Last spring, I kayaked along Maine’s rocky coast. Along the harbors, I saw wrecked docks and shattered piers, splinters strewn across beaches. Seawater defied seawalls, flooding lawns with sand. Houses were damaged or gone.

These winter storms hit all across Maine: roads flooded, blocking commutes to work and family. Boats and gear were demolished, threatening livelihoods on the working waterfront. Hundreds lost power, isolated with no heat or electricity. The price tag? Taxpayers have to shell out $90 million in public infrastructure alone. Harmful pollution exacerbates the climate crisis, making the damage from those winter storms just the start. If just 4 feet of sea level rise occurs, over 3,700 homes, two power plants, a sewage plant and other critical infrastructure will be inundated, costing Maine $10.9 billion. Who pays for that?

Currently, we, the taxpayers, do. I recently started paying taxes, and I believe our dollars should be invested in building a stronger Maine, not cleaning up a mess we didn’t cause.

While we scrape together recovery funds, the fossil fuel industry — which is responsible for driving climate change — continues to profit while lobbying against climate action. Shouldn’t it pay for the repercussions instead of freeloading off public dollars?

The Maine Climate Superfund Act, LD 1808 and LD 1870, would create a fund that big oil companies have to pay into for rebuilding infrastructure after storms and strengthening our state’s adaptation to climate change. As a young taxpayer, I don’t want to shoulder the financial burden of climate change. A climate superfund would alleviate that pressure.

Maya Faulstich
Yarmouth