Posted by NYPIRG on July 15, 2019 at 9:15 am
Too
often the debate over the looming environmental catastrophe called “climate
change” is couched in the future tense.
For example, the world’s experts have said that unless the earth’s
temperature increase is kept to no more than 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the
year 2030, the changes may be irreversible.
Recent New York legislation has pledged to eliminate the use of fossil
fuels to power electricity by the year 2040 and pledged to nearly eliminate
greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
Of
course, those future goals are important.
Yet, too little is discussed about the impact that global warming is having
right now.
Ice
sheets are melting, the oceans are more acidic, sea levels are rising, and
storms are more powerful. And those are
happening right now. In addition, the
ongoing and growing climate catastrophe impacts our daily lives in ways that
are not as obvious.
For
example, the increasing threat posed by algal blooms.
According
to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, while most algal blooms
are harmless, some species can pose a public health threat. In those cases, algae can produce toxins that
can be harmful to people and animals. These blooms usually occur in nutrient-rich
waters, meaning waters that receive large amounts of runoffs from residential
and agricultural sources. When combined
with hot weather, dangerous blooms can occur.
The
incidents of algal blooms have risen with the increasing temperature of the planet. Algal blooms can be toxic and when present
waterbodies cannot be used for recreation or even drinking. The threat has gotten worse each year.
Harmful
algal blooms aren’t your typical green surface ooze that you may see on the top
of lake waters. While ugly to look at when
at the surface, a bloom can also be dangerous, so much so that the state has a
blanket policy to stay out of the water should there be evidence of one.
While
every algal bloom isn’t toxic – some algal species can produce both toxic and
nontoxic blooms – toxic blooms can cause problems for swimmers and other
recreational users in the form of rashes or allergic reactions. People who swim in a bloom may experience
different side effects including nausea, vomiting, headaches, respiratory
problems, skin rash and other reactions. There have also been reports nationwide of
dogs and livestock dying shortly after swimming or wading in a bloom.
And
more ominously, these algal blooms impact the oceans too. Last week, all the of the beaches along the
Gulf Coast in the state of Mississippi were closed due to algal blooms there.
These
blooms have a blue-green slimy substance.
They often crop up in late summer and early fall, although scores have
been reported already in New York’s surface waters. Algal blooms need nutrients to bloom, so
often they’ll be observed after heavy storms when residential and agricultural
runoffs occur.
The
nutrients they primarily rely on are phosphorus and nitrogen and the algal
blooms have increased due to a rise in nutrient runoff from sources such as soil
erosion from fertilized agricultural areas and lawns, erosion from river banks,
river beds, land clearing (deforestation), and sewage effluent. All of these are the major sources of
phosphorus and nitrogen entering water ways. These nutrients coupled with warm, calm water
is the recipe for an algal bloom.
To check
out the lakes in which algal blooms are a concern, you can go to the DEC website,
which has a harmful algal bloom notifications webpage that it updates weekly. (Go to www.dec.ny.gov to see information on algal
blooms.)
Areas
that tend be more protected are those in which development is strictly
regulated and waterbodies closely monitored.
Of course, the long term solution is to wean the planet off its
addiction to fossil fuels and develop alternative forms of energy.
Climate
catastrophe is not something that we are waiting for, it’s here now and it’s
going to get a lot worse. As we cope, aggressive
measures need to be taken to protect vital water supplies; measures that
protect wetlands, limit development, manage farm wastes, and monitor algal
blooms.
Of
course, the world needs to kick the fossil fuel habit altogether and instead invest
its resources in the development of renewable power – solar, wind, geothermal –
and better energy efficiencies.
Failing
to do so will only accelerate to the point of no return the catastrophe global
warming.
Posted by NYPIRG on July 8, 2019 at 8:05 am
Last week, New York may have taken a step toward
significantly changing the way elections are financed. Currently, candidates for state office in New
York – like much of the rest of the nation – rely on private contributions to
fuel their campaigns. Not surprisingly,
many of those who give those contributions are expecting that their donations
will help their interests – be they personal or occupational – after the candidate
wins elective office.
New York law makes it easy to pull in donations from those
with deep pockets; the state has the highest campaign contribution limits (of
any state that has limits) in the nation.
Under state law, one can make a legal campaign contribution of over
$115,000 to a political party and can donate nearly $70,000 to candidates for
governor.
Who writes those checks?
The wealthy and those who have business before the government.
For those seeking – or holding – elective office, hitting up
those who are most interested in contributing makes good economic – and
campaign – sense. Under state law,
making one phone call to a possible $10,000 contributor is a more efficient
approach than making 100 calls to potential $100 contributors.
While it is clearly more efficient, it raises the risk of
corruption. A big campaign donor with an
economic interest before the state is expecting an elected official to be
responsive, or that donor may contribute to a challenger.
And New Yorkers have seen the corruption that has resulted
from a campaign financing system that relies on a relatively small number of
big contributors.
What can be done to reduce that risk? Under various U.S. Supreme Court decisions,
there isn’t too much that can be done to reduce the influence of the wealthy
and powerful, or to reduce the risk of the corruption that stems from some of
those relationships.
There are two approaches, however, that can reduce those
risks and meet constitutional muster.
First, the state can dramatically restrict the ability to make campaign
contributions from those seeking government contracts or from professional lobbyists
seeking government action. Roughly half the
nation has some form of “pay-to-play” limitations; New York should too.
Second, the state should do all it can to remake its
campaign finance system from one that relies on a small number of large donors
– and the resulting higher risks of corruption – to one that relies on a large
number of small donors. New York should
drastically reduce the size of its legal campaign contributions and establish a
voluntary system of public financing. A
public financing system typically allows for a public match for small
contributions. In New York City, for example, every $1 raised
in small contributions is matched with an $8 donation in public resources. New York City’s system was approved
overwhelmingly by voters as part of a city government overhaul after a series
of scandals and it’s been steadily improved over more than 25 years.
Which brings us to last week. As part of the budget agreement last March,
the governor and state lawmakers agreed to establish a commission that would be
charged with setting up a voluntary system of public financing, thus setting up
an alternative to the private contribution system.
The budget was approved on March 31st and the
commission was charged with establishing the public financing system by
December 1st of this year, giving the commission eight months to do
its work.
In all-too-frequent Albany fashion, the governor and the
legislative leaders failed to choose the commission members until last week,
frittering away more than three months of the eight months available to the
commission.
The nine members now have to hit the ground running in order
to set up the public financing system.
As mentioned earlier, they don’t have far to look for a model of how it
is to be done (see New York City’s program, which is three decades old).
But it must do its work in an open and transparent way, not
simply follow the dictates of Albany’s top political leaders.
Nevertheless, it is a start.
And once their work is concluded, the commission members may have offered
candidates a clear alternative to the state’s “pay-to-play” campaign financing
system. An alternative that relies on
clean public resources and one that relies on the support of a large number of
small contributors. A system that
reduces the risk of corruption and is far more likely to engage voters of
average economic means. Last week was an
important step. Now the commission must
quickly get to work to come up with a proposal and engage the public. For New York’s ailing democracy, there’s not
a moment more to waste.
Posted by NYPIRG on July 1, 2019 at 7:37 am
The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its session and
examined one of the most problematic issues facing American democracy: how best to draw political boundaries to ensure
fairness and equality. The question
facing the justices was what role should federal courts play in correcting
overtly partisan gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is a long-time practice in the United
States in which political parties rig the boundaries of elected officials to
maximize their own partisan advantages.
The term originates from redistricting decisions made in Massachusetts
during the early 1800s. In 1812,
Massachusetts adopted new constitutionally-mandated electoral district
boundaries. The Republican-controlled legislature had created district
boundaries designed to enhance their party’s control over state and national
offices, leading to some oddly shaped legislative districts. Then-Governor Elbridge Gerry signed the
legislation. The shape of one of the state senate districts in Essex County was
compared to a salamander by a local Federalist newspaper in a political
cartoon, calling it a “Gerry-mander”.
Ever since, the creation of such districts has been called “gerrymandering.”
Reformers have decried this practice for decades. In effect, control by state legislatures and
governors of the redistricting process allowed elected officials to choose
their voters, instead of the other way around.
As a result, electoral challenges became much more difficult, voters
were denied real competition for office, and the nation became more polarized.
In the past, the Supreme Court has weighed in on
intolerable redistricting practices. The
Court had ruled against gerrymandering that allowed racial discrimination. The Court had ruled that district must be
roughly the same population size in order to ensure “one person, one vote.”
Yet, last week the Court decided that it will not rule on
redistricting that is obviously and overtly partisan. The decision focused on two cases, one in North
Carolina and the other in Maryland.
In both cases, the dominate political party dramatically
changed district lines to their own political advantage. In particular, last week’s 5-4 ruling means
that North Carolina’s current Republican-drawn map delineating its 13
Congressional districts — a map that critics have said is among the country’s
most egregious examples of hyper-partisanship — will stand. The decision will
likely embolden lawmakers around the country to craft seats for their
respective parties with the aid of increasingly sophisticated computer mapping
tools.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, argued
that the drafters of the Constitution understood that politics would play a
role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state
legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess
lawmakers’ judgments.
Chief Justice Roberts did not say the current system of
drawing districts is desirable as a matter of policy. “Excessive partisanship
in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” he wrote. But the federal courts simply cannot
intervene.
As a result of their decision, dominant political parties
can eviscerate electoral competition in states.
This is not, however, the first time that the Court has acted to protect
the power of a dominant class.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the
Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the
government from restricting independent expenditures for political
communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions,
and other associations.
The ruling effectively freed corporations to spend money
on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or
defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul
Stevens argued that the Court’s ruling represented “a rejection of the
common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent
corporations from undermining self-government.”
In both cases, the Court ruled in favor of those who
dominate elections in America – the two political parties and the wealthy and
organized that provide the bulk of campaign spending. In both cases, the public is denied meaningful
electoral debates and the opportunities to hear different ideas. Both cases weaken representative
democracy.
There is a lesson to be learned: don’t expect the Supreme
Court to save the day. Ultimately it is
up to us, the voters, to get engaged and fight for the changes that strengthen
our democracy.
Posted by NYPIRG on June 24, 2019 at 9:05 am
Last week, state lawmakers wrapped up the
2019 legislative session and it represented a big change from what New Yorkers
have seen in the recent past. Sweeping
changes to the state’s law regulating home rental apartments, an impressive
expansion in the state’s voting laws, decriminalization of marijuana
possession, and other important issues were approved.
And it wasn’t just a list of big policy
changes, the sheer volume of lawmakers’ work showed a dramatic uptick in
production. For example, the number of
bills that were approved by both houses jumped over 50 percent from last year
and represented the highest total in well over a decade.
Why?
Having one political party dominating the state’s political
establishment is the main reason.
Democrats have large majorities in both the state Senate and the state
Assembly and coupled with a Democrat in the governor’s mansion, makes it much
more likely that legislation can get done.
One of the important issues that was
addressed was global warming.
As part of the session, the governor and
state lawmakers agreed on a bill that is considered one of the most ambitious
in the fight against climate catastrophe.
The key provisions of the legislation are
clear: electric power production must be carbon free by 2040, an 85% reduction
in the emission of greenhouse gas pollution by 2050, with the other 15% offset
by qualifying carbon offset projects, like forest restoration, preservation of
carbon sinks, and more.
How will these goals be accomplished? The legislation leaves the detailed decisions
to a “climate action council.” The
council will consist of 22 members and they will have a couple of years to make
the technical decisions on how New York will transition to a carbon-free
economy.
There is no denying that action is
needed. According to the world’s
experts, unless actions are taken in the next decade, the world may face a
catastrophic collapse in its environment that will lead to misery for billions
of people.
The world’s experts agree that action needs to
be taken to move to the world to an economy that does not rely on power from
the burning of fossil fuels by the year 2050, or the most dire warnings of
environmental catastrophes will come true.
The United States must play a leadership role
in following the science and re-organizing the world’s economy based on the use
of non-fossil fuel to one that relies on renewable, power – like solar, wind
and geothermal sources.
And the U.S. has a moral obligation to lead
as well. The United States is one of the world’s leading emitters of greenhouse
gases – the stuff that is keeping the heat in the atmosphere and fueling global
warming. The U.S. is also the world’s
leading economy, so its actions matter.
But the President refuses to “believe” in
basic science and the result is gridlock on needed actions. Thus, states like California and New York
must lead.
If New York was a nation, it would be one of
the largest economies in the world.
Combined with actions in California – with a state-based economy that is
larger than New York’s – policies to begin the shift to renewable power would
show the nation how it can achieve a carbon-free future.
That’s why the action last week was so
important. Approval of sweeping
legislation to respond to the looming climate catastrophe is exactly the
leadership needed.
But there are lots of questions.
In the past, New York’s political leadership
have made promises of shifting the state’s power systems from fossil
fuel-powered to renewable power.
Promises that sounded good at the time, but never came close to being
achieved.
Taking the steps to achieve the goals of this
legislation is something that New Yorkers must closely monitor. If they are to succeed, the changes that will
be necessary under this legislation must have broad public support. The
governor’s office must ensure that detailed annual public reports are issued
documenting the progress being made, the legislature must hold public hearings
to closely examine those reports, and the public must stay informed to ensure
that the state’s leadership feels accountable for their actions – or inactions.
Changing the trajectory of the climate is an
immense task – one state alone simply cannot make much of a dent in what is
happening worldwide. But change must
start somewhere. If not us, who? If not now, when? By developing the policies
to avert economic and environmental collapse, New York can show the nation what
can be done and how the United States must lead the world.
Posted by NYPIRG on June 17, 2019 at 7:43 am
ALBANY GETS READY TO WRAP UP THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
This week is the scheduled last week of the 2019 legislative session. The session can be viewed as historic: Complete Democratic Party control of the state government has resulted in a slew of legislation passing, many of which had festered due to partisan gridlock – like narrowing the Limited Liability Company loophole that allowed real estate developers to make much bigger campaign contributions than other businesses – and others that could dramatically alter state policies – like permanent extension of rent control.
As lawmakers head for their scheduled exit, there are a
number of issues that are still outstanding.
Issues like legalizing the use of marijuana, authorizing driver’s
licenses for undocumented immigrants in the United States, reducing the use of
fossil fuels, authorizing an Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution,
and legalizing online sports betting, among other issues.
Historically, such a smorgasbord of issues can get wrapped
up into one giant piece of legislation, known in the halls of the state Capitol
as the “big ugly.” Like the horse
trading that is part of the grand finale of budget negotiations, lumping
seemingly unrelated bills together into one giant bill is a frequent way in
which Albany finalizes legislative deals.
Why?
The “big ugly” strategy works well in a capital in which the
governor and the legislative leaders control the flow of legislation. It is far more efficient to aggregate legislation
and negotiate it all simultaneously, than to do each piece discreetly. That approach also helps legislators to take
“tough” votes – lawmakers can say that they had concerns about a particular
issue, say marijuana legalization – but had to vote for a final agreement
because of other, more popular, issues.
From the public’s perspective, it’s ugly. Often issues get thrown into the mix that
have not been publicly discussed – even among legislators. As Newsday reported, former Gov. David Paterson said that horse trading
sometimes resulted in passing bills that conflicted with established laws “but
it’s so late in the session nobody knows.”
As of now, we do not know
how – or when – the session will actually end, but if history is any guide,
this week will be busy. Looking at
previous session, lawmakers usually pass more bills in the month of June than
they do the previous five months.
While the package of
end-of-session bills is unknown, what is known is that – like in all previous
sessions – lawmakers and the governor have used the legislative session to rake
in campaign contributions from lobbyists and their clients. It appears that during this legislative session,
the governor and state lawmakers held about 180 campaign fundraisers, usually
within walking distance of the Capitol.
If an elected official is
holding a campaign fundraiser in the capital, do you think they are expecting
constituents to be there? These events
are designed to hit up Albany’s lobbying corps for campaign contributions. And lobbyists are the same people asking for
legislative favors.
In Albany, it’s perfectly
legal to consider legislative favors during the day and then accept campaign
contributions from those same people at night.
It’s legal here, but it
doesn’t have to be.
Six states (Alaska,
California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Tennessee) place
unique campaign financing restrictions on lobbyists as a group, twelve other
states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wisconsin) limit lobbyists’
campaign giving during the legislative session.
The courts have weighed in
on these types of restrictions. In a
case dealing with Tennessee’s restriction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit stated, “Any payment made by a lobbyist to a public official, whether a
campaign contribution or simply a gift, calls into question the propriety of
the relationship.”
When the governor and
state lawmakers wrap up this session, ultimately the public will have to decide
if it was productive. But from elected
officials’ perspective, the campaign contributions haul from lobbyists and
their clients made it successful.
It is long past time for a
change – one that limits this brazen practice and one that offers an
alternative, a voluntary system of public financing.