh-oh some Corporations may not survive when we people stop buying their oil burning junk. Can't have that!
Re:Oil companies don't burn oil.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without oil most people in the American northeast, like Vermont, wouldn't survive the next winter.
What are you talking about?
You think people can survive their energy bills doubling or tripling? Most people don't live your 6 figure techie lifestyle. They aren't worried about what seat they'll get on their next flight to some is and paradise. They're worried about paying their bills, feeding their kids, and staying warm in winter.
Re: (Score:2)
You think people can survive their energy bills doubling or tripling? Most people don't live your 6 figure techie lifestyle.
You don't need to think. It may not be pleasant, but Europe has clearly shown not only that people can survive their energy bills doubling or tripling, but survive it going up by a factor of 5 or 6. Government intervention brought it back down to a factor of 4. Europe survived. Maybe Americans aren't as tough - too many years int he comfort of A/C.
Re: (Score:2)
Survive? Sure. You can survive in a cave, too. What's your point? That having a lower standard of living is good? Europe doesn't have enough caves for everyone. Maybe you can dig some more. You'll survive.
And why would Vermonters turn on their AC in winter?
Ok.... uh. Yes, you're totally right.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to think.
Mighty good advice from daddy thegarbz. What the fuck you on about? And clearly you know fuckall about the climate of North America. And I'm going to take a sentence here to tell you to look it up and not look it up for you or give you any reason why I might say I would have knowledge about that subject. jerk.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes all those Vermonters are going to start chopping trees to burn in the wood fire places they don't own. Maybe they can get some whale oil to burn from your Eskimo friends. Any other great ideas you want to contribute today?
I was more thinking about a few places in Europe about doubled energy prices long term than Texas' one off fuckups.
I think you should publish an open letter to all Vermonters praising them for this brave decision and recommending your favorite wood cutting axe for this winter. They
Re: (Score:2)
Lmao, you're not very bright, are you?
Go read your own stupid shit before replying so stupidly next time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in Texas. When I last moved I specifically did not choose Texas because they have these fuckups.
Who is this "we" you claim to speak for? That's an interesting and amazing level of self aggrandizement off the scale to say you personally have decided for an entire state that I'm personally not wanted in whatever state you're talking about, which isn;t clear because you're pretty dumb. Or are you now speaking for the entire not-Texas part of the planet? Idiot.
Re: Oil companies don't burn oil.. (Score:1)
Interesting you say that, because oil is one of the way Eskimo stay warm. Whale oil, you know that nearly extinct species that was hunted for its oil in the early days of the establishment of Eastern Canada, Vermont and Maine.
Re: (Score:1)
People burn oil. All they will do is pass the bill on to the people anyway... Might as well bill us directly.
That's what I was thinking too. If the state government wants to impose some kind of tax or fee on companies selling heating oil in the state then the price of heating oil will go up to compensate.
If that means less air travel and cars on the road and the economy goes backwards so be it.
Yeah, not so sure I'd be a fan of that.
But uh-oh some Corporations may not survive when we people stop buying their oil burning junk. Can't have that!
I'm not concerned about the corporations surviving the winter, more of the people in the state surviving the winter.
Every action has a reaction, and the politicians can't be so ignorant and naive to think that there will not be any bad reactions coming from this. I suspect
state's worst natural disaster since a 1927 flood (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes absolutely. Cars predate 1927 so there you go!
If they just had a big flood caused by AGW then it only makes sense that 1927 was also AGW. As we know, only AGW can cause weather disasters.
He must be a pretty liberal Republican (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a virtue signal bill and Vermont's politics are unique.
He let it go through to say, "told ya so!" because they expected him to veto their shit and it's eht heat for their mess.
Consumers pay (Score:2)
Re: Consumers pay (Score:2, Informative)
Lefties may or may not know better, but they like to pretend that all private enterprise is a high-margin operation that exploits the consumer to line the pockets of the tophat wearing capitalists.
This is why you get people like Elizabeth Warren railing against supermarket and sandwich shop chains (a famously low-margin business) accusing them of price gouging.
Oil and gas can be low margin or high margin. Depends entirely on supply and demand at any point in time. And most of that demand is inelastic. The l
Re: (Score:2)
The Turd-O government up in Canada is doing the same thing. They are pathetically trying to divert attention away from their eight straight years of fiscal mismanagement, continuous inflationary tax increases, and stealing & wiping out livelong personal savings and assets through 50% increases on capital gains tax by blaming food prices on "greedy" executives and companies. They state they are evil and gouging Canadians because these publicly traded corporations dare make something along the lines o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the idea, yes. The people who buy the products wind up paying the tax.
These types of laws are BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I am conservative, but I have a very large green aspect to my views. I believe nature needs to be protected and I definitely despise the way most of my party are "Not in my backyard" conservatives but yell drill drill drill, when it's in some elses. I despise seeing trees cut and even go as far as believing that ornamental lawns should be outlawed, or at least doing anything above and beyond planting and mowing them with fertilizing and artificial watering being illegal. But even with that said, making companies pay for something that we ALL had a hand in is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
But even with that said, making companies pay for something that we ALL had a hand in is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Liberal though I be, I wholeheartedly agree. We can't blame the OCs for selling what we're eager to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive, cheap fossil fuels have been an infinite boon to humanity. If there's a downside, we all eat the shit sandwich from it, and pay to ameliorate the consequences through various changes.
The idea sue oil companies is asinine virtue signalling (pssst, and funneling megabucks money into lawyer pockets ala any number of class action suits). But it's gauche to mention that last bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can, and the reason why you can is exactly the same reason that people use to say it can't be done: The people who buy the goods wind up paying the costs. For example, if you suggest taxing shipping by truck more because of the road damage done by heavy trucks, everyone complains that this will raise the price of shipping goods, and this will make the goods more expensive in turn. And the answer is, yeah. That's right. That's the whole damn point, the goods that get shipped the furthest get taxed the mo
Re: (Score:1)
Laws are not bad for the most part. Mowing is actually probably the bigger part of the impact. Sure out West where water is a scarce resource, I can see issues; Vermont has plenty of water however and is watering laws in no way threatens the aquifer there.
Lawns proved to be a meaningful carbon sink. They actually and did a lot help control temperatures, not as much as forestation more than wild prairie, hill side balds. There was a freakonomics episode on it, and with exceptions where water is a problem
Re: (Score:2)
pay for something that we ALL had a hand in is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
More than that, there's no conceivable way to break down the share of the damage by company. Everything would be arbitrary and would therefore never hold up to a court challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
The damage was caused by you, buying the fossil fuels, as you spent trillions on it over the decades, lifting yourself up from farm worker to city dweller specialist worker, massively, and I mean massively, increasing the quality and length of your life, and your wealth.
Who told you sue oil companies was the propitious path? Aside from suing lawyers wanting to take a massive chunk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: These types of laws are BS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So do you support an additional tax that everyone pays so the cost is borne by the consumer? Or regulatory/taxpayer support for alternative industries?
It sounds like you're totally fine with some laws changing as a result of this but just don't want to target the companies that are profiteering, so I'm not sure what you want to do to actually change behaviour.
Prescientific thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Something bad happened. You do something for a living that we claim to dislike (even though our way of life depends on it). Therefore you are liable for all the bad stuff and we will punish you for it.
This line of reasoning has always worked out great. While there may be some naysayers out there, it is commonly understood that the Salem Witch Trials were the apex of our civilization, and that Stalin's Lysenkism, Mugabe's land reforms, and the Khmer Rouge were unquestionably responsible for the times of plenty they are commonly associated with in popular memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Good list but you could have included more current examples like Venezuela under Chavez/Maduro, too. Nothing like seeing disasters in real time to learn the lesson.
Re: Prescientific thinking (Score:2)
Chavez and Maduro didn't make my list because they didn't come to mind as having achieved their spectacular success by scapegoating the people who kept them fed in quite the way the winners did. Perhaps this happened to the same degree, honestly I wasn't paying attention to the specifics since I knew what the end result was going to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. They're not Stalin or Khmer Rouge but made a good effort at reaching to Mugabe. Hasn't made it yet but Maduro still has time to catch up.
Stupid law (Score:2)
It's one thing to hit drilling/fracking operations for measurable environmental damage in the vicinity of operations. It's another to guess which natural disasters are related to people burning fossil fuels to stay warm in the winter and then hit the companies for selling said fossil fuels.
Neither the State of Vermont nor anyone else know which disasters (if any) are related to the burning of fossil fuels. They can MAYBE estimate what percentage of natural disasters are caused by climate effects related t
Re: (Score:2)
And illegally backdated to 1995. Ex Post Facto laws usually are only illegal for crimes but in this case, the tax amounts to the equivalent of a criminal penalty.
There is already precedent in Burgess v. Salmon that if the penalty is effectively treated like a punishment, then it can be considered an illegal attempt to criminalize past behavior that was legal at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do they identify the specific contributors to damage done in Vermont? Do they think that only companies doing business in Vermont are affecting Vermont's air quality? I hope they plan to send a big proportion of the bill to China [ourworldindata.org].
Whenever someone says "... but something must be done", it means they're not actually trying to solve the problem but looking to perform a bit of theatre to give the appearance of doing something. Security theatre, ecology theatre, human rights theatre... it's all the same.
What about the Users? (Score:2)
Vermont has no meaningful oil and gas production or refining capacity. The only thing any oil and gas company is doing in Vermont is selling to consumers. It is the consumers who are choosing to heat their homes with fuel oil (something that is mostly only done in the North East/New England area) or buy gasoline powered cars (there are now quite a few EV alternatives).
The issue is that legislators are too cowardly to directly discourage use of fossil fuels through taxes. Instead, they are imposing an implic
The oil-sided article omits an important detail (Score:1)
In the backdoor when you can't come in the front. (Score:1)
So then we hired Vermonters to kill the gorillas (Score:4, Funny)
...and come winter, all the Vermonters froze to death.
Re: (Score:2)
...and come winter, all the Vermonters froze to death.
I wouldn't count on it, as Bernie said, they make good mittens in Vermont.
Oil companies won't pay anything (Score:2)
Business 101, what happens when the minimum wage goes up? The price of your McDonalds burger goes up.
Same will happen here. Expenses get passed along to the consumer.
Its going to be tough to litigate (Score:2)
Its going to be tough to litigate. When all else fails, look at the numbers.
First you have to show how much damage has been done to Vermont by global warming. Or climate change more widely. This is going to be very tough indeed, you are going to have to prove specific events had some causal mechanism which you can tie directly to increased average warmth.
Is there really any evidence that anything much has changed in the Vermont climate in the last 50 years? More than it did in previous times?
Then you ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Also, the shipping companies which cut polluti (Score:2)