New York State has consistently blocked the construction of new pipelines to allow for the transportation of gas. The state Department of Environmental Conservation has rejected new gas pipeline construction on the grounds that it would harm water quality.

The rejection was also driven by a recognition that construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure is at odds with the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (known as the “Climate Law”). It is the Climate Law that requires that 70% of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy by 2030 and that New York effectively eliminates greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

After all, how could the state reconcile expanding reliance on fossil fuels while at the same time seeking to eliminate its use in generating power? It could not.

The rationale for acting to slash the emission of greenhouse gases is backed up by the world’s experts and climate science. For example:

• Earth’s temperature has increased by about 2.3°F (1.1°C) and 2024 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous records set in 2016 and 2023.  The decade from 2015 to 2024 was the warmest recorded decade. 
• The rate of global warming has been faster since 1970 than at any other time in the last 2,000 years. 
• The warming is triggered by greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of oil, gas, and coal, causing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels to reach a record – now more than 50% higher than pre-industrial levels.
• The increased heat has impacted the world. The global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880.

As one of the world’s biggest economies, New York’s actions not only impact the nation, but can affect global climate policies, as well.

As long as its policies stayed in place, that is.

Reportedly as a result of pressure from the Trump Administration, New York is changing course and on the verge of allowing construction of pipelines it had previously banned as environmental threats a few years ago.

The pressure started with an attack by the Trump Administration on a nearly completed wind farm off of Eastern Long Island. In April the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary ordered that the project be halted. The Secretary later elaborated, saying that the Biden administration’s approval of the “Empire Wind project was built on bad and flawed science.” At that time, Governor Hochul issued a statement sharply critical of the stop-work order, declaring it was the product of “a shortsighted, political agenda.”

Then in May, with no explanation on how the “flawed scientific methodologies” were resolved, the Trump Administration rescinded the stop-work order for Empire Wind.

The Interior Secretary commented on his social media account that “I am encouraged by Governor Hochul’s comments about her willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity.”  The existence of a deal to lift the stop-work order in exchange for Governor Hochul’s approval of constructing natural gas pipelines has been widely reported.

The governor has said that no such deal is in place. However, the White House has publicly stated that the governor “caved” to Trump on allowing two new gas pipelines through New York.

This past summer, the Hochul Administration began to move the pipeline projects. It issued a notice that it was opening a public comment period, but with no public hearings. That approach stood at odds with New York’s previous reviews of the pipeline projects, which included public hearings. And in September, the state’s Public Service Commission – an agency effectively controlled by the governor – gave its approval to the pipeline project. While the PSC has no formal role in the pipeline approval process, its endorsement is viewed as an indication of how the permit process is likely to play out.

If approved, how will building pipelines square with the state’s Climate Law? At the moment, there is no answer.

If approved, what will be the likely results for New Yorkers? Higher utility rates. If the pipelines are approved, New Yorkers will pay dearly. Estimates show ratepayer costs at $200 million annually for the next 15 years. And that’s just to build the pipeline itself. The cost of gas is rising – gas supply costs remain relatively low, but gas utilities are allowed to charge us through the nose to maintain and build out the aging gas system. And looking forward, the price of piped gas is rising more than 2x that of electricity.

If these pipelines are approved, these costs – both environmental and financial – will be paid for over a decade or more. Time that the planet’s climate does not have and money that New Yorkers would rather keep in their pockets.

Here’s hoping that Governor Hochul gets the message and that New York’s climate reversal doesn’t happen.

When it comes to government services, generally speaking there are two major categories: “rights” and “benefits.” A “right” is a service that one is entitled to under law; a “benefit” is a service that you can access if you do certain things. In terms of health insurance, wealthier nations view health care as a “right”: You get it based on being a citizen, no questions asked. Here in the United States, health coverage is a “right” to everyone aged 65 years and older. When you hit that age, you are entitled to it.

Health insurance benefits for those under 65 are often provided by an employer; it is a “benefit” that one receives for working. If the employer doesn’t offer coverage, the state provides coverage with the cost subsidized by government.

Of course, a benefit that is unaffordable for many isn’t much of a benefit.

The fight over the size of federal health insurance subsidies is at the heart of the partial federal government shutdown that started last week. Most Republican members of Congress and the President want to reduce subsidies; most Democrats want them to stay the same.

There is no entitlement at risk, only the size of the subsidy for the benefit.

For lower income individuals, there is a form of a health coverage entitlement through the Medicaid program. If an individual is under a certain income, they qualify (or if they have some form of disability). Since Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, those income levels and scale of coverage can be significantly different from state-to-state.

But until recently, if you were low income, you were entitled to coverage.

National policy on access to health care changed significantly this past summer. As part of the Trump Administration’s budget, the Medicaid program saw dramatic changes, most fundamentally one in which many current beneficiaries have lost their entitlement, their right to coverage. For those individuals, in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage, you now have to find work.

Proponents say the policy will reduce federal spending and promote self-reliance. However, according to experts, that plan is unlikely to work. Here is why:

Most non-disabled Medicaid enrollees already work, perform other qualifying activities, or are exempt from work requirements. The current proportion of adult Medicaid recipients who work now is 44% and most of the other 56% are engaged in alternative work activities like caring for children or have a health-related work limitation. Only 10-15% of adult Medicaid beneficiaries are estimated to be impacted by the work requirement.

Where states have enacted similar programs, they have failed. In the state of Arkansas for example, after its enactment, 18,000 adults left Medicaid in just six months. Research found that many people were unaware of the new rules and confused about reporting requirements. There was no evidence that workforce participation increased.

Remember, the only way to realize savings is by getting people off Medicaid. That means current Medicaid beneficiaries would either find work with health coverage, or they would have to drop off the rolls completely. Forcing people to become uninsured is an indefensible policy, but effectively that’s what is likely to happen.

The changes would result in 7.5 million Americans losing Medicaid coverage, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. One medical journal study projected the changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act would result in as many as 16,000 preventable deaths annually nationwide.

Why is this happening? First the projected “savings” were used to offset a massive tax cut for the wealthy. Second, there are those who simply are philosophically opposed to “rights.”

What can be done? It is far past time for the United States to follow the lead of other wealthy nations. As mentioned, the U.S. already has a program for those 65 years of age and older – Medicare.

Legislation proposed in New York, the New York Health Act, would end the needless rationing of health care that defines the current system. Instead, it would establish, simply, that health care is a right and that all New Yorkers have access to care. Regardless of ability to pay. Regardless of race or ethnicity. Regardless of whether they live in a city or rural area. Regardless of employment status. Regardless of pre-existing conditions.

The New York Health Act should improve health care as well. New Yorkers would have better insurance — with broader coverage, including for long-term care — than they do now. Doctors and nurses would be freed to provide care, rather than spend their time on billing. This new system would also be vastly more efficient than the current system.

Under the changes resulting from the Trump Administration and the Congressional majorities, people will lose their health coverage, all to help finance tax benefits for the wealthy. It’s up to states to blaze a different path. Scores of countries provide universal health care to their residents. It’s about time that the U.S. join them. New York should lead the way.

New York’s ethics laws – those covering the actions of public officials and lobbyists – gets an annual airing at a public hearing convened by the state’s ethics watchdog.  Last week, the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government (COELIG) held its hearing to gauge public reactions to the agency’s dozens of recommendations for improvements in the law and the functioning of the oversight agency.

Among their proposals was one that surely got the interest of the state’s political establishment – greater oversight of the involvement of lobbyists in campaign fundraising.  The Commission advanced two ideas.  The first was to seek comment on a proposal to “Limit or prohibit or otherwise regulate campaign donations” from lobbyists to elected officials or candidates for public office.  The second was to “Require lobbyists and clients to report their campaign contributions to COELIG.”  

Banning campaign contributions from anyone runs into U.S. Constitutional issues, but the idea of some form of lobbyist-focused restriction is not unusual in the country.  In fact, half the country puts restrictions on that type of activity.

New York State, however, is not one of them.

Why does this matter?  Anyone even remotely involved in the state legislative process knows that campaign fundraising plays a big role in policymaking.  Last year’s January to early June legislative session, for example, saw at least 176 campaign fundraising events held in the Capital District or by leadership during 62 scheduled session days.  Do the math: for each day lawmakers were in the Albany area, multiple campaign fundraisers were held.  Who was the target audience for attendance at these fundraisers?  Do you think it was constituents from, say, Buffalo or Long Island?

Nope.  They were held for lobbyists and their clients.  And they didn’t come for the pigs ‘n blankets and watered down drinks.

Essentially, current law in New York allows lobbyists pleading for legislative favors during the day to then fork over campaign contributions in the evening, usually at a location a short walk down the street from the Capitol.

It’s not hard to see why that’s a bad practice and why so many states have placed restrictions on it.

You can almost hear the howls of complaints from elected officials and the lobbying corps over COELIG’s idea of advancing a measure to curb the status quo.  The agency deserves credit for advancing it, hopefully we’ll see a real proposal from them later this year.

While that proposal was welcome, an important topic was ignored by the Commission and will hopefully be part of its final package of reforms.

There is a glaring loophole in the state’s lobbying law.  The state law defines what is considered lobbying, such as advocacy to get the governor to take policy positions, or lawmakers to agree to legislation, or agencies’ regulatory decisions.  If a form of advocacy is not on the list, then it is exempt from disclosure.  One example is efforts to influence gubernatorial nominations that are sent to the state Senate for approval.  Those are not considered lobbying under the law and spending to influence those decisions does not need to be reported.

The problem with that is obvious.  For example, under current law, advocating to influence the Public Service Commission’s determination of utility rates is considered lobbying.  Thus, entities trying to impact those rates have to report their actions to COELIG.  However, the members of the Public Service Commission – the people who decide the rates – are nominated by the governor and approved by a majority vote of the state Senate.  Under New York’s current law, attempting to influence who sits on the PSC is not currently considered lobbying.  

In that case, advocating to influence utility rates is lobbying, but advocating to determine who makes the decision on those rates is not.  How does that make sense?

Legislation has been approved by the state Senate to close that loophole, but seemingly for no apparent reason, has failed to be approved by the state Assembly.  If COELIG weighed in with its support, perhaps that could push the state Assembly to finally do something about it.

Lobbying has the potential to contribute to democracy and the public policy formation process by providing decision makers directly with valuable insights and data.  However, without transparency and integrity, it can be used to steer public policies away from the public interest – particularly if a small group of powerful interests use their wealth, power and dominant positions to unfair advantage.

Strengthening the agency that regulates and monitors those relationships and actions is in the public’s interest.  In addition, the agency should advance its plan to place oversight of lobbyists’ role in raising money for those who they seek to influence.  If they do so, they will go a long way toward creating a policymaking environment far less susceptible to conflicts of interest.  And the public will get a more complete picture of “how the sausage is made” in Albany’s lawmaking process.  Lastly, the public should expect that COELIG embraces a plan to plug a glaring lobbying disclosure loophole.  The public has a right to know who is trying to influence government appointments.

This past weekend marked the start of Climate Week. Climate Week is an annual event dating back to 2009 and runs during the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting held in New York City. On Monday, international leaders will convene for the opening ceremony to receive updates on the damage caused by climate change and the threat it poses. The Climate Week events are designed to spur global, national and local actions and to develop plans on how to address the worsening climate catastrophe.

The Week offers hundreds of events held by various organizations that focus on new science that underscores the threats posed by an increasingly heating planet and policies to address them.

There’s no shortage of pressing topics as the climate news is bad and getting worse. Here are some:

• Earth’s temperature has increased by about 2.3°F (1.1°C) since the pre-industrial era – putting the planet close to the 2015 Paris Agreement redline of no more than 2.7°F (1.5°C).
• 2024 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous records set in 2016 and 2023.  The decade from 2015 to 2024 was the warmest recorded decade. 
• The rate of global warming since 1970 has been faster than at any other time in the last 2,000 years. 
• The warming is triggered by greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of oil, gas, and coal, causing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels to reach a record high of over 421 parts per million (ppm) in 2024. Current CO₂ levels are more than 50% higher than pre-industrial levels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric CO₂ over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases.
• The increased heat has impacted the world. Global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880. The rate of sea level rise has more than doubled since the 20th century. Contributing to that sea level rise is the melting of glaciers worldwide. Glaciers tracked globally have lost ice for 36 consecutive years. The Arctic Ocean has lost an area of sea ice equivalent to South Carolina each year between 1979 and 2021.

Climate Week is supposed to create an environment in which the world’s leaders learn and act. In fact, the theme of this year’s Climate Week is turning ambition into action.

Yet, our nation, the world’s leader and the historic leader in the emission of greenhouse gases, is not only missing in action, but actively accelerating the damage to the environment.

As part of Washington’s anti-science agenda, the Trump Administration and the Congress have taken steps to demolish what progress had been made in the United States in curbing the emissions of greenhouse gases and better preparing the nation for the more intense storms, heat, and sea level rise. Here are some examples:

• The United States has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement. That agreement establishes that the world will take steps to keep the planet from heating up beyond 2.7°F (1.5°C) of pre-industrial temperatures, the level at which the world’s experts warn could lead to a devastating climate catastrophe for the planet.

• The Trump administration proposed revoking the 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action that found that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. This ruling allows the EPA to regulate carbon emissions.
• The administration declared a “national energy emergency” to justify redirecting the federal government toward greater use of fossil fuels.
• The administration has cut funding for climate science research across multiple federal agencies, including the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), fired hundreds of scientists, and removed access to scientific information on climate change from government websites.
• The administration also targeted actions by states that are trying to deal with climate-related problems. Here in New York, for example, the Trump Administration has attacked New York’s landmark law that shifts some of the mounting financial costs caused by climate disasters from taxpayers to the largest oil companies.

Instead of curbing the damages done by climate change, Washington is making it worse. And we will all suffer with the consequences.

All is not lost. Europe is doing all it can to meet climate goals, for example. The European Union recently reported that it will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50% by the year 2030. That goal was set as a midpoint measure to meet the science-based goal of virtually eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. If the EU can do it, we in the United States can, too. Unfortunately, those in Washington seem dead set on making things worse, not better.

Here in New York, we must do better. New York’s goal is to reduce its GHG emissions by 40% by the year 2030, setting the bar much lower than the EU. Yet, the state has not accomplished a lot in reducing GHG. In the year 2022 (latest data available), New York reported that it had only reduced GHG by less than 10%. While there is still time, the state must start ramping up its efforts to meet its goal.

The important thing to remember is that the world’s climate is deteriorating and doing so rapidly. The oil industry and its allies in Washington and Albany are doing all they can to undermine climate science and the public policies that flow from it.

We should all know the facts and demand that our representatives follow science and not the nihilism that is pushing the world toward catastrophe. If we don’t, the planet will continue to heat up and our options will get fewer and much more expensive.

Good campaigns rely on message control. Present your points in simple, understandable, and popular terms, recruit a range of “trusted” messengers, and relentlessly hammer home your message.

We’ve seen just such a campaign directed at undermining the state’s Climate Law. The campaign is underwritten by the oil and gas industries and injected by allies into public debates. The two core messages are that New York’s Climate Law is both unaffordable and its goals unrealistic, even radical.

This effort has been effective. But the claims are false.

First some background. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (a.k.a the “Climate Law”) was approved six years ago and sets the state on a path toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this Century. The “net zero” goal is consistent with the standard set by the world’s climate scientists who have warned that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global heating, all nations need to adhere to the net zero goal.

Given the anti-science ideology in Washington, there is little hope for meaningful positive action by the U.S. Congress or the current administration. Thus, states must act.

New York has. Its law is anchored by climate science and its policies embrace the goals established by the world’s experts: phasing out by mid-Century the state’s reliance on power generated by fossil fuels.

In doing so, New York set interim goals designed to guide policymakers as benchmark steps to meet the goals advised by the world’s climate experts. While all agreed that these goals were ambitious, policymakers knew that in order to meet the science-based goal of weening the state off fossil fuels by the middle of the Century, they must try.

The opponents’ campaign is centered on the falsehood that the impacts of the Climate Law are already being felt and that it is significantly responsible for rising energy costs.

Which is not only untrue, but failing to meet the Climate Law’s requirements will be, in fact, be far more costly.

It is true that New York’s residential electricity rates are high, however, relative to the nation’s. In 2018 – the year before the state Climate Law was signed – New York’s residential electricity rates were ranked the seventh-highest in the nation; today they are still ranked seventh highest. Still high to be sure, but the impact of the Climate Law’s passage didn’t make a meaningful difference.

Failing to meet the Climate Law’s goals will be more costly too. After the Climate Law was passed, the state then convened a panel of “stakeholders” to develop a detailed blueprint to meet those interim goals. The panel was chosen and their work completed after a public hearing process and other ways to solicit input. That advisory group concluded “the cost of inaction in New York State exceeds the cost of action by more than $115 billion.”

And the argument that the state’s science-based goals are “unrealistic” or “radical” is also false. If New York’s goals were simply too ambitious, then other states would be in the same situation. But that is not the case.

New York ranks 16^th in the nation in its reliance on renewable energy. New York ranks 13^th in the nation in its production of solar power, behind northeast neighbor Massachusetts (ranked 5^th). Of course, differences in geography and climate can drive these rankings, but New York only generates around 5 percent of its electricity from solar, while often-just-as-overcast Germany generates 10 percent of its energy from the sun.

What is true is that implementation of New York’s Climate Law has been lackluster. Since the law was enacted six years ago, it has become clear that the state did not do enough to meet its requirements. Reviews of New York’s efforts, both inside and outside the state government found that far too little was accomplished – largely due to an anemic response by the previous and current Administrations.

Of course, the Covid epidemic didn’t help, but state leaders have not galvanized government to achieve the goals set in the Climate Law.

Like any other goals that are set, adjustments have to be made. But the central goal of the Climate Law – namely that the state, the nation, and the world, must end reliance on the burning of fossil fuels – must animate the Hochul Administration and state lawmakers.

Knuckling under to the pressure of the Law’s opponents and succumbing to their disinformation campaign will do nothing other than lead to higher costs and a dangerously weakened climate.