Governor Hochul and state lawmakers are reportedly finally moving towards finalizing a state budget. Once that work is complete, the Legislature’s attention will be debating “non-budget” bills between now and the scheduled end of the session on June 12^th.

One of those issues should be what to do about New York’s mounting trash crisis.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Americans now generate twice as much waste as they did 50 years ago. What to do with the trash that we all produce? Right now, the number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is burning; and the last is to be recycled. There is no evidence that the problem is getting better. In fact, the state’s residential recycling rate has been dropping over the past decade.

The state’s capacity to tackle this problem is dwindling. Again according to the DEC, “New York’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.”

If the state’s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen? At the end of 2023, the state Department of Environmental Conservation issued its “New York State Solid Waste Management Plan” to tackle that emerging problem. Among its recommendations, the DEC highlighted the need for a “producer responsibility” approach and urged action to, among other things, expand the state’s bottle deposit law and reduce packaging wastes.

Those two legislative proposals are actively under consideration in Albany.

The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (PRRIA) legislation will reduce plastic packaging to dramatically reduce waste, as well as phase out some of the most toxic chemicals used in packaging; improve recyclability of packaging; and slash greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic. It will also make polluters pay by establishing a modest fee on packaging paid by packaging producers, generating new revenue to help defray waste costs for local taxpayers.

As a result it will save taxpayers money.

A new report from Beyond Plastics estimates that New Yorkers could save around $100 million annually if the PRRIA is adopted. The report outlines substantial cost savings, reduced packaging waste, and higher recycling rates from adoption of the bill into law.

Legislation has also been introduced to expand the Bottle Deposit Law. That’s the law that requires a nickel deposit on certain carbonated beverages and bottled water. When you return the container, you get your nickel back. The Bottle Law has been the most successful litter reduction and recycling program in New York history. The DEC describes it as a “tremendous success.” When the law kicked in 40 years ago in 1983, carbonated beverage containers were found everywhere; now the overwhelming majority of these containers are redeemed under the program. But many beverages – most notably non-carbonated sports drinks – didn’t exist four decades ago and are not covered by the law today.

Expanding the law will also save taxpayers money.

According to a new report by the think tank Eunomia, the state’s local governments could save as much as $108 million annually if lawmakers approved the “Bigger Better Bottle Bill,” legislation designed to modernize the four-decade-old law. 

Enacting both proposals would not only help municipalities’ bottom lines – they total $200 million annually – the state would get some new revenue too. According to an analysis done earlier this year, New York State could see as much as $100 million in increased revenue if the Bottle Bill legislation is approved.

The plans to improve the Bottle Bill and establish the PRRIA got a boost last week, when the Siena College Research Institute poll found overwhelming public support for requiring packaging manufacturers to be responsible for their products (required under the PRRIA bill) as well as increasing the bottle deposit from a nickel to a dime (it’s been a nickel since 1983) with majorities of New York Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters all supporting.

The advocates calling for these measures are trying to turn DEC plans into actions – actions that must be taken now in order to reduce the state’s trash problem. You only have to look at the worsening climate to see what happens when policymakers don’t act. This year, lawmakers should act and turn those cans and other packaging wastes into cash as well as to make headway combating the growing trash threat.

The President continues his unprecedented blizzard of executive orders (now numbering at least 129). One of interest last week was an executive order designed to reduce the cost of care for seniors. Primarily focused on the cost of prescription drugs, deep inside the order was a proposal to limit “a shift in drug administration volume away from less costly physician office settings to more expensive hospital outpatient departments.”

The order touches on a growing debate over the pricing of health care and the effort to establish “site neutral” health care payments. 

Here is the background: The amount charged for medical procedures or services can depend as much on where they are performed as on the type of procedure or service provided.  All else being equal, a procedure in a hospital is much more expensive than that same procedure done in a freestanding facility like a physician’s office or a clinic. The higher cost is meant to support a hospital’s more complex infrastructure, staffing and other expenses. 

However, these higher prices are being charged for services provided at non-hospital locations, which often operate at less expense.  That’s in large part because hospitals are buying up private practices, clinics, imaging centers and labs, using them effectively as a “cash cow” to charge more.  Once acquired, these facilities often begin using the hospital billing code to charge hospital prices for services that were previously less expensive.  When acquired by a hospital, physician practices charge about 14 percent more than when they were independent. That means patients and insurers begin to pay more for the same services. The only difference is that the non-hospital facility is owned by a hospital and begins to use the hospital billing code. And over half of physicians now work for hospitals and health systems. 

As a result, patients, Medicare, and health insurance companies are paying higher prices for care than they otherwise would. For example, Medicare pays twice as much for procedures done in hospital-owned facilities as they would for those done in independent physicians’ offices. And for many patients, high deductibles and co-insurance policies mean that they may face a financial hit as well.

The “site neutral” approach requires that Medicare procedures and services are delivered at the same price regardless of the location, whether it’s a hospital, doctor’s office, imaging center or clinic.  This would result in significant savings for consumers, employers and taxpayers. Decreased Medicare spending as a result of “site neutral” policies could save taxpayers $150 billion.

Saving that much money could help the Congress address its budget plans. The potential savings drove the House of Representatives to approve legislation that contained a “site neutral” provision. In the U.S. Senate, Republican Senator Cassidy and Democratic Senator Hassan have released a legislative framework for a “site neutral” payment policy.  The President’s more limited proposal could trigger the making of a deal on the issue.

Here in New York, a similar approach is gaining steam.

The Fair Pricing Act has been introduced to advance a “site-neutral” approach to commercial health plans. The Act requires that low complexity, routine, medical procedures would have their prices capped at no more than 150% of Medicare to lower health benefit expenses for payers while making healthcare more affordable for
patients. By reducing the cost disparities between hospitals and independent facilities, patients won’t be financially penalized for where they receive care, and employers and taxpayers will face less expense.

For patients paying significant out-of-pocket medical costs—like the uninsured, the underinsured, and others with coinsurance or high-deductible expenses—the Act limits their financial exposure. Onerous facility
fees including any additional charges for routine office visits, basic diagnostic tests, or minor outpatient procedures, would also be prohibited under the bill. Transparency through data reporting and public availability of hospital-pricing information will further ensure patients make informed decisions on healthcare for themselves and their
families. Publicly accessible pricing data allows patients to compare the costs of procedures and services across hospitals, independent clinics, and other providers. This helps ensure they can choose care options that best fit their financial situation and medical needs.

Every patient deserves fair priced care and has the right to be protected from sticker shock for medical services such as clinic visits, vaccines, and imaging procedures. These are among the many routine procedures New Yorkers experience every day that are threatened by unsustainable increases in healthcare costs. “Site-neutral” pricing ensures that patients will not be burdened by unsustainable pricing disparities. It’s time for federal and state policymakers to act.

Governor Hochul and state lawmakers continued to haggle over a state budget, now two weeks overdue, and ended up approving a fourth budget extender last week. Albany’s sleepwalking approach to budget-making stood in stark contrast to the flurry of action from the Trump Administration.

By the end of last week, President Trump had signed 116 executive orders, a record for a new president. Many were no more than press releases seemingly designed to impact the media cycle. One that puts a bullseye on New York was issued last week.

In a sweeping broadside statement, the President ordered the U.S. Attorney to “stop the enforcement of State laws” on climate change that the administration says are unconstitutional, unenforceable or preempted by federal laws.

It directs the U.S. Attorney General to target state laws on carbon taxes and fees, as well as state laws mentioning terms like “environmental justice” and “greenhouse gas emissions.” The order directs the AG to “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State laws and continuation of civil actions … that the Attorney General determines to be illegal.”

Within 60 days, the order says, the Attorney General will report on the actions taken against state climate laws and recommend other actions from the president or Congress.

The executive order clearly goes after state programs designed to combat climate change and it was merely one of the Administration’s efforts to undermine science-based policies. The Administration cut funding and staff for Flagship Climate Report, which examines the growing climate disaster and its report is required by Congress. The Administration also announced a plan for deep cuts to the E.P.A.’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires disclosures by large companies that emit air pollution.

All of these feverish actions ignore science. Let’s start with the obvious: The planet is heating up and 2024 was the world’s hottest year in recorded history. The world’s climate scientists have agreed that “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming” and that “limiting human-caused global warming requires net zero CO₂ emissions.”

The state policies targeted by the Administration are designed to follow the best science on mitigating a worsening human-induced catastrophe. As we all know, the President thinks otherwise. He’s long dismissed climate change as a hoax.

But, despite his belief, science tells us that global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase and with that the heating up of the planet.

Legal experts have dismissed the Administration’s executive order as unconstitutional. Governor Hochul agreed and joined her co-leader of the U.S. Climate Alliance in a joint statement saying, “The federal government cannot unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority” and that “We are a nation of states — and laws — and we will not be deterred.”

Among the many targets of the Trump Administration’s executive order is that it attempts to torpedo New York’s landmark Climate Change Superfund Act.  The Act was approved to mitigate the costs to state taxpayers resulting from the damage caused by the ongoing climate catastrophe.

New York’s recently enacted Climate Superfund is crafted to ensure that state and local taxpayers are not on the financial hook for 100% of the damages caused by severe storms, rising sea levels, and hotter temperatures.  Currently, New Yorkers are paying billions in climate-related damages.  There is zero doubt that those costs will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

The costs will be staggering, yet they are costs that must be paid.  The Climate Superfund requires the largest oil companies – those most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions – to pay New York $3 billion annually for each of the next 25 years to offset these costs. And it does so in a way that ensures that the companies cannot pass these costs on to the public. 

If the Trump Administration’s executive order is successful, that annual $3 billion assessment will be borne by state and local taxpayers – either through increases in taxes or draconian cuts to government-provided services. Since these climate costs have to be paid, the question is should the public pay all of the costs?  New York’s law says polluters should pay their fair share.

Given the narrow House majority in the U.S. Congress, the seven New York Republican Representatives can play a key role in deciding the fate of the state’s efforts to follow climate science and protect taxpayers. They can urge the president to lay off New York’s climate policies, including the Climate Superfund. Whether they choose to do so, only time will tell.

With spring and lawn care season right around the corner, New Yorkers aren’t only preparing for warmer weather and enjoying the great outdoors: They’re steeling themselves for the irritating ramp up of loud, dirty gas-powered lawn equipment.

That’s because it doesn’t matter if you live on Long Island or Buffalo, we’ve all had the jarring experience of having a peaceful day interrupted by an obnoxiously loud gas-powered leaf blower or other lawn equipment that’s spewing fumes from its engine.

These machines are not only staggeringly loud, but they also produce a shocking amount of air pollution. That makes them more than a Saturday morning annoyance – they’re also a health hazard.

Nationwide, New York State ranks third in the nation for fine particulate pollution and fourth for global warming pollution from dirty gas-powered lawn equipment. Pollution from gas-powered lawn equipment contributes to ground-level ozone and fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) and emits high levels of carcinogens like benzene, along with other toxic compounds.

Even short-term exposure to these pollutants can cause or contribute to asthma, heart attacks, cardiovascular disease, premature death and more.

For its small size, gas powered lawn equipment packs a big punch when it comes to air pollution. Incredibly, studies show that operating a gas-powered leaf blower for just one hour produces as much smog-forming pollution as driving a car 1,100 miles – the distance from Albany to Jacksonville, Florida.

These devices also make it harder to address climate change. It’s estimated that gas-powered lawn equipment in New York alone produced almost 1.4 million tons of global warming pollution in 2020 – equal to the climate emissions released by more than 300,000 cars.

And then there’s the noise. This too is more than just annoying – it poses a significant health threat as well. Most gas-powered leaf blowers exceed 70 decibels measured at 50 feet, which is considered dangerous to hearing. Additionally, this noise impacts the immune system, causes adverse cardiovascular effects, and impairs the learning, hearing, sleep, and language development of children. Acoustic research also shows that gas-powered leaf blower’s distinctive low frequency noise penetrates further than other machine-generated sound waves, even through solid walls.

But cleaner air is within grasp for New Yorkers: a group of New York legislators have put forth a proposal to help lawn care companies and local government maintenance crews switch from dirty gas-powered lawn equipment to cleaner, quieter electric tools.

State Senator Liz Krueger (Manhattan) and state Assemblyman Steven Otis (Port Chester and New Rochelle) have introduced bills S1574 and A2657, which would create an electric landscaping equipment rebate program. This would go a long way towards reducing global warming pollution, improving air quality and reducing noise pollution from gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn equipment by promoting the adoption of quieter, zero-emission landscaping equipment.

This legislation has already garnered bipartisan votes of support in the state Senate, which `has already approved it. The bill is also broadly supported by a diverse set of constituencies and interests, including over one hundred public health, environmental and community groups, lawn equipment manufacturers, and equipment retailers like Home Depot.

With support from unusual allies like this, it will hopefully send a clear message to members of the New York Assembly to join their Senate colleagues and take action to quickly to pass A2657 and then send it to Governor Hochul’s desk for her signature.

Electric lawn equipment is generally cleaner, quieter and easier to use. These electric alternatives are often just as capable as their fossil fuel-powered counterparts and, over a lifetime of use, cost less to operate.

It’s time to join the call for cleaner, quieter lawn equipment in New York. Hopefully, Albany will join the call.