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!

If media reports are to be believed, Governor Hochul and the state’s legislative leaders are inching toward a budget deal this week.  The big issues – housing, K-12 education funding, Medicaid – have been getting all of the airtime, but there are many other important policies that are in play.

One of those top issues is how will the final budget deal strengthen the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP).  TAP is fifty years old this year.  For five decades, TAP has been the way of directing financial aid to the neediest students in both the public and independent college sectors.  Historically, TAP has covered the entire cost of public college tuition for the lowest income students and helped offset those costs for moderate- and middle-income students.

However, the TAP program has been neglected over the past few decades.  Policymakers have chosen to do little to strengthen the program in order to keep pace with changes in higher education.  The maximum family income for TAP eligibility has stayed the same for the past twenty years.  The minimum TAP award has stayed the same during that period as well.

Moreover, starting in the Cuomo Administration, the maximum TAP award was frozen as the state continually raised public college tuition.  It wasn’t until five years had gone by before lawmakers forced an increase in the maximum TAP award, but it still does not cover the full cost of SUNY tuition.

The impacts surely are clear to policymakers.  Combined with a decline in college enrollment, New York’s failures to update TAP have resulted in an enormous reduction in the amount of financial aid made available to students.  In fact, over the past 15 years the amount of TAP assistance has dropped by a whopping $237 million in real dollars.

When the “frozen” income eligibility and award amounts are adjusted for inflation, the reduction in higher educational purchasing power becomes evident.  Adjusting for consumer inflation alone and just comparing what would have happened if the maximum and minimum TAP awards had tracked the Consumer Price Index (the inflation rate in higher education tends to run higher than overall consumer inflation), shows that TAP awards would have been significantly greater if it kept pace with inflation for the higher education sector.

The Cuomo policy of keeping the maximum TAP award frozen while increasing public college tuition also destabilized some SUNY colleges.  Under the policy, public colleges were required to cover the difference between what their students received as the maximum TAP award and the rising SUNY tuition price tag.  That “gap” swelled over time and became known as the “TAP gap.” 

The TAP gap eroded public colleges’ finances as they were regularly being asked to cover rising tuition costs for their poorest students.  Independent colleges were hit too.  Since TAP awards were frozen, they too had to figure out ways to cover the financial assistance that would normally have come from the state’s TAP.

Rising costs coupled with restrained financial assistance contributed to a drop in enrollments.  Fewer students equal less money for colleges that were already seeing reductions in state assistance.  That “one-two” punch surely accelerated the weakening financial situations at SUNY – and smaller independent colleges – and the results are clearer every day.

The problems of the TAP program have long been known by New York’s leaders.  The hope was that this being the 50^th anniversary of the TAP program, Governor Hochul would develop a modernization plan.

Instead, she essentially offered more of the same.

Both houses of the Legislature, on the other hand, advanced robust improvements in their budget plans.  Given the fact that the negotiations on the state budget are conducted in near complete secrecy, it’s hard to know what will happen with this important program. 

Colleges and universities have important jobs: they train the next generation of workers and help them to better understand civic life.  In addition, they are economic engines that create jobs that stimulate and anchor local economies.  They offer a stimulus to local economies that are virtually guaranteed to succeed. 

Whether the state’s political leadership agrees that New York’s economic future hinges on a robust system of higher education, only time will tell.  What will be clear is that if are no significant changes to TAP that reverse the program’s decline, New Yorkers will know exactly who opposed the reforms – Governor Hochul.  She did not advance significant changes in January, while both houses of the Legislature did.  With the future of higher education for New York students and families hanging in the balance, we should know the outcome of that debate soon.