Question of Liability for Emissions from Land Development in Relation to New York State Climate Change Plan

: The question of liability (responsibility) for loss and damage (L&D) associated with climate change often ignores the liability for L&D from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which are the source of climate change-related impacts. New York State (NYS) recognizes its responsibility regarding climate change as documented in the NYS Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) (Senate Bill S6599), which put forward the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all anthropogenic sources 100% over 1990 levels by the year 2050, with an incremental target of at least a 40% reduction in climate pollution by the year 2030. The current NYS carbon footprint (CF) does not include soil-based GHG emissions from land developments, preventing the state from reaching its net-zero emission goals. The current study addresses this shortcoming by quantifying the “realized” social costs of CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ) emissions for NYS from all land developments (12,037.5 km 2 , midpoint 1.7 × 10 11 of total soil carbon (TSC) losses with midpoint $28.5B (where B = billion = 10 9 , USD)) in social costs of carbon dioxide emissions, SC-CO 2 ) and “new” land developments (485.2 km 2 ) in the period from 2001 to 2016, which caused a complete loss of midpoint 6.6 × 10 9 kg of TSC resulting in midpoint $1.1B SC-CO 2 . All NYS’s counties experienced land conversions, with most of the developments, TSC losses, and SC-CO 2 occurred near the existing urban areas of New York City (NYC), Long Island, and Albany. Land conversion to developments creates additional liability by the loss of future GHG sequestration potential in developed areas. In addition, there is a substantial future liability in NYS from climate change impacts, such as the projected sea-level rises will impact 17 of NY’s 62 counties, which will cause high costs of adaptation. Incorporation of land use/land cover change (LULCC) analysis can help better quantify the CF and identify ways to reduce GHG emissions and the associated liabilities and compensations to help achieve some of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).


Introduction
Land development results in land cover change that causes direct GHG emissions. Responsibility or liability for the impacts of these GHG emissions can fall to various parties, including the developer as well as the local, state, and federal governments, who permit permit and often even promote this conversion. Beyond the liability for the GHG emissions, land development can incur additional liability associated with reduced future sequestration potential (e.g., loss of the ability to further sequester C in the soil or through forestry or agriculture activity), as well the liability for climate impacts (Figure 1).

The Role of Soils in New York State's Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
On June 18, 2019, the NYS issued Senate Bill S6599, "New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act" (CLCPA), which sets GHG emission reduction targets from all anthropogenic sources 100% over 1990 levels by the year 2050, with an incremental target of at least a 40% reduction in climate pollution by the year 2030 (Table  1) [2]. The principal sources of NYS's 2019 gross GHG emissions were: transportation (29%), electricity (13%), industry (9%), buildings (32%), agriculture (6%), and waste (11%) [3]. This list does not include soil-based GHG emissions from land conversions.

Key Categories Details Targets
Status: in law Interim first target: 2030 Interim target type: reduction of emissions Coverage Greenhouse gases: CO2 + others Consumption emissions: no Historical emissions: no All territorial emissions: yes Governance Plan detail level: no plan Includes reporting on an annual basis: less than annual Includes equity: yes Formal mechanisms for accountability: not provided Offsets and Sinks Includes plans to utilize external offset credits: yes Details separate emission targets for removals and reductions: no

The Role of Soils in New York State's Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
On June 18, 2019, the NYS issued Senate Bill S6599, "New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act" (CLCPA), which sets GHG emission reduction targets from all anthropogenic sources 100% over 1990 levels by the year 2050, with an incremental target of at least a 40% reduction in climate pollution by the year 2030 (Table 1) [2]. The principal sources of NYS's 2019 gross GHG emissions were: transportation (29%), electricity (13%), industry (9%), buildings (32%), agriculture (6%), and waste (11%) [3]. This list does not include soil-based GHG emissions from land conversions.
Soils of NYS provide various ecosystem services (provisional, regulation/m nance, and cultural) within the economic regions of the state ( Table 2). Most of t nomic regions are dominated by the soil order of Inceptisols (54% for the state), exc the Finger Lakes region, which is dominated by Alfisols (55.6%) ( Table 3). As one leading producers of GHG emissions (more than all Central America and  [7] with regions boundary shown [8]. Soils of NYS provide various ecosystem services (provisional, regulation/maintenance, and cultural) within the economic regions of the state ( Table 2). Most of the economic regions are dominated by the soil order of Inceptisols (54% for the state), except for the Finger Lakes region, which is dominated by Alfisols (55.6%) ( Table 3). As one of the leading producers of GHG emissions (more than all Central America and Mexico combined), NYS has been experiencing numerous climate change impacts: increasing ocean and atmospheric temperatures; increase in the occurrence of extreme weather events and their intensity; rising sea levels and loss of land (especially existing wetlands) because of retreating shores and land surface sinking; coastal storms and flooding [9,10]. These climate-change-related L&D result in significant non-economic (incalculable) and economic losses in NYS [11]. For example, historical property damage cost data (1960-2014, total damage: $25.56B in 2014 USD) shows the following damage causes: flooding ($7.11B, 27.8%), severe storms ($4.30B, 16.8%), winter storms ($3.15B, 12.3%), hurricanes Floyd and Irene ($240.43M, 0.9%), Hurricane Sandy ($10.75B, 42.1%) [11]. Overall, hurricanes accounted for 43% of the total damages impacting primarily NYC and Long Island ($11.32B in 2014 USD) [11]. Table 3. Soil diversity by soil order and region for New York State (USA) from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Spatial Database [7]. The present study hypothesizes that liability is a responsibility for climate change from GHG emissions, which can be elucidated, quantified, and valued based on the social cost of emissions (e.g., the social cost of CO 2 emissions, SC-CO 2 , etc.). Land conversion causes GHG emissions from land development as well as any future loss of soil C sequestration potential because of the consequences of land development (e.g., buildings, impervious areas, etc.). Liability for these emissions and the subsequent climate change L&D can be divided among various responsible parties, including the administrative entities that create regulations and permit development, the developers that cause the land conversion and GHG emissions, and the consumers who purchase the developed property. Partial liability from GHG emissions can be quantified and valued as SC-CO 2 at a fixed rate of $46 per metric ton of CO 2 [12], which can be potentially used to help assign liability for climate change impacts. The fixed cost of SC-CO 2, in many cases, will not compensate for the actual market-based costs of L&D for which liability will need to be assigned. Additionally, there are non-economic liabilities (e.g., trauma, loss of culture, etc.), as well as reduced future sequestration potential of developed lands. Assigning this liability has added complexity because, while attributing GHG emissions is possible (and demonstrated in this research), linking specific climate L&D events to individual GHG emissions is an emerging science; however, feedback mechanisms are necessary to change behavior that results in GHG emissions. Assignment of liability may be necessary to create new legal frameworks to change behavior that leads to climate change as well as create funding mechanisms for L&D compensation. There are various techniques to attribute and estimate liability across different geographic extents, time periods, and entities, which we will discuss in this paper.

Region
This study's objective was to determine the value of soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) for NYS (USA) and evaluate its change over 15 years based on the avoided emissions provided by C sequestration and the social cost of C (SC-CO 2 ), which is assumed to be $46 per metric ton of emitted CO 2 (applicable for the year 2025 based on 2007 U.S. dollars using an average discount rate of 3% by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) [12]. This study provides monetary value estimates of SOC, SIC, and TSC both throughout NYS and by various aggregation levels using the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) and Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) databases and earlier information developed by Guo et al. (2006) [13].

Materials and Methods
Monetary values for SOC, SIC, and TSC in NYS were estimated using biophysical (science-based) and administrative (boundary-based) accounting (Figure 2 and Table 4). Reported contents (kg m −2 ) of SOC, SIC, and TSC for soil orders were obtained from Guo et al. (2006) [13] and valued based on EPA's social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ) of $46 per metric ton of CO 2 [12] (Table 5). EPA's SC-CO 2 value is intended to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages. However, the monetary value likely underestimates the true damages and costs associated with CO 2 emissions due to the exclusion of various important climate change impacts typically recognized in the scientific literature [12]. Area-normalized monetary values ($ m −2 ) were calculated using Equation (1), and total monetary values were summed over the appropriate area(s) (noting that a metric tonne is equivalent to 1 megagram (Mg) or 1000 kg (kg), and SC = soil carbon, e.g., SOC, SIC, or TSC): For example, for the soil order Spodosols, Guo et al. (2006) [13] reported a midpoint SOC content of 12.3 kg m −2 for the upper 2-m soil depth (Table 5). Using this SOC content in equation (1) results in an area-normalized SOC value of $2.07 m −2 . Multiplying the SOC content and its corresponding area-normalized value each by the total area of Spodosols present in NYS (22,584.7 km 2 ) results in an estimated SOC stock of 2.8 × 10 11 kg with an estimated monetary value of $46.8B.
Land use/land cover (LULC) changes in NYS were analyzed between 2001 and 2016 using classified land cover data from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) [15]. Changes in land cover, with their associated soil types, were calculated in ArcGIS Pro 2.6 [16] by comparing the 2001 and 2016 data, converting the land cover to vector format, and unioning the data with the soils layer in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database [7]. Table 5. Area-normalized content (kg m −2 ) and monetary values ($ m −2 ) of soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC = SOC + SIC) by soil order using data developed by Guo et al. (2006) [13] for the upper 2-m of soil and an avoided social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ) of $46 per metric ton of CO 2 , applicable for 2025 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [12]).

Land Use/Land Cover Change in New York State from 2001 to 2016
New York State had LULC changes over 15 years (Table 7, Figure 3), causing soil-based GHG emissions from developments at the expense of C sequestration land covers. The total increase in developed area (2001-2016) was 485.2 km 2 with 6.6 × 10 9 kg C losses and $1.1B in associated SC-CO 2 . All NYS counties and regions experienced LULC changes. Changes varied by LULC classification and soil order, with most soil orders having losses in "low disturbance" LULC classes (e.g., evergreen forest, hay/pasture) while increasing the areas associated with "developed" LULC classes. The largest increases were in medium-intensity (+12.7 %), and high-intensity (+11.4%) developed LULC classes (Table 8). Changes in LULC were different by soil order as well. In the medium-intensity developed LULC class, the largest increases were observed in the soil orders of Spodosols (+25.1%), Mollisols (+23.5%), and Alfisols (+17.5%). Carbon-rich Histosols experienced development in all categories, especially in the high-intensity category (+18.0%). This development of Histosols was associated with a corresponding loss of emergent herbaceous wetlands (−4.7%), even though wetlands are commonly protected at the federal and state levels. Forty-nine (out of 62) NYS counties experienced an increase in developments in Histosols. Increases in developments were at the expense of C sequestration land covers such as deciduous (−1.4%) and evergreen (−0.5%) forest categories, emergent herbaceous wetlands (−2.8%) as well as agriculture-related hay/pasture cover (−6.0%) ( Table 7). There was a large increase in herbaceous (+89.7%); however, it covered a small total area.

Liability for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Land Developments
Liability for soil-based GHG emissions from land developments can be assigned for the GHG emissions themselves, as well as the reduction in future sequestration potential caused by this loss of land from the development process and the associated climate change L&D. These liabilities have several possible responsible parties, including government entities that allow land development, the land developers, and the consumers who purchase the finished property. Our study explores the various types of these liabilities.
Our study identified significant soil-based GHG emissions from land developments in NYS, which prevent the state from achieving its overall net-zero emissions goal. This represents a liability for loss and damage (L&D) of soil carbon (C) because of land developments. All developments prior and through 2016 generated a midpoint total of 1.7 × 10 11 kg in C losses (Table S3), which would require removal from the atmosphere. All NYS counties and regions experienced GHG emissions because of development. Counties with some of the highest soil C losses were Suffolk County (1.9 × 10 10 kg C), Erie County (7.9 × 10 9 kg C), and Nassau County (7.3 × 10 9 kg C). The Hudson Valley (2.7 × 10 10 kg C) and Long Island (2.6 × 10 10 kg C) regions adjacent to NYC had the highest C losses, followed by the Capital District (1.8 × 10 10 kg C), which includes Albany. These C losses demonstrate the large contribution of land development, over time, to total GHG emissions.
Recent developments in NYS, between 2001 and 2016, generated a midpoint total of 6.6 × 10 9 kg in C losses, which would require removal from the atmosphere. All NYS counties and regions experienced GHG emissions from developments between 2001 and 2016. Counties with some of the highest soil C losses were Suffolk County (6.0 × 10 8 kg C) and Orange County (5.2 × 10 8 kg C) near NYC, and Saratoga County (4.8 × 10 8 kg C) near Albany (Figure 4). The Hudson Valley region near NYC had the highest C loss (2.0 × 10 9 kg C), followed by the Capital District (1.1 × 10 8 kg C), which includes Albany. This geospatial analysis shows that GHG emissions are driven by land development near existing urban areas.

Liability for Loss of Sequestration Potential from Land Developments
Our study identified a significant loss of land from total developments in reduces future C sequestration potential and prevents the state from achievi net-zero emissions goal. This represents a liability for loss and damage (L for soil carbon (C) sequestration potential because of land developments in All developments prior and through 2016 covered 12,037.5 km 2 . The de ranged from 1302.2 km 2 for Suffolk County to 36

Liability for Loss of Sequestration Potential from Land Developments
Our study identified a significant loss of land from total developments in NYS, which reduces future C sequestration potential and prevents the state from achieving its overall net-zero emissions goal. This represents a liability for loss and damage (L&D) of land for soil carbon (C) sequestration potential because of land developments in NYS (USA).
All developments prior and through 2016 covered 12,037.5 km 2 . The developed area ranged from 1302.2 km 2 for Suffolk County to 36.9 km 2 for Hamilton Counties. Counties with some of the highest development area losses were Suffolk County (1302.2 km 2 ) and Westchester County (531.4 km 2 ) near NYC, and Erie County (611.5 km 2 ) in Western NYS. The Hudson Valley region near NYC had the highest developed area (1902.5 km 2 ), while the New York City region had the lowest amount of developed land (679.7 km 2 ), likely because of a small amount of available land for development.
Recent developments from 2001 to 2016 totaled 485.2 km 2 . The developed area ranged from 42.9 km 2 for Suffolk County to 0.2 km 2 for Hamilton and Schuyler Counties. Counties with some of the highest development area losses were Suffolk County (42.9 km 2 ) and Orange County (37.4 km 2 ) near NYC, and Saratoga County (37.2 km 2 ) near the City of Albany ( Figure 5). The Hudson Valley region near NYC had the highest developed area (138.9 km 2 ), while the New York City region had the lowest amount of newly developed land (12.5 km 2 , Table S4), likely because of the existing high level of development in this area.   This study found that land development between 2001 and 2016 was focused near existing urban areas. There is very little land (1.8% of total land area) available for naturebased [19,20] C sequestration methods (e.g., 0.2% barren land, 0.9% shrub/scrub, 0.7% herbaceous) ( Table 9). State's soils have inherently low C sequestration potential. Projected sea-level rise, and urbanization will further reduce land availability for C sequestration. This study examines the relatively recent developments that occurred between 2001 and 2016 without considering the historical [21] impacts associated with the more than 12,000 km 2 of developed land by 2016, which similarly had soil-based GHG emissions and the loss of land for future sequestration that should be considered part of the overall liabilities.

Liability for Social Costs of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Land Developments
Our study estimated the social costs of C emissions (e.g., state, county, region) based on a fixed price of emitted CO 2 , which represents a liability for loss and damage (L&D) associated with the "realized" social costs of soil carbon (C) (SC-CO 2 ) because of land developments in NYS (USA). All developments prior and through 2016 generated $28.5B worth of SC-CO 2 . The SC-CO 2 ranged from $3.2B for Suffolk County to $116.4M for Hamilton County. Counties with some of the highest SC-CO 2 were Suffolk County ($3.2B) and Erie County ($1.3B) in Western NYS and Westchester County ($1.2B) and Nassau County ($1.2B) near NYC. The Hudson Valley region had the highest SC-CO 2 ($5.1B), while the NYC had the lowest SC-CO 2 ($1.6B). Recent developments from 2001 to 2016 generated a total cost of $1.1B SC-CO 2 . It is important to note that this estimate of social costs may only represent a small fraction of the actual liability given the actual market-based costs of climate change disasters. The SC-CO 2 ranged from $102.2M for Suffolk County to $433,297.7 for Schuyler County ( Figure 6). Counties with some of the highest SC-CO 2 were Suffolk County ($102.2M) and Orange County ($87.8M) near NYC and Saratoga County ($81.6M) near the City of Albany. The Hudson Valley region near NYC had the highest SC-CO 2 ($331.3M), while the Southern Tier region had the lowest SC-CO 2 ($37.1M, Table 9). Although the SC-CO 2 can be calculated for NYS, there is currently no regulatory mechanism (e.g., "polluter-paysprinciple," PPP) to assign these costs to a liable party, so none of these costs are collected in a regulatory or voluntary fashion. If collected, these costs could be assigned as part of the development process, and the funds collected could be used for C sequestration and/or compensation funds at the local, state, country, or even global scale (e.g., Warsaw International Mechanism, WIM, etc.) [22][23][24][25]. Geospatial analysis helps visualize and understand where these development activities are occurring in NYS and highlights areas where regulatory intervention may be necessary. Given the urgent nature of climate change, regulatory feedback (e.g., SC-CO 2 of GHG emissions) is needed to help modify land development behavior.
The history of development in NYS shows that the highest emission regions from the inception of NYS to 2016 were the Hudson Valley ($5.1B) and Capital District ($3.1B), which mirrors the high social cost of C emissions between 2001 and 2016 for these same regions. Similarly, the NYC region ($1.6B) and the Mohawk Valley ($1.8B) have the lowest total social cost of C emissions, which was similar when looking at the emissions from 2001 to 2016 (Table S4). Interestingly, some areas (e.g., Erie County ($1.3B)), clearly had higher development levels prior to the 2001 to 2016 study period.
which mirrors the high social cost of C emissions between 2001 and 2016 for t regions. Similarly, the NYC region ($1.6B) and the Mohawk Valley ($1.8B) have total social cost of C emissions, which was similar when looking at the emiss 2001 to 2016 (Table S4). Interestingly, some areas (e.g., Erie County ($1.3B)), c higher development levels prior to the 2001 to 2016 study period.

Example of Liability for Loss and Damage (L&D) from Climate Change Impacts
Liability for L&D from climate change impacts (e.g., sea level rise, flooding, etc.) is different from liability for L&D from GHG emissions and loss of sequestration potential. Climate change impacts are the result of the worldwide contribution of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. Our study estimated CO 2 emissions from recent land developments (2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016) in NYS, which is just an example of the state's soil-based CO 2 emissions from land developments into the atmosphere, which contribute to climate change in the NYS and worldwide. Climate change manifests itself in various impacts causing L&D to lead to multiple liabilities from climate change impacts, which are the responsibility of different parties (e.g., governments, businesses, individuals, etc.). The NYS Bill (CLCPA) acknowledges that climate change impacts (e.g., extreme weather events, flooding, etc.) "can cause direct injury or death, property damage, and ecological damage" [2]. For example, Figure 7 and Table 10 demonstrate projected NYS land losses (permanent losses) because of future sea level rise by economic region and county. This sea level rise will affect some of the most populated and high-cost areas in NYS, causing potential displacement of people and extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure, which most likely require financial support (e.g., taxpayers' money, etc.) at the national level [11]. Gornitz et al. (2002) [26] reported current and projected impacts of sea level rise in the NYC metropolitan area with a spatial and socio-economic (e.g., population density, average household income, average housing value, etc.) analysis. With more than 40% of buildings in NYS located in NYC and Long Island [11], there will be a considerable burden on U.S. taxpayers after climate disasters strike, with a high potential of incentivizing reconstruction in the same vulnerable areas. In addition to L&D in urban areas, sea level rise will inundate coastal wetlands, increase coastal flooding, and accelerate beach erosion [26]. Climate change impacts generate L&D with high expenses paid by US taxpayers [26]. For example, cumulative beach nourishment costs for just six locations (e.g., Coney Island, Rockaway Beach, etc.) caused over $252.4M in costs adjusted to 1996 USD [26]. Socio-economic data for NYC climate change vulnerable areas (e.g., flooding) [26] reveals that potential costs of L&D to these areas are market-based. Our study shows the potential disconnect between fixed SC-CO 2 for GHG emissions and market-based costs of existing developments and infrastructure. Identifying liabilities of climate change impacts may help prevent harmful land development behavior. Currently, there are no taxes or other fees associated with soil-based GHG em from land developments collected in NYS. Social costs for GHG emissions sho market-based to compensate for the initial and ongoing damages of GHG emi Charging these fees would serve to incentivize the limiting of future GHG emission land conversions as well as increase C sequestration efforts. Hutton et al. (202 proposed the concept of "net-zero emissions and social costs" instead of only h "net-zero emissions" goal. For NYS, the addition of the concept of "net-zero soci to the original "net-zero emissions" goal would help identify potential damag liabilities so that funds could be collected within the state without burdening the government. Our study shows that many of the areas with high levels of development and corresponding soil-based GHG emissions in NYC (e.g., Suffolk C and beyond the NYC area (e.g., Orange County) are vulnerable to climate risks. Th development behavior is essentially Reverse Climate Change Adaptation (RCC inconsistent with the NYS Climate Change Adaptation (ACC) plan. Currently, there are no taxes or other fees associated with soil-based GHG emissions from land developments collected in NYS. Social costs for GHG emissions should be market-based to compensate for the initial and ongoing damages of GHG emissions. Charging these fees would serve to incentivize the limiting of future GHG emissions from land conversions as well as increase C sequestration efforts. Hutton et al. (2023) [27] proposed the concept of "net-zero emissions and social costs" instead of only having a "net-zero emissions" goal. For NYS, the addition of the concept of "net-zero social cost" to the original "net-zero emissions" goal would help identify potential damages and liabilities so that funds could be collected within the state without burdening the federal government. Our study shows that many of the areas with high levels of recent development and corresponding soil-based GHG emissions in NYC (e.g., Suffolk County) and beyond the NYC area (e.g., Orange County) are vulnerable to climate risks. This land development behavior is essentially Reverse Climate Change Adaptation (RCCA) and inconsistent with the NYS Climate Change Adaptation (ACC) plan.  [16] analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [28]

Question of Responsibility for Liability for Land Development Emissions
Our study identified a range of liabilities for GHG emissions from land developments in NYS, which are not included in NYS's CF. This raises the question of who is responsible for these newly-identified, quantified, and valued liabilities. New York State provides oversight to land development activities, which local and federal regulations can also impact. This study provides data and methods that could be useful to potentially assign responsibility for liability for soil-based GHG emissions from land development for NYS. There are many approaches/methods to assigning liability associated with climate change (Heidari et al., 2016) [29]: (1) the polluter-pays-principle (PPP) [30,31], (2) a shared responsibility approach using input-output analysis, (3) producer responsibility approach, (4) consumer responsibility approach, (5) the carbon emission added approach, (6) the geographical approach, (7) the ecological footprint methodology, and others.
Geospatial analysis of soil-based emissions from land developments also raises questions about fairness with regard to sharing the responsibility for land development emissions and climate change L&D. For example, Figure 8 shows the contribution of SC-CO 2 (%) by region in NYS and reveals the largest contributors as a proportion from total SC-CO 2 ($) for the state, with 28% originating from Hudson Valley economic region (Figure 8). Suffolk County alone contributed 10% of the total social costs from recent development. Climate justice can use measures of environmental and climate change risk combined with demographic characteristics to target disadvantaged communities [32]. The practical targeting of funds can sometimes be controversial, as demonstrated by the designation of wealthy communities with median home price as high as $4.2M in Long Island (NY), as disadvantaged because of the inclusion of federally recognized indigenous lands [32]. Geospatial analysis can be used to attribute soil-based GHG emissions, loss of land for future sequestration potential, as well as the calculated social cost of GHG emissions at the state, county, city, or even parcel level (Table 11). This can be combined with spatial databases that track climate-linked L&D to link soil-based GHG emissions to climate change impacts based on their geographic location, which should include the actual market-based costs of this L&D. Liability for the L&D could be geographically tied to emissions so that the social cost of carbon to be variable and more connected to the market cost of L&D compensation. In this way, areas that have high climate-change L&D could be assigned a higher social cost for soil-based GHG emissions. This would cause a positive feedback loop, which would serve to both limit emissions and promote more responsible and resilient land development processes and the use of public funds. Table 11. The newly proposed spatial attribution approach for liability estimation from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts, which is matched by geographic location.

Option A:
The compensation fund is derived from payments for GHG emissions scaled to compensate for L&D in the same geographic area where the emissions occurred. The results of this study reveal that there is a spatial association between areas with high soil-based GHG emissions and climate change vulnerability in NYS. This association could be used to develop mechanisms to generate funds to support climate change-related L&D compensation and encourage climate-safe development practices.
Geospatial analysis can be used to attribute soil-based GHG emissions, loss of land for future sequestration potential, as well as the calculated social cost of GHG emissions at the state, county, city, or even parcel level (Table 11). This can be combined with spatial databases that track climate-linked L&D to link soil-based GHG emissions to climate change impacts based on their geographic location, which should include the actual market-based costs of this L&D. Liability for the L&D could be geographically tied to emissions so that the social cost of carbon to be variable and more connected to the market cost of L&D compensation. In this way, areas that have high climate-change L&D could be assigned a higher social cost for soil-based GHG emissions. This would cause a positive feedback loop, which would serve to both limit emissions and promote more responsible and resilient land development processes and the use of public funds. Table 11. The newly proposed spatial attribution approach for liability estimation from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts, which is matched by geographic location.

Compensation Fund
Time dimensions (past, current, future). Location and scale (e.g., county, region, etc.) Loss of land for sequestration potential (e.g., area, km 2 ) Damages (repairable damages such as hurricane property damage, $ USD, etc.) Option A: The compensation fund is derived from payments for GHG emissions scaled to compensate for L&D in the same geographic area where the emissions occurred. Suggesting that market-based fees should be imposed to compensate for damages from GHG emissions is only the first of two steps in the necessary analysis. The second step is to determine the appropriate size of the fees. One way of calculating the appropriate fees would be to determine the size of the damages that a court would award if property owners were able to impose liability on those who caused the release of GHG, whether by soil disturbance or otherwise. So far, lawsuits seeking to obtain compensation from emitters of GHG have not succeeded. The usual reason for the failure is that it is impossible to show causation: that a specific defendant's emission of GHG led to a specific plaintiff's damages caused by climate change [33]. Instead, the only real possibility for compensation is through payments from governments.
For example, compensation from governments has been discussed at the various annual United Nations Climate Change Conferences. This began in 2007 with COP13. At COP21 in 2015, the Paris Agreement endorsed a mechanism for compensation for L&D. In 2022's COP27, pledges were made by developed countries for such compensation, and there were promises to create 2023's COP28-specific mechanisms for collecting and distributing the compensatory funds [24].
Likewise, in the United States, a major way that people who have been injured by GHG emissions and the resulting global warming is through the government's emergency payments after natural disasters. One impact of GHG emissions and the resulting global warming is an increased frequency of hurricanes. In many states that repeatedly suffer hurricane damage, flood insurance from private providers is unavailable [34]. When a hurricane inflicts damage, the federal government declares a natural disaster and provides large sums to allow hurricane victims to rebuild. The federal government's payments are generous, paying more than the actual damages that hurricane victims have suffered. "In many cases, communities actually come out economically better off following a disaster, after copious amounts of public aid flow in and literally build the town back better" [35].
Let us imagine that it was possible to surmount the causation hurdle so that private lawsuits could succeed. Let us then explore the amount of damages that a court would impose. This measure of damages is instructive as to what the best size of payments would be both for payments under international agreements and for payments after natural disasters. The estimated size and nature of such tort damages would be useful because judges and legislators have thought for centuries about the appropriate size of such damages. The rules that have resulted are the time-tested result of balancing the desires to compensate injured victims while also not creating inefficient incentives for either victims or tortfeasors [36]. As we now discuss, the rules that would result are much different than simply paying victims the actual damages that they suffer.

Measures of Damages under General Tort Law
Under standard tort law, a person who suffers injury does not automatically become entitled to recover the full value of person's damages from a person whose conduct has led to the damages. Instead, in some jurisdictions, an injured person could not recover at all if they were "contributorily negligent." For example, even if a distracted driver struck a pedestrian, the pedestrian would not recover from the driver if the pedestrian rushed into the street carelessly [37]. Relatedly, in jurisdictions that apply "comparative negligence" rather than "contributory negligence", the plaintiff's recovery would be reduced by the fraction of the fault that was due to the plaintiff rather than the defendant. For example, if the pedestrian's injuries were due 55% to the fault of the driver, but 45% to the pedestrian's own fault, then the plaintiff's damages would be reduced by 45% [38].
A related doctrine is "assumption of the risk": a plaintiff could not recover for injuries that this plaintiff suffered while voluntarily choosing to incur the risk that the defendant had created. For example, a plaintiff who saw that water had pooled on the floor of a bank could not recover when plaintiff slipped on the wet floor; this was because plaintiff had chosen voluntarily to walk across the wet floor [39]. Similarly, a spectator at a baseball game could not recover if spectator was struck by a ball if spectator had voluntarily chosen a seating area that was not protected by a protective screen [40]. The doctrine is similar to comparative negligence, which has replaced assumption of risk in many jurisdictions [39].
Likewise, a plaintiff cannot recover for damages if plaintiff could have avoided the damages by exercising reasonable care. That is, the plaintiff cannot recover for damages that the plaintiff could have "mitigated." "The first rule of avoidable consequences denies the plaintiff a recovery for negligently inflicted damages that plaintiff could have avoided or minimized by reasonable care or expenditure" [41]. A person cannot recover for injuries if person could have avoided the injuries by exercising reasonable care. "For example, the plaintiff who unreasonably refuses to follow medical advice, cannot recover for exacerbation of the injury resulting from plaintiff's own delay or refusal" [42].
The avoidable consequences/mitigation rule is similar to the rule that reduces or eliminates damages if the plaintiff was contributorily or comparatively negligent or assumed the risk. The rules all deny the plaintiff recovery for damages that the plaintiff could have avoided by being careful themselves to avoid putting themselves in harm's way. That is, the plaintiff cannot recover for damages that they could have reasonably protected themselves against and avoided.

Application of General Tort Law to Damages from GHG Emissions
The general rules for measuring damages in tort law have substantial implications for what compensation should be provided for damages from GHG emissions and global warming. Let us examine two contrasting situations.
First, assume that a historic home has been located on a cliff overlooking the ocean for more than a century. Because of global warming, sea levels rise, which causes erosion of the cliff that supports the home. Despite the homeowner's best efforts to strengthen the cliff, the home plunges into the ocean.
Under normal tort-law principles, if the homeowner were able to impose liability on emitters of GHG, the appropriate measure of damages would be the home's full value. The homeowner had not been contributorily or comparatively negligent; the homeowner had acted completely responsibly. Neither had the homeowner assumed the risk of this disaster; the house had been built on the cliff more than a century earlier, before the risk of of sea level rise from GHG emissions had been detected. Nor could the homeowner have mitigated/reduced damages by exercising reasonable care; the homeowner had done everything possible to prevent the catastrophe.
Let us now examine a second contrasting example. Assume that, over the past two decades, sea levels have risen relentlessly in a specific coastal area. During the same period, hurricanes have become increasingly frequent in the area, and the last two recent hurricanes have destroyed all of the area's sea-front homes. After the most-recent hurricane, a wealthy person purchases a sea-front lot and builds on it a $5 million home. Sea levels then continue to rise, flooding the mansion's basement, and eroding the foundation. Five years after it was built, the home is completely destroyed, as the home and the land around it disappear into the sea.
In contrast to the first example, normal tort-law principals would not award the homeowner the full cost of reparing the home. Here, the damage award would be reduced by all three of the doctrines that we have discussed: contributory/comparative negligence; assumption of the risk; and risk-avoidance/mitigation of damages.
First, a court might rule that, even if a defendant caused both climate change and rises in seal levels and so caused the mansion's destruction, the homeowner should recover much less than the home's cost of rebuilding, if anything, because of the homeowner's contributory negligence and comparative negligence. Even if the defendant caused the climate change, the homeowner was negligent to build the home directly on the coast where recent hurricanes had destroyed two previous homes. Likewise, the homeowner failed to act reasonably in building a home on a coastline where sea levels were already rising dangerously.
Second, the homeowner would be entitled to recover few, if any, damages because the homeowner had assumed the risk that the home would be destroyed. The homeowner built the mansion knowing that sea levels were rising and could soon inundate the home. The homeowner built the home exactly where homes had recently been destroyed by hurricanes-an area where hurricanes were increasing in frequency.
Third, the homeowner would recover little, if anything, because of the rule requiring the plaintiff to engage in risk-avoidance and mitigation of damages. The homeowner failed to act reasonably to avoid risk; instead, she chose to build in the riskiest possible location.
The three doctrines combine to suggest that compensation for damages from climate change should be lower for those who have chosen to locate in areas that are vulnerable to injury from climate change. If you choose to build in a location that is obviously vulnerable to damage caused by climate change, then you should recover little when the expected damage occurs.

The Lower Level of Damages Makes Sense
This lower level of damages for those who choose to locate in vulnerable areas make sense both morally and as a matter of efficiency. Morally, it is unfair to require defendants to compensate those who have been injured because they have failed to take care of themselves. Priority should be to protect faultless victims, not those who have rolled the dice and chosen to build in a risky location. Society should focus on compensating fault-free victims, not protecting gamblers when their wagers lose.
The lower levels of damages also are efficient. To induce people to develop real estate in appropriate locations and in appropriate ways, people should be compelled to incur the expected costs of their activities. A person who considers building in a location that is vulnerable to climate change should expect to incur the predicted costs of damage from climate change; such damage should not be compensated. If it is compensated, then excessive development will occur in vulnerable areas. In general, it is inefficient for extensive development to occur in low-lying coastal areas in areas with many hurricanes. Efficient patterns of development will occur if developers must expect to pay themselves to pay the costs of expected damages from foreseeable global warming.
In contrast, inefficient development will occur if expected damages from foreseeable global warming are compensated. The experience in the United States' low-lying hurricane-prone areas reveals these dangers. People in vulnerable areas understand that, after a hurricane, the federal government will provide generous compensation that will permit victims to rebuild fully. Because these people expect compensation, they rebuild in vulnerable areas. Moreover, additional people are induced to move into the vulnerable area and develop there. That is, the opposite of the optimal development pattern occurs. Instead of people efficiently moving away from vulnerable areas, development in the vulnerable areas grows in intensity.
The analysis provides two lessons for the appropriate levels of compensation, whether imposed as a liability through litigation or paid by the government as disaster relief. First, damages should not always be the full loss. Instead, compensation should be low or even zero when the person whose property was destroyed chose to build in areas that was known to be vulnerable to climate change. Full compensation should be provided only when the injured party did not move into a vulnerable area and did everything reasonable to reduce damages.
Second, compensation to the victims could be decoupled from amounts that emitters of GHG would pay. Even if a plaintiff would not be paid the full value of their loss, defendants could be required to pay the loss's full value. The excess of the defendant's payments over what the plaintiff receives could go to the government, which could use the money to help move people from areas that are vulnerable to climate change.

Significance of Results in a Broader Context
The results of this study have a wide range of implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 [43]. The unique aspect of this study is that it provides quantitative and spatial metrics which can be useful in quantifying and monitoring SDGs at various spatial and temporal scales. This study contributes but is not limited to the following soil-related targets within SDGs [44,45]: SDG 2: Zero Hunger. 2.4 Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices to progressively improve land and soil quality.

-
There was an increase in cultivated crops (5.5%) and a decrease in the land under hay/pasture (−6.0) between 2001-2016 in NYS (Table 7). This LULC change corresponds with the reduced use of productive soils such as Alfisols and Mollisols (Table 7). This represents a reduced production capacity, which is compounded by land degradation caused by an increase in all types of land development (Table 7).
SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities. 11.5 Decrease the direct economic losses caused by disasters which include water-related disasters.
-This study shows that within NYS there is a spatial association between areas with high soil-based GHG emissions and climate change vulnerability. Table 10 shows projected permanent NYS land losses from future sea level rise by county. This sea level rise will affect some of the most populated and high-cost areas in NYS, causing likely displacement of people and damage to buildings and infrastructure.
SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production. 12.2 By 2030, achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
-This study found that all seven soil orders in NYS experienced land conversions caused by land development (Table 7). Highly productive agricultural soils (e.g., Alfisols and Mollisols) experienced land development, while C-rich Histolsols also were developed at the expense of emergent herbaceous wetlands (−4.7%; Table 7).
Land development affected C-sequestering and productive soils.
SDG 13: Climate Action. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
-Although NYS issued Senate Bill S6599, "New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act" (CLCPA) [2], which sets GHG emission reduction targets from anthropogenic sources, it does not include soil-based emissions from land developments. This study provided quantitative estimates of soil-based GHG emissions from past and recent land conversions as well as associated monetary values of SC-CO 2 . In addition, it quantified the lost area for C sequestration in NYS. The "realized" social costs of CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ) emissions for NYS from all land developments (12,037.5 km 2 , midpoint 1.7 × 10 11 of total soil carbon (TSC) losses with midpoint $28.5B (where B = billion = 10 9 , USD)) in social costs of carbon dioxide emissions, SC-CO 2 ) and "new" land developments (485.2 km 2 ) in the period from 2001 to 2016, which caused a complete loss of midpoint 6.6 × 10 9 kg of TSC resulting in midpoint $1.1B SC-CO 2 . There is very little land (1.8% of total land area) available for naturebased [19,20] C sequestration methods (e.g., 0.2% barren land, 0.9% shrub/scrub, 0.7% herbaceous) ( Table 9). State's soils have inherently low C sequestration potential. Projected sea-level rise and urbanization will further reduce land availability for C sequestration.
SDG 15: Life on land. Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss.
-There was an overall degradation in land and soil resources (pedodiversity) related to this goal. Results on LULC change for NYS (2001-2016) showed a reduction in forest area for the following categories: deciduous (−1.4%), and evergreen forest (−0.5%) ( Table 7). This represents a reduced production capacity, which is compounded by land degradation caused by an increase in all types of land development (Table 7). This study found that all seven soil orders in NYS experienced land conversions caused by land development (Table 7).

Conclusions
Current NYS's GHG inventory does not identify soil as a potential GHG emissions source from land development, which raises a question of L&D liability from these emissions. Our results show that NYS does not have net-zero emissions in areas associated with land development. The state has developed a large land area from its founding through 2016 (12,037.5 km 2 ) with a complete loss of midpoint 1.7 × 10 11 kg of total soil carbon (TSC), which resulted in midpoint $28.5B in "realized" social costs of CO 2 emissions. These cumulative social cost estimates are provided as a benchmark to compare to the social cost values from 2001 through 2016, however, they are most probably only represent a small fraction of the actual social costs associated with land development. Counties with some of the highest soil C losses were Suffolk County (1.9 × 10 10 kg of TSC loss, $3.2B SC-CO 2 ), Erie County (7.9 × 10 9 kg of TSC loss, $1.3B SC-CO 2 ), and Westchester County (7.3 × 10 9 kg of TSC loss, $1.2B SC-CO 2 ). The Hudson Valley (2.7 × 10 10 kg C, $5.1B) and Long Island (2.6 × 10 10 kg C, $4.4B) regions adjacent to NYC had the highest C losses, followed by the Capital District (1.8 × 10 10 kg C, $3.1B), which includes Albany.
The state has experienced an increase in recent land development (485.2 km 2 ) with a complete loss of 6.6 × 10 9 kg of total soil carbon (TSC), which resulted in $1.1B in "realized" social costs of CO 2 emissions, predominantly linked to the slightly weathered Inceptisols (3.7 × 10 9 kg of TSC loss, $644.1M SC-CO 2 ). Counties with some of the highest soil C losses were Suffolk County (6.0 × 10 8 kg of TSC loss, $102.2M SC-CO 2 ) and Orange County (5.2 × 10 8 kg of TSC loss, $87.8M SC-CO 2 ) near NYC, and Saratoga County (4.8 × 10 8 kg of TSC loss, $81.6M SC-CO 2 ) near Albany. The Hudson Valley region near NYC had the highest C loss (2.0 × 10 9 kg of TSC loss, $331.3M SC-CO 2 ), followed by the Capital District (1.1 × 10 8 kg of TSC loss, $194.3M SC-CO 2 ), which includes Albany.
This study proposed an innovative spatial attribution approach for liability estimation from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts, which is matched by geographic location. Application of this approach in practice can potentially lead to climate change-safe land development practices as well as reduce the contribution of public funds (e.g., taxpayers' money) for climate-change L&D in NYS and other geographic locations. In addition, these methods can inform efforts in achieving the UN SDGs.
To help determine the appropriate level of liability and compensation for GHG emissions, this study explored the standard legal doctrines of contributory/comparative negligence; assumption of the risk; and risk-avoidance/mitigation of damages. This study identified that the best level of compensation should not always be full compensation. Instead, compensation should be reduced if a property owner chooses to build in areas that are known to be vulnerable to climate change.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cli11050109/s1, Table S1. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the state of New York (USA) by soil order; Table S2. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon (C) due to complete loss of total soil carbon (TSC) of developed land by soil order in the state of New York (USA) from 2001 to 2016; Table  S3. Developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon (C) due to complete loss of total soil carbon (TSC) of developed land by soil order in the state of New York (USA) prior and through 2016; Table S4. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon (C) due to complete loss of total soil carbon (TSC) of developed land by soil order and region in New York State (USA) from 2001 to 2016.