"Cuomo's raids are a regressive, inequitable distribution of RGGI proceeds." (Photo: Screenshot)
Following the Money to Nowhere
New York diverts pollution trading funds to “highly questionable” programs.
Pollution trading is more about making money than it is about reducing pollution. While market-based environmental policies like cap-and-trade have proven ineffective at lowering climate pollution, they seem to be really good at generating revenue. But despite repeated claims from cap-and-trade proponents that these funds are being invested in renewable, efficient and affordable energy programs, the truth is not so straightforward.
A new report from Environmental Advocates of New York found that the spending of proceeds generated in New York by the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade program has failed to follow the original intent of the program. Instead, the money is being re-directed to a number of Governor Andrew Cuomo's "pet projects."
Cuomo has regularly raided RGGI revenues to fill state coffers and subsidize initiatives outside of the RGGI operating plan. A significant portion of these funds have gone to support pre-RGGI energy tax credits ($92 million), replace lost tax revenue from shuttered or mothballed fossil fuel power plants ($45 million), and shore up the Long Island Power Authority's slashed clean energy program ($208 million).
Together, these three misallocations constituted one-third of all RGGI revenue in New York since the program went into effect.
Cuomo's raids are a regressive, inequitable distribution of RGGI proceeds. Lower-income households are less likely to have access to the RGGI-subsidized tax credits and they're predominantly outside the area of the more heavily-funded RGGI programs, like the one on Long Island. Additionally, Cuomo made many of these funding decisions without stakeholder input.
New York is not alone in pilfering from the pollution payment scheme to balance state budgets and fund other non-RGGI initiatives in lieu of promoting clean and affordable energy. New Jersey has been perhaps the worst offender. From 2009 to 2011, the state redirected $65 million, about 57 percent of the state's allocated RGGI funds, away from renewables to allay the state budget deficit.
RGGI's supporters tout the program's ability to raise revenue for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives, as well as reduce energy bills for low-income households. In reality, not only is this revenue being diverted to state general funds, but it is also being used to supplant, rather than strengthen, environmental initiatives. Furthermore, since RGGI's inception, residential households in participating states have seen their energy costs increase by over $1 billion annually, while energy costs for industrial customers have decreased.
It appears that some RGGI states have become addicted to funding from the sale of pollution credits. Ultimately, this could mean that governments would have a financial disincentive to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions as they become dependent on pollution-trading revenue to prop up state budgets.
The climate crisis is well under way. States must reject ineffective market-based environmental programs, restore and strengthen pollution controls that have successfully reduced emissions, and invest more in renewable and efficient energy programs. The best way to reduce climate emissions is to prohibit new emissions, plain and simple.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Pollution trading is more about making money than it is about reducing pollution. While market-based environmental policies like cap-and-trade have proven ineffective at lowering climate pollution, they seem to be really good at generating revenue. But despite repeated claims from cap-and-trade proponents that these funds are being invested in renewable, efficient and affordable energy programs, the truth is not so straightforward.
A new report from Environmental Advocates of New York found that the spending of proceeds generated in New York by the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade program has failed to follow the original intent of the program. Instead, the money is being re-directed to a number of Governor Andrew Cuomo's "pet projects."
Cuomo has regularly raided RGGI revenues to fill state coffers and subsidize initiatives outside of the RGGI operating plan. A significant portion of these funds have gone to support pre-RGGI energy tax credits ($92 million), replace lost tax revenue from shuttered or mothballed fossil fuel power plants ($45 million), and shore up the Long Island Power Authority's slashed clean energy program ($208 million).
Together, these three misallocations constituted one-third of all RGGI revenue in New York since the program went into effect.
Cuomo's raids are a regressive, inequitable distribution of RGGI proceeds. Lower-income households are less likely to have access to the RGGI-subsidized tax credits and they're predominantly outside the area of the more heavily-funded RGGI programs, like the one on Long Island. Additionally, Cuomo made many of these funding decisions without stakeholder input.
New York is not alone in pilfering from the pollution payment scheme to balance state budgets and fund other non-RGGI initiatives in lieu of promoting clean and affordable energy. New Jersey has been perhaps the worst offender. From 2009 to 2011, the state redirected $65 million, about 57 percent of the state's allocated RGGI funds, away from renewables to allay the state budget deficit.
RGGI's supporters tout the program's ability to raise revenue for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives, as well as reduce energy bills for low-income households. In reality, not only is this revenue being diverted to state general funds, but it is also being used to supplant, rather than strengthen, environmental initiatives. Furthermore, since RGGI's inception, residential households in participating states have seen their energy costs increase by over $1 billion annually, while energy costs for industrial customers have decreased.
It appears that some RGGI states have become addicted to funding from the sale of pollution credits. Ultimately, this could mean that governments would have a financial disincentive to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions as they become dependent on pollution-trading revenue to prop up state budgets.
The climate crisis is well under way. States must reject ineffective market-based environmental programs, restore and strengthen pollution controls that have successfully reduced emissions, and invest more in renewable and efficient energy programs. The best way to reduce climate emissions is to prohibit new emissions, plain and simple.
Pollution trading is more about making money than it is about reducing pollution. While market-based environmental policies like cap-and-trade have proven ineffective at lowering climate pollution, they seem to be really good at generating revenue. But despite repeated claims from cap-and-trade proponents that these funds are being invested in renewable, efficient and affordable energy programs, the truth is not so straightforward.
A new report from Environmental Advocates of New York found that the spending of proceeds generated in New York by the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade program has failed to follow the original intent of the program. Instead, the money is being re-directed to a number of Governor Andrew Cuomo's "pet projects."
Cuomo has regularly raided RGGI revenues to fill state coffers and subsidize initiatives outside of the RGGI operating plan. A significant portion of these funds have gone to support pre-RGGI energy tax credits ($92 million), replace lost tax revenue from shuttered or mothballed fossil fuel power plants ($45 million), and shore up the Long Island Power Authority's slashed clean energy program ($208 million).
Together, these three misallocations constituted one-third of all RGGI revenue in New York since the program went into effect.
Cuomo's raids are a regressive, inequitable distribution of RGGI proceeds. Lower-income households are less likely to have access to the RGGI-subsidized tax credits and they're predominantly outside the area of the more heavily-funded RGGI programs, like the one on Long Island. Additionally, Cuomo made many of these funding decisions without stakeholder input.
New York is not alone in pilfering from the pollution payment scheme to balance state budgets and fund other non-RGGI initiatives in lieu of promoting clean and affordable energy. New Jersey has been perhaps the worst offender. From 2009 to 2011, the state redirected $65 million, about 57 percent of the state's allocated RGGI funds, away from renewables to allay the state budget deficit.
RGGI's supporters tout the program's ability to raise revenue for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives, as well as reduce energy bills for low-income households. In reality, not only is this revenue being diverted to state general funds, but it is also being used to supplant, rather than strengthen, environmental initiatives. Furthermore, since RGGI's inception, residential households in participating states have seen their energy costs increase by over $1 billion annually, while energy costs for industrial customers have decreased.
It appears that some RGGI states have become addicted to funding from the sale of pollution credits. Ultimately, this could mean that governments would have a financial disincentive to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions as they become dependent on pollution-trading revenue to prop up state budgets.
The climate crisis is well under way. States must reject ineffective market-based environmental programs, restore and strengthen pollution controls that have successfully reduced emissions, and invest more in renewable and efficient energy programs. The best way to reduce climate emissions is to prohibit new emissions, plain and simple.