Governor Hochul was globetrotting last week with a trip to Italy to see the Pope and then to her ancestral home in Ireland.  The trip to Rome was in her capacity as the newly selected co-chair of the U.S. Climate Alliance. 

The Alliance sent a delegation of governors to meet with the Pope about the worsening climate emergency.  Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical, On Care for Our Common Home, was a clarion call for action to address the climate crisis based on religious, moral, scientific and self-preservation grounds.

The U.S. Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of governors working to achieve the nation’s net-zero future by mid-Century, consistent with the call by the world’s climate experts. Governor Hochul was appointed co-chair in early May. 

In his welcoming comments, the Pope said “The road ahead is uphill and not without danger.  The data emerging from this summit have shown that the effects of climate change loom over every aspect of our lives.”

The conference was organized around keynote addresses by the mayor of Paris and the governors of California and New York.  While California is ranked seventh in oil production, Governor Newsom used his speech to highlight the state’s strides in shifting toward a reliance on non-fossil fuel power.

Governor Newsom said “California has exceeded its nation-leading environmental goals.  I come here today on Day 32, 32 straight days, over one month, where California’s economy is literally being run with 100 percent clean energy.”

Like California, New York has set aggressive climate goals.  In 2019, then-Governor Cuomo and the state Legislature agreed to a new law that set climate goals consistent with the best climate science available at that time.  The new law required that state achieve

• 70 percent renewable energy by 2030;
• 100 percent zero-emission electricity by 2040;
• 40 percent reduction in statewide greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030; and
• Net zero emissions statewide by 2050.

While laying out an aggressive plan of action, New York is struggling to achieve those climate goals.

A recent audit by New York State Comptroller DiNapoli revealed the state’s slow pace. The audit found it is taking the state more than three years just to get a permit in New York to start a Renewable Energy Project.  Those delays, the Comptroller said, put the state in jeopardy of not reaching climate goals that were put into law in 2019.

In addition to the slow pace, projects are faltering due to rising costs – exacerbated by a slow permitting process.  Last month, it was reported that three ambitious projects to build offshore wind farms folded.

Despite that, in her speech at the Vatican Governor Hochul used the state’s climate law as the cornerstone of New York’s strategies and pledged to meet those goals.

Of course, the DiNapoli audit and the failure of three offshore wind farms make it at best unclear if those goals will be met.  The governor chose instead to focus her remarks on climate catastrophes: more intense storms, heat waves, and rising sea levels.  She then announced nearly $300 million in climate resiliency funding.

While $300 million is significant, it falls far short of the billions needed by the state to address expected climate costs.  Moreover, while committing hundreds of millions of dollars, Governor Hochul did not mention that those monies would come from taxpayers.  It was the governor who blocked a legislative budget plan to make the biggest oil companies financially responsible for at least some of the state’s mushrooming climate costs leaving taxpayers on the financial hook.  And it was last year that the governor advanced a budget plan to weaken New York’s efforts to rein in methane gas emissions. 

The Hochul Administration inherited an aggressive climate plan but is so far not doing enough to meet those goals.  Ironically, her appointment to the Climate Alliance and papal visit may lead to some uncomfortable scrutiny of New York’s climate track record.  The challenge now is to make the law reality by meeting the goals, withstanding the pressures to backslide, and providing the leadership to overcome the inevitable political, fiscal, and practical obstacles that always arise with undertakings of this magnitude.

While New York is only one of fifty states, its economy is one of the largest in the world.  It makes sense for New York’s governor to be part of the global discussion over how to avert the worst of the unfolding climate catastrophe.  Yet the state’s halting pace to tackle the climate crisis raises an important question: Is New York’s climate law really about optics and rhetoric, not about performance?  The world is watching.  Time will tell.

When it comes to the worsening climate catastrophe that we are living through, the news just keeps getting worse.  Last week, it was reported that the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5^oC (4.5^oF) by the end of this century.  Many of the scientists see a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms that will intensify over time.

There are many reasons why their pessimism is warranted. Fundamentally, far too little is being done to shift the planet away from its reliance on fossil fuels in the face of ideological and partisan opposition.

There is no “magic bullet” to turn the tide.  It will take a comprehensive approach that touches upon all aspects of modern life.  Accomplishing what needs to be done will take political courage and leadership from elected officials at all levels of government.

Protecting the world’s rainforests is one of those essential measures.  Trees and other forms of vegetation are critical tools in fighting the climate crisis – they serve as natural carbon sinks, reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and help keep the planet cool.

However, deforestation of tropical forests is worsening the global climate crisis.  It has been estimated that global loss of tropical forests contributes approximately 20% of global carbon emissions annually.

An area of 18 million acres, more than half the size of New York State, is lost every year due to deforestation.  Not only is this contributing to global warming, but it also contributes to violations of indigenous land rights in many countries and loss of habitat for hundreds of animal species.

Last year New York lawmakers decided to do what the state could to help combat tropical deforestation.  The legislation that was advanced would ensure that New York does not contribute to these harmful practices by limiting the purchasing of tropical hardwoods.  Advocates cited the fact that as the eleventh largest economy in the world, New York State’s purchasing power is an important tool in helping to stop deforestation.

The legislation was approved by the state Assembly and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support last year.  115 Assemblymembers voted in support of the bill.  In the Senate the margin was 42-19.  Both margins were “veto-proof” majorities, meaning that the votes could be there to overturn a gubernatorial veto.

A joint statement by the Senate sponsor and an Ecuadorian indigenous leader noted: “Yet despite our different contexts, we are united on a mission to stop deforestation in the world’s tropical forests — a critical effort to defend frontline communities, protect biodiversity, and curb the climate emergency.”  The legislation had a diverse coalition in support.

Despite those huge legislative margins and widespread support, Governor Hochul vetoed the legislation.  Hochul’s veto memo cited the bill’s burdensome impacts on businesses — “particularly small businesses.”  But it was big businesses who hired the lobbyists to oppose the bill.

Instead of voting to override the governor’s veto, this year lawmakers are instead moving a narrower version of it.  Seemingly, both houses are set to act soon since the bills are currently “live” and on the Senate and Assembly floors awaiting action.

New York has taken significant actions to address climate change within the state’s borders, although there is much that still needs to be done.  The legislation to protect tropical rainforests is a tangible contribution that New York can make to address the larger, global issue.  To combat tropical deforestation, the bill closes loopholes in existing law to more effectively limit the purchase of tropical hardwoods, as well as to require contractors doing business with the state to certify that goods derived wholly or in part from tropical forest-risk commodities and sold to a state agency or authority are not contributing to tropical primary forest degradation or tropical deforestation.

This year, lawmakers should anticipate that the governor will continue to have problems with the bill – even if they hope she will not.  Since the bills are poised to be acted upon, quick passage coupled with a decision to immediately send the bill to the governor could force her to make a decision while the Legislature is still in session.  Under New York’s rules, once the governor receives legislation, she has ten days to act.  Passage of this legislation this week could create a scenario in which those big legislative majorities could act to overturn a bad decision.

That action would reward the hard work of advocates and lawmakers, but most importantly send a clear message that New York wants to help to protect the world’s rainforests because they protect us.

As the nation’s politics become increasingly polarized in a highly divided nation, new voters could easily become the “kingmakers” of November’s elections.  Polls show the nation is evenly divided as they consider the Presidential candidates of the major political parties.  Given the recent razor-thin votes in key Presidential battleground states, a swing one way or another can tip the balance into who gets a majority of the Electoral College ballots.

Here in deep blue New York, presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to win the state in November.  However, in determining control of the U.S. House of Representatives, a very small number of competitive seats can make all the difference.  The stronger-than-expected electoral performance of House Republican candidates in New York in 2022 provided the difference that swung control of that Chamber.

Once again this November, control of the House may turn on a small number of seats, five of which are located in New York State.  All of those incumbents won in 2022 with razor thin margins. 

Assuming tight elections again in 2024, new voters could make the difference in who controls the House.  And a large number of these new voters could come from colleges and universities across New York.

There are over one million college students in the state.  And there are many who live in the five districts in which the House incumbent won with a tiny margin.

Across New York, colleges are filled with students who historically are less likely to vote yet have a common community.  The unfortunate history of student voting has been one in which officials too often seek to suppress participation among this voter segment.

A key battleground has been the right of students to vote in their college communities.  Perhaps not surprising, local elected officials and boards of elections did not, in all cases, look kindly upon the newly enfranchised student electorate.  Even though college students are—for the purposes of the federal census—considered residents of college communities, efforts to limit the student vote persisted.  After years of court battles, boards of elections in New York are required to register students to vote from their campus addresses if the student wishes. 

As has been the case when fundamental rights are extended to new groups—which threatens the status quo—securing the legal right to vote did not mean that actually voting would be easy for young voters.  

As a result, barriers persisted.  Year after year, students have faced obstacles to registration and voting in counties around the state.  Some counties target students by further splitting campus populations into multiple election districts or removing the campus poll site.

In 2022, New York State enacted a new law that required General Election polling places be placed on colleges and universities that had at least 300 registered voters living on campus.  That legislation was approved to help college students vote in elections from their on-campus addresses. 

Under the new state law, colleges that have “three hundred or more registrants who are registered to vote at any address on such contiguous property” must have a polling place placed on “contiguous property or at a nearby location recommended by the college or university and agreed to by the board of elections.”  Despite the new law, New York’s college voter turnout in 2022 was disappointing, under 30 percent.

Part of the problem is that it appears that many colleges did not have polling places as was expected after passage of the new law.  A recent study showed that a majority of colleges in New York State do not have on-campus poll sites and there had been almost no change since the passage of this legislation.

The question is why?

That question has not yet been answered.  Was it a failure of the law or its enforcement?  It is imperative for policymakers to examine this issue and see whether state law needs to be strengthened or implementation falls short – or both.  However, the issue must be examined – failure to allow college students the opportunity to cast their ballots on campus is an indefensible restriction on their constitutional right to vote.  And, a policy failure in this area could change the course of the nation’s – and the world’s – history.

The state budget deal that recently was hammered out failed to adequately tackle the worsening climate threat, but it also did little to attack another environmental crisis: the generation and disposal of solid wastes.

But first, some background.  The number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is garbage-burning incinerators; and last is getting 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.  By the way, these disposal methods can contribute to the climate crisis: Solid waste accounts for 12% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, most of which comes from decomposing waste in landfills. 

The state’s capacity to take this problem on is dwindling.  Again according to the New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (“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?  Trucking the waste somewhere else is likely to be the option, but that is expensive and uncertain:  who knows for how long someone else will be willing to take New York’s trash?  Already, New York City exports nearly all of its trash.  Unless something changes, the rest of the state will have to follow that expensive route.  Actions taken now could extend the lifespan of the state’s existing landfills, but waiting will make the options even more difficult.

In New York’s final budget, the state appropriated $400 million for the Environmental Protection Fund.  That Fund does – among other things – provide funding to spend on projects for “encouraging recycling; providing safe disposal of household hazardous waste; ensuring safe closure of landfills; and developing markets for waste materials.”

Is it enough?  There is some concern that the money appropriated into the EPF is not actually spent directly on environmental projects.  In any event, not all of the EPF goes to urgent solid waste issues.  About $20 million goes to recycling with small amounts going to other programs that could help deal with the mounting trash disposal problems. 

Creating a new landfill is not cheap – and certainly landfill siting can be controversial; ditto for attempts to expand existing ones.  Obviously, the state will want to extend the life of existing landfills as long as they can (although local communities understandably may oppose those efforts).  In order to do that, programs must be put in place to encourage New Yorkers to reduce the amount of trash that they create.

The DEC is considering a trash surcharge that would both generate revenues for dealing with the solid waste disposal problems and encourage New Yorkers to reduce their wastes.  Not surprisingly, adding a “tax” to encourage people not to produce trash can be unpopular and these proposals raise questions about the impacts on lower income New Yorkers.

So why not tackle the trash at the source?  According to the DEC, paper and plastics make up nearly half of municipal solid wastes.  There are two bills ready to take those two waste materials on.

First, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act will reduce plastic packaging by 50% over 12 years 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 to be paid by packaging producers, generating new revenue that could help defray waste costs for local taxpayers.

Second, an expansion of 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.  And the nickel deposit was put in place 40 years ago – that 1983 nickel when adjusted for inflation is worth 15 cents today.

Both of these measures would reduce packaging waste and promote the concept of a “circular economy” – one in which wastes are reduced to a minimum.  It is a concept embraced by the DEC in its recent report, the “New York State Solid Waste Management Plan.”

Reports are fine, but action is what matters.  As lawmakers return to the Capitol next week, they must take the solid waste disposal crisis head on.  The packaging reduction and bottle deposit law expansion bills are two good places to start.

April 22^nd is “Earth Day,” the global celebration of the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970.  History shows that Earth Day was not intended to be about personal actions – planting a tree or recycling one’s garbage, although both are good ideas.  Instead, the original Earth Day was a reaction to the enormous environmental damage done by the essentially unregulated discharging of pollution into the nation’s airways and waterways. 

At that time, Americans were combusting vast amounts of leaded gasoline in inefficient automobiles that belched out toxic pollution.  Industries pumped out smoke and sludge and considered those wastes the price of progress.  Chemical waste and garbage were dumped into waterways on a scale never before seen; air pollution was at staggering levels.  Toxic herbicides and pesticides were lightly regulated, if at all.  Much of the American public was largely oblivious to the fact that a polluted environment posed a substantial health risk.

Earth Day 1970 was a watershed moment that galvanized public awareness of the growing threat of pollution and its impact on the nation’s environment and public health.  That Earth Day and the nationwide rallies and actions, resulted in monumental improvements, including the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and passage of laws, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. 

Today, we are all facing threats that equal – if not exceed – those of the 1960s.  Like that time, Americans need to get involved without becoming cynical or depressed about the possibilities for improving the world.  Closer to home, actions in New York can set the tone for the nation – and the world. 

New York State’s population, while only the fourth largest in the nation, has an outsized impact since it is the 10^th largest economy in the world.  What New York does not only impacts its own residents, but it can also influence the nation, and the world.  States are the nation’s laboratories for democracy and New York has been a leader in influential policymaking.

Yet, the final state budget agreement that was put in place this past weekend ignored the single most important environmental issue facing the state, the nation, and the world: the climate crisis. 

Global energy-related CO₂ emissions hit a record high last year, according to the International Energy Agency, and 2023 was the hottest year on record.  The world’s climate experts urge that the world needs to virtually eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels by the middle of this Century or face environmental and humanitarian catastrophe.

Here in New York, action has been taken to set strong climate goals.  In 2019, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) was signed into law.  The Climate Act is among the most ambitious climate laws in the nation and requires New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels.  Those goals are in line with the best climate science that is available. 

New Yorkers will foot the bill for tens of billions of dollars in expenses to deal with rising sea levels, more extreme storms, and increasing heat.  Long Island faces up to $100 billion in climate costs, more than half of New York local government spending outside of NYC was, or will be, related to climate change, it will cost New York City $100 billion to upgrade its sewers for more intense storms, and those costs are on top of the $52 billion needed to protect New York Harbor from rising sea levels.  Those costs – like the temperature of the planet – are expected to keep increasing.

Those staggering costs inspired legislation in both houses of the state Legislature to make fossil fuel polluters pay up for New York’s climate damages: the Climate Change Superfund Act.  In the budget fight, both the Senate and Assembly offered support for the measure, but Governor Hochul dug in and killed the effort to make the climate polluters pay.  Now New York taxpayers will bear the brunt of all climate costs.   

A second measure, the NY Home Energy Affordable Transition (HEAT) Act, would remove the legal requirement that all ratepayers subsidize the costs of hooking up customers to gas lines.  That subsidy costs New Yorkers $200 million annually.  Requiring this subsidy flies in the face of what the experts say must be done – do not expand fossil fuel use.   In this case, it was the state Assembly that killed the measure.

Of course, all is not lost.  Lawmakers return in early May to take up non-budget legislation.  The session will wrap up in early June.  Expect that both of these measures will rise again during the end-of-session debate.  After all, failure to act will only cost ratepayers and taxpayers more, while benefiting the fossil fuel lobby.

Protecting the fossil fuel lobby after all the damage it has done – and continues to do – can’t be the message out of New York.  Here’s hoping that next Earth Day will be one that looks back at climate achievements, not the embarrassing spectacle of New York’s political establishment acting as a toady to the fossil fuel lobby.  Fingers crossed and Happy Earth Day!