SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
congestion pricing
Democratic Climate Heroes... and Villains
The reminder that there’s no automatic connection between a D next to your name and some courage on climate comes from many spots around the country, including in the deep blue Northeast.
Aug 23, 2024
Much of my past month has been spent Kamaling—I don’t know if I hold the record, but along with helping organize and MC the Elders for Kamala call, I’ve made cameos on Climate Leaders for, Oudoor and Conservation Leaders for, Christians for, and Vermonters for. I’m for. U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz have run a sparkling campaign so far, and this week’s convention in Chicago is a reminder that Democrats look and sound like America at its best. As opposed to the monochrome and bitter gathering that nominated former President Donald Trump (“Mass Deportations Now”), it’s been one long Party party. (When Patti LaBelle kicked off Tuesday night’s proceedings, the musician gap with the GOP grew unbridgeably wide).
Which is not to say that Harris will be a sterling climate president—we’ll have to wait and see, because we had no primary to press her on it. I don’t like long campaigns any more than anyone else, but in our system they are the only place activists can actually make a forceful case—that’s how climate became a real presidential issue for the first time in the 2020 race, which led quite directly to the Inflation Reduction Act. (And now, instead of a second-term Democrat freed to act with relative abandon, we’ll have a first-termer constrained by thoughts of her re-elect). So we’ll doubtless have to push her, once we’ve helped push her into the White House.
The reminder that there’s no automatic connection between a D next to your name and some courage on climate comes from many spots around the country, including even some where lots of good work has been done. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Coach Walz have gotten high high marks—converting narrow legislative margins into big action packages.
But places where it should be easier—in the deep blue, not the purple— haven’t gone as well. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California has accomplished a lot with the move to solar power, as I’ve been writing about all spring—but he also has gutted both rooftop solar and community solar this spring. According to the Solar Rights Alliance, 22% of all solar jobs in the state have disappeared. That’s just stupid policy: Rooftop solar, among other things, has dramatically decreased the amount of electricity the grid needs to provide, which may be why the utilities hate it. (Texas Republicans, meanwhile, have made one attempt after another to gut renewables, but they may have waited too long—there’s enough money behind wind and sun now to defeat such efforts, and the state’s renewables, and just as importantly its battery fleet, are now growing like topsy.)
The closer we move to actual implementation of the big climate promises that politicians made during the Greta years, the more of this kind of backsliding we’re going to see.
And on the other side of the country, in the deep blue Northeast?
New York could and should be a renewable powerhouse. It lacks a Mojave Desert, but Long Island Sound could be the Qatar of offshore wind—the DOE estimates it could power 11 million homes, which is 4 million more homes than New York contains. With NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, it has some of the finest energy conservation minds in the country. And it has an environmentally minded populace—everyone thinks about New York City as a liberal bastion, but it was upstaters who banded together to force a ban on fracking.
And yet the state is lagging badly, in no small part thanks to Gov. Kathy Hochul. The Buffalo-area pol, who ascended more or less accidentally to her job when Andrew Cuomo couldn’t stop grabbing the women who worked for him, got perhaps her biggest moment of infamy earlier this year when, out of nowhere, she shifted 180° her position on congestion pricing in lower Manhattan and nixed the program—weeks after she’d given a long speech extolling it, and past the point where the city and state had spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying the cameras to make it work.
But that’s not her only anti-climate act. She’s also sat on her hands for months now after the state legislature passed the Climate Superfund act, which would send the bill for climate disasters to the oil companies that caused them. (You can sign a petition for the Superfund here). And now she’s “pondering” a “relaxation” of the state’s basic climate law, which promises to use renewables for 70% of the state’s power by 2030. According to Inside Climate News, she told reporters recently that “the goals are still worthy. But we have to think about the collateral damage of these decisions. Either mitigate them or rethink them.”
Why? Well, because she’s hearing from groups like
the Business Council of New York State ... They want to go beyond pushing back CLCPA deadlines. They hope to rewrite the law itself, targeting mandates to electrify buildings, passenger vehicles, and school buses.
“We are now at a point where implementation challenges call for a reassessment of the underlying statutory mandates,” the Business Council said July 30 while releasing a letter to Hochul signed by 60 business, fossil fuel, labor, farming, and small business groups.
This is the kind of utterly predictable pushback that confident legislators simply manage with a few well-chosen words, even as they push forward. (See, Joe Biden). But Hochul shows no sign of that kind of confidence. NYRenews, the group that has helped push much of the New York legislation, released a report yesterday showing that under Hochul’s leadership, the state’s four key implementation agencies are sitting on their hands.
Only a handful of agencies have issued specific guidance or regulations to support compliance efforts. Notably, it appears that the state’s largest and most powerful agencies have entirely failed to comply with the Climate Act and have not yet issued policies or guidance on implementation of the law.
For example:
• The New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”) has pushed forward at least 40 highway expansion projects without properly assessing their impacts on DACs and the climate;
• Empire State Development (“ESD”) has awarded at least $780 million in clean energy funding without ensuring that 40% of the benefits go to DACs;
• The New York Education Department (“NYSED”) has approved at least 25,971 construction projects at public schools across the state without properly assessing their climate and DAC impacts; and
• The New York State Department of Health (“NYSDOH”) has approved at least 223 construction projects for new and renovated healthcare facilities without assessing or mitigating their climate impacts.
This is where leadership makes a difference, one way or the other. You need some nerve—(something like, though in reverse, the chutzpah of the New York Republican legislator who last week penned an op-ed explaining that this summer’s violent storms were a reason to postpone climate action). Hochul, casting New York’s votes at the convention Tuesday night, cited the Empire State as the birthplace of the women’s rights and gay rights movement. If she were smart she’d listen to impassioned voices from the climate movement, who also know something about reality: Listen to Bob Howarth, the world-leading methane scientist who also sits on the board charged with implementing the new law.
“I am appalled at this pushback against the CLCPA by business interests pushing their short-sighted agenda,” Howarth told WaterFront. “Climate change is very real. The consequences of climate disruption (floods, droughts, fires, crop failures) are becoming increasing obvious to all.”
“The political leaders of NY understood these dangers when they drafted the CLCPA and its predecessor beginning in 2015…. Due to political delay, we may miss CLCPA targets by a few years. But the needed trajectory remains clear.”
Howarth sits on the state’s Climate Action Council, which passed a plan to implement CLCPA in December 2022 (by a vote of 19-3). The council had determined that “it was entirely possible and reasonable to meet the CLCPA goals and targets… that would benefit individual homeowners,” Howarth said.
Furthermore, the successful implementation of CLCPA would set an example to the world by showing “that a globally important economy could thrive while addressing the climate crisis and moving away from fossil fuels,” he added.
But the council hasn’t met for many months. “The state simply has not seen adequate political leadership to move ahead with the CLCPA goals and the council’s plan,” he said.
Something similar is happening in New York City where Mayor Eric Adams, in between dealing with corruption investigations, has done his best to weaken the city’s landmark Law 97. As Pete Sikora of New York Communities for Change explained to me, he’s pushed back the implementation date for the statute, which mandates efficiency improvements in big buildings. (Not surprisingly, he’s taken lots of campaign money from real estate interests).
The two year delay he's created will cost thousands of jobs and raise pollution yearly by a few hundred thousand tons per year as landlords put off energy efficiency projects (more worrying: it's a signal he'll further weaken the law if reelected and the major pollution limit starts in 2030).
But Adams—well, he’s also attempting to turn one of the city’s neighborhood landmarks, the Elizabeth Street Garden, into a housing complex. The city needs housing, which is why the garden’s friends have come up with all kinds of alternate sites in the same neighborhood, but so far he hasn’t yielded, even thought even Murdoch’s New York Post has made it clear what a bad idea the development is. Now, the Timesreports, there’s been a huge letter-writing campaign from local public school students.
For the 575 or so students who attend P.S. 130, Elizabeth Street Garden serves as an extension of the classroom. The elementary school lacks green space, but it is only a 10-minute walk from the garden, allowing for frequent visits and class trips. So the garden has become a de facto playground and nature center where the children can plant seeds, learn about nature, and have Easter egg hunts.
“Tree’s also provide homes for animals like birds, squirrels, and raccoons. This is why we should save the garden!” wrote one student.
Another explained, “The garden adds color and brightness to the city.”
Many were concerned about their favorite play space disappearing: “One reason why we should keep the garden is because with all the trees, we can play hide and seek and eat lunch.”
One reason that pols like Hochul and Adams can get away with moves like this is that there’s very little coverage—the Elizabeth Street garden is the exception that proves the rule. Indeed, the Times announced last week that it would no longer endorse candidates for local office, which is odd since those were probably the only endorsements the paper made that actually moved voters. Albany, meanwhile, exists in a news vacuum—the number of voters who know that Hochul is emerging as a northern DeSantis on climate issues is minuscule.
The closer we move to actual implementation of the big climate promises that politicians made during the Greta years, the more of this kind of backsliding we’re going to see. Consider, just as a random example, Connecticut, where utility regulators have introduced an excellent system of performance-based regulation for power providers, moving away from the old system which basically just takes a utility’s costs and adds a chunk of profit on top. The Nutmeg State’s two big utilities have fought it from the start, and now they’re moving to have the regulator who introduced it, Marissa Gillett, fired. The state’s governor, Ned Lamont, said when the law was introduced that “you just don’t get paid an automatic 9% whether you do good work or bad work. You get paid for doing good work.” Now we’ll see if he has the courage to keep her at her job. Or Massachusetts, where the legislature adjourned without taking up the crucial enabling legislation for the state’s climate law—there’s some talk that governor (and climate hawk) Maura Healey might call them back for a special session, but more likely it will drag on for another year. Delay is the new denial.
Or take Delaware—the state needs to develop its offshore wind resources to meet climate goals. Indeed, given its relatively small population, it could become a linchpin for the entire Atlantic seaboard. But though polling shows strong support across the region, well-financed opponents have successfully made it appear that grassroots opposition is growing, particularly in coastal communities. I’ve watched it happen in Cape Cod, where activists are trying to block the cable necessary to bring power onshore from turbines, and in Maine where other activists want to block the construction of the terminal to support the offshore farms. There are always arguments—perfect enemy of the good—but none of them make much sense in a world where August looks like it will be even hotter than last year’s all-time record. It’s why, when real champions emerge—say, former National Wildlife Federation CEO Collin O’Mara, running in the Democratic primary for Delaware governor—change gets so much easier.
The default is always to the status quo. For Republicans that means fossil fuel uber alles. For Democrats, too often, it means “don’t ruffle more feathers than you have to.” That’s why we always have to make sure that there are plenty of climate hawks with plenty of feathers.
Correction: An earlier version of this op-ed mistakenly identified Gretchen Whitmer as the governor of Wisconsin. She is the governor of Michigan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Yorkers Can’t Afford for Gov Hochul to Keep Delaying Climate Action
As we gear up for another summer of extreme weather events, we need our elected leaders to understand the urgency for action.
Jun 12, 2024
This past weekend, the New York State Assembly finally got its act together and passed an urgent piece of climate legislation, the Climate Change Superfund Act. Designed to make fossil fuel corporations pay for the damage they have done to the environment, the bill, initially passed by the Senate earlier this spring, now heads to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk. It is imperative that the governor, after consistently backing down on climate this year, signs this bill into law.
Gov. Hochul’s reticence to pursue climate action is, at this point, well-established. Just last week, she made headlines for slamming the brakes on a congestion pricing initiative that was supposed to take effect later this month. The impending tolls would have reduced traffic in downtown Manhattan, improved air quality, and funded much-needed upgrades to public transit. Combined with the Inflation Reduction Act’s groundbreaking federal investments in clean energy nationwide, congestion pricing would have moved our state one step closer to a sustainable future. Instead, Gov. Hochul chose to play petty politics with the livability of our city.
Last month, as I prepared for another summer of extreme weather events in New York City, I joined hundreds of climate activists in Albany to demand that the state legislature pass the Superfund Act and another climate-related bill—the HEAT Act. I marched through the halls of the State Capitol, linking arms with climate activists of all faiths, holding banners, chanting songs, and demanding climate action from the New York State Assembly and Gov. Hochul.
Should Gov. Hochul fail to act, here’s what we can expect more of: a hotter New York City, plagued by more frequent and more severe storms, flooding, and air pollution.
Gov. Hochul’s behavior is forcing us to take action. Not even two months ago, she chose to exclude the NY HEAT and Climate Superfund Acts from the annual state budget. Then she backed down on congestion pricing. As the days heat up, it’s more important than ever that our elected officials deliver on their promise to ensure a liveable future for our communities here in New York City.
Last summer, extreme weather wreaked havoc across our city. Between smoky skies and flooded streets, city life was consistently derailed by out-of-control weather conditions. September 2023 was the wettest September in New York City in over a century. And, a year later, we seem headed into another stormy summer. In late May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned that 2024 will see above-normal hurricane activity.
These extreme weather events and others are a direct result of climate change. Canadian wildfires are getting more intense as a hotter and drier fire season becomes the norm. Warmer ocean temperatures are fueling stronger tropical storms, and climate change is making heatwaves more frequent and more extreme. These are ramifications of climate change that our governor needs to take seriously: Inaction simply isn’t an option.
This August will mark two years since President Joe Biden signed the most significant piece of climate legislation in American history into law. The Inflation Reduction Act devoted $370 billion to lowering energy costs for American households, building out clean energy, and other climate solutions. In New York State, IRA capital is already starting to flow to consumers. Since 2023, New Yorkers have been eligible for tax credits that make buying an electric vehicle, upgrading home heating and cooling systems, and replacing inefficient refrigerators more affordable. A few weeks ago, New York became the first state to offer rebates to low- and middle-income New Yorkers who want to make clean-energy upgrades to their homes. Passing the Superfund and HEAT Acts, and reversing her ill-advised decision on congestion pricing, is simply the most sensible thing for Gov. Hochul to do.
New York City is already suffering from a bad case of the heat island effect, a phenomenon where dense urban areas experience higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas, largely due to vehicular traffic. We cannot afford to let unregulated vehicle traffic continue to overheat our city. Should Gov. Hochul fail to act, here’s what we can expect more of: a hotter New York City, plagued by more frequent and more severe storms, flooding, and air pollution.
My worries about the risks of inaction are exactly why I made the trip to Albany earlier this spring. As we gear up for another summer of extreme weather events, we need our elected leaders to understand the urgency for action. Gov. Hochul can’t continue to ignore the climate crisis. She must reverse her position on congestion pricing, sign the Superfund Act, and steer the HEAT Act into law. We simply can’t afford to play politics or wait any longer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
"Et Tu, Hochul?" Betrayal!
With her flip-flop on congestion pricing, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, not the youth-led Sunrise Movement, is the real climate traitor.
Jun 07, 2024
I had another piece planned for today, and I will get back to it soon—it will deliver a certain amount of good news. But events intervened. I try not to write out of anger, but on occasion it overtakes me, and Wednesday’s actions by the governor of New York were so shockingly cynical that—fair warning—I’m indulging some of that fury.
But as I begin, a plea not to be angry with the youth. There was a mild kerfluffle on the climate interwebs Wednesday, when the Sunrise Movement—the youthful progenitors of the Green New Deal—announced that they weren’t yet ready to endorse Joe Biden for president. The keyboard gladiators of the status quo—led as usual in their chivalrous charge by the reliable down-puncher Matt Yglesias—crackled with indignation at the young folks.
lmao—I hope everyone who gassed this institution up with money and coverage is proud of themselves
I am an unrepentant supporter of Sunrise, so let me explain. I knew many of their first generation of leaders, who had cut their teeth on the fossil fuel divestment campaign; wanting to fight on after college, they’d formed Sunrise, ginned up the Green New Deal, and used a sit-in at Nancy Pelosi’s office, with AOC in attendance, to give it oxygen. Their tactics worked—they were a big reason that by the 2020 Democratic primaries “climate change” was the number one issue for huge numbers of voters. They were obvious Bernie Sanders supporters, but when he lost they swallowed hard, and took part in the negotiations that produced a united Democratic front for Biden: Indeed, Sunrise’s director, Varshini Prakash, was on the team that sat with a couple of key Biden aides to work out the essentials of Build Back Better. They didn’t endorse Biden, but they did work hard, and effectively, against Trump, as the youth vote in 2020 eventually demonstrated. And then they worked hard, and effectively, to pass Build Back Better, even as Joe Manchin cut it down into the Inflation Reduction Act—again they swallowed hard and backed a seriously imperfect bill. It was a rare display of political maturity and effectiveness among any progressives, let alone young ones.
Now a new generation of Sunrise volunteers is saying they can’t, yet, endorse Biden—but they’re also promising to fight hard against Donald Trump. Look, I’m fighting hard for Biden. I understand deep in my soul the existential risk Trump poses. But I also get why young people are having a hard time joining fully in—it’s because of Gaza, above all. And we do not want a world where young people would not be hideously upset by Israel’s endless bombing campaign, a campaign of immiseration clearly designed, as Biden said this week, to protect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future. Though the media has seized on every example of left obtuseness they can find (usually from middle-aged college professors), the young people I’ve watched have been clear in their condemnation both of Hamas’ repulsive violence, and of antisemitism. And in part because of their hard work, Biden has shown more willingness to stand up to the repugnant Netanyahu and try to end the fighting even as he works to head off a regional war. The invaluable Kate Aronoff has a fine account of the Sunrise news in The New Republic yesterday, and she even bothered to call up the head of the thing and ask what it meant.
“Do we want to be fighting for a Green New Deal under a Trump presidency or a Biden presidency? To me, the answer is pretty clear,” Stevie O’Hanlon told me earlier today. “Donald Trump winning a second term is an existential threat to our climate and our democracy and will set back the fight for a Green New Deal.”
So yes, Gaza is complicated and nuanced. But a society needs people for whom complication and nuance are not central, and these are usually young people. They offer useful clarity. And if Biden eventually loses, it will be less because young people don’t support him than because old people don’t: There are far more of us, and we are not reliably voting in defense of the values we grew up with (like, respect, decency, kindness, and not getting convicted of felonies). That’s why we at Third Act are backing Biden with all that we’ve got—we don’t like what’s happening in Gaza, but a job of older people is to bring to bear the somewhat wearying but valuable experience that simply living longer allows you to accumulate. We admire Biden for the good things he’s done, and we know that Trump can and will make the bad parts worse, beginning with his promise to radically accelerate the climate crisis. But I’m glad, for one, that the young are making the witness that they are.
This week did offer a real betrayal, though, and it came from Democratic elders—most particularly New York Governor Kathy Hochul. She—out of the clear blue—announced she would block New York City’s congestion pricing plan, due to go into effect January 30.
You don’t wait until the last possible moment to jerk around the advocates who have spent years working with you to craft an agreement.
This is stupid policy—it’s the most aggressively anti-environmental stand I can recall a major Democratic governor taking, beating even Gavin Newsom’s recent demolition of rooftop and community solar in California. Congestion pricing meant that people who wanted to drive into the clogged streets of lower Manhattan would pay a $15 toll; the revenue would go to support the beleaguered transit system that actually allows New York to operate. This kind of system has been a huge success in the European cities that have tried it, like London and Milan; Manhattan (as advocates back to Jimmy Breslin and Norman Mailer have noted) would be an incredibly sweet place with many fewer cars. This is, as Robinson Meyer noted yesterday “tier one climate policy,” which with a success in Manhattan could quickly spread to other cities. And so there’s been a tremendous effort over decades to build out support for congestion pricing. An earlier version came close to passing years ago—lore has it that the opposition of parking garage owners carried the day in Albany. This time, though, everything was lined up: Governor Hochul had given a rousing defense of the plan in a speech just two weeks ago. I’m going to quote from it at some length, because I think it’s possible that no politician in American history has ever flip-flopped quite so thoroughly or so fast:
Walk around many major cities and it won’t take long to encounter frustrated drivers caught in traffic jams, cars spewing exhaust on overpacked streets. We determined that the average New York City driver spends 102 hours a year stuck in traffic. Those hours add up to more than four days of your life—every year.
That’s four days sitting behind the wheel of a car instead of sitting by your kid’s bedside, reading them a book, sitting around the dinner table or reconnecting with a friend.
There has to be a better way. So, starting next month, New York City will become the first city in the U.S. to implement congestion pricing. We’ll charge people $15 every time they drive into New York’s Central Business District.
London, Milan, Stockholm, and Singapore have all implemented similar plans with great success. In New York City, the idea stalled for 60 years until we got it done earlier this year.
It took a long time because people feared backlash from drivers set in their ways. But, much like with housing, if we’re serious about making cities more livable, we must get over that.
We estimate congestion pricing will reduce the volume of vehicles in Manhattan’s central business district by 17%. Fewer cars mean less gridlock, traffic, and pollution. Fewer cars means safer streets, cleaner air, and more room to maneuver for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Congestion pricing will generate $1 billion every year, which will then fund large-scale projects that make public transit faster and more accessible. That’s key because we’ll never change people’s habits if we don’t offer safe, reliable alternatives to driving that work for everyone.
In her remarks blocking the plan yesterday, Hochul said something something pandemic—when work on the plan began in 2019, “workers were in the office five days a week, crime was at record lows, and tourism was at record highs. Circumstances have changed, and we must respond to the facts on the ground.”
But clearly none of those circumstances changed in the past two weeks. Who knows what caused this unreal shift. Speculation ranges from (the now fashionable) brain worm to lots of Hochul fundraising by local autodealers to the notion that House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries was worried that congestion pricing would hurt the prospects for regaining his majority in the fall elections. (A bad showing by New York Democrats in the suburbs cost him the speakership last time around; the same people are still in charge of the Empire State campaign this time around). If it’s really electoral fear that drove Hochul’s stab in the back, then this is political malpractice: You don’t wait until the last possible moment to jerk around the advocates who have spent years working with you to craft an agreement.
People on the outside underestimate, I think, the degree to which significant change comes from a long and controlled dance between activists and politicians—and one of the rules of that, on both sides, is that you don’t pull out the rug at the last minute. People like Charles Komanoff have spent most of their lives working up to this deal, jumping through every hoop to demonstrate the needed support, and now it’s been trashed. And trashed with the support of other parts of the progressive coalition. It was so sad to see the United Federation of Teachers gloating at the downfall of congestion pricing—the larger left has engaged in a generational effort to raise teacher pay, understanding it to be both right and a core concern of a partner; the UFT ignored the core concern of environmentalists in order to help teachers who wanted to keep driving. Public school teachers should be supporters of public transit; this, not Sunrise, is real-world malarkey.
If any possible good could come from Hochul’s cold-blooded betrayal, it’s that she, and Albany Democrats in general, might feel the need to give environmentalists some kind of win. The NY Heat act, and the climate superfund bill, are both up for action in this final week of the legislative session. It would be scant comfort to see them passed in the wake of this shocking schism, but it would be something.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular