Now that leaf blowers are being stored for the season, snow blowers are getting cranked up. Though windows will be closed and most of us will be sheltering inside, the pollution caused by gas powered landscaping equipment of all kinds – including snow blowers – was the subject of debate last week.

Gas-powered equipment is much louder than electric equipment. Of course, the noise is more than just annoying – it poses a significant health threat as well. For example, most gas-powered leaf blowers exceed 70 decibels measured at 50 feet, which is considered dangerous to hearing. Additionally, this noise impacts the immune system, causes adverse cardiovascular effects, and impairs the learning, hearing, sleep, and language development of children. Acoustic research also shows that gas-powered leaf blower’s distinctive low frequency noise penetrates further than other machine-generated sound waves, even through solid walls.

This is not only annoying to the public, it damages the hearing of the landscaping workers, especially when the equipment is used repeatedly over long periods of time. Landscaping workers are more likely to suffer from depression, and are more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease and cancer.

These machines are not only staggeringly loud, but they also produce a shocking amount of air pollution. And the pollution from those millions of landscaping machines adds up. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, fossil fuel-powered landscaping equipment emitted tons of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution that can cause serious public health and environmental damage. Overall, New York ranked fourth (behind California, Florida and Texas) for climate pollution from gas-powered landscaping equipment, with emissions estimated at 1.37 million tons, the annual equivalent of the emissions from more than 300,000 cars on the road. The state ranked third (behind Florida and Texas) when comparing fine particulates (PM_2.5). Fine particulates can damage people’s hearts and lungs.

Of course, a national ranking can mask local impacts. At a news conference last week, health, environmental and community groups released data on the impacts on a county-by-county level. Fossil-fuel-powered landscaping equipment releases fine particulates and greenhouse gases in every county in New York, with Suffolk, Nassau, Westchester, Monroe, Erie counties and the borough of Brooklyn, being the largest generators of greenhouse gases from this source.

The data was released on a regional basis, with Westchester residents exposed to the largest amount of emissions in the lower Hudson Valley, Albany County in the Capital District, and Saratoga County in the Upper Hudson/North Country region.

Westchester residents were exposed to over 143 thousand tons of greenhouse gas, the equivalent of the emissions of 31,500 cars, as well as 124 tons of particulate matter, the equivalent of over 1.3 million cars.

New Yorkers don’t need to give up well-tended lawns; there is an alternative. Gas-powered landscaping equipment can be replaced by cleaner, quieter battery-powered tools that have the same power. For most of us, we purchase our landscaping equipment when the existing one has run out of life. Often that can take years to occur.

However, for big users – local governments, large institutions and landscaping companies, they can go through landscaping equipment within a matter of months – or even weeks. The problem is that usually battery-powered equipment is more expensive, even if it is quieter and cleaner.

Weaning New York off of gas-powered landscaping equipment and moving toward electric was the focus of the groups that released the pollution data. They were urging Governor Hochul to include in her budget a financial incentive program to help offset the cost differences for the big users – municipalities, institutions and landscaping companies – to encourage them to purchase electric equipment as the need arises.

The groups’ request tracks legislation that has widespread support among lawmakers. The concept also has broad-based public support, including from over one hundred public health, environmental and community groups, equipment manufacturers, and equipment retailers like Home Depot.

Electric landscaping equipment is generally cleaner, quieter and easier to use. These electric alternatives are often just as capable as their fossil fuel-powered counterparts and, over a lifetime of use, cost less to operate.

It’s time to join the call for cleaner, quieter landscaping equipment in New York. Hopefully, Governor Hochul, through her executive budget power, will join the call.

It all started innocently enough: When we asked where our stored electronic information went, we were told “the cloud.” Sounds nice. Information stored in a puffy white setting. Of course, there is no information “cloud,” our data is stored in computers. Stored in computers that are housed all over the country – indeed sometimes the world.

The number of computers to store our data, process online transactions, and handle our internet information requests and computations, is incredible. With the rise of the use of A.I., so-called “artificial intelligence,” the projected demand for computer space and capabilities is mushrooming and accelerating.

With that demand comes the need for more and more access to computers, computers that are stored in massive buildings, and now being built all around the nation and at an increasing speed. Those computer buildings are known as “data centers” and their thirst for energy and water (for cooling) is virtually insatiable.

The construction and use of these data centers is driving a rise in utility rates all across the nation and New York is not immune. Indeed, recent government reports now expect a significant rise in energy based on an explosion in industry demands for more data centers and this will result in higher electricity prices. That’s of particular concern for renters, homeowners and small businesses, which are already struggling to pay their energy bills.

Given the “affordability” concerns and environmental threats that result from the massive growth in the number of data centers, New York policymakers must develop policies to protect the state.

So, what should they do? Here are six ideas.

First, insulate the public from getting stuck with the bill if the data center flops or falls short. New Yorkers have seen this movie before; when some “can’t miss” economic development program do miss. There are growing concerns that the need for these data centers is over-hyped. New York policymakers must demand that under no circumstances should a new data center be built using any public support until guarantees and claw-back provisions are contained in required contracts with state and/or local governments.

Second, those contracts must be made available to the public without redaction. One national review of data centers found that required permitting for data centers were shielded from public disclosures using the “trade secrets” exemption allowed under states’ public access laws. New York grants those too. It must not be allowed when granting public benefits of any kind to data center construction or use.

Third, among the provisions of any such agreement between government and data centers, there must be a provision of expected water consumption by the facility. There must be regular, ongoing monitoring and public reporting of whether such water use is being used as expected. Let’s not overlook the noise from these facilities; noise impacts should be carefully considered in the review process and contracts and permits must be in place to ensure the facilities operate quietly.

Fourth, not one residential utility ratepayer dollar should be – directly or indirectly — used to subsidize the data center. New Yorkers already pay among the highest rates in the nation. Data centers are expected to need a fantastic amount of electricity; they must not be driving up utility rates for New Yorkers.

Fifth, every high-energy demand project’s infrastructure and operations should meet the highest current standards for energy efficiency and minimal environmental impacts – from energy consumption, to water use, noise and electronic waste creation. They should be obligated to meet regularly and upgrade their efficiency to meet ever evolving standards.

Sixth, not one electron from the existing grid should be used to power data centers. Another way to jack up utility rates is to subsidize data centers by diverting current electricity in the grid to power data centers. We have already heard the chorus that New York needs more power due to the rising need for electricity as the state moves away from relying on fossil fuels. Part of those estimates are boosted by the purported need for more and more data centers. If the owners of data centers want power, they should get their own. Moreover, whatever power they use must relying on “green” sources, not oil, coal, gas, or nuclear. New York should tell data centers “B.Y.O.R.E.” – bring your own renewable energy.

All across the nation energy costs have risen faster than inflation since 2022, with greater increases ahead. The causes include load growth from data centers, increasing electric transmission and distribution infrastructure and maintenance costs, extreme weather, and supply chain disruptions.

There is little we can do in the near term about the expenses resulting from protecting the grid from extreme weather and rising heat that are the products of a worsening climate. But data center costs – both financial and environmental – must not be part of the mix.

New York already has data centers and other energy “hogs.” But we have not yet experienced the explosion of data center construction and energy use seen in other parts of the nation. We should learn from those other experiences. As ratepayers, we should demand policymakers act on our behalf, not Big Tech’s.

New York spends billions of dollars on programs to spur economic activities.  Yet the spending is hard to track because there is no standard definition of economic-development spending.  Generally, when policymakers are discussing “economic-development activities” they could be discussing policies about workforce development and training programs, place-based revitalization strategies, direct business assistance and tax breaks, arts and culture funding, sports facilities, and infrastructure projects.

New York’s programs have long been controversial and in recent years the source of scandal.  The most notable among them was the so-called “Buffalo Billion” scandal.  Essentially, large donors to the then-governor’s re-election effort received big benefits through the “Buffalo Billion” and other upstate economic development plans.  As a result of federal prosecutions, the former governor’s top aide and the state’s hi-tech economic development czar were convicted (although a recent US Supreme Court decision reversed those convictions).

Despite the controversies and scandals, New York’s business incentives are supposed to stimulate economic activity for efforts that otherwise would not get started.  One such package of incentives was under fire last week: New York’s tax benefits for the oil industry.  That’s right, the oil industry.

Currently, New York’s tax code offers benefits for the production, transmission, distribution, transportation or storage of fossil fuels.  It is estimated that these tax benefits total around $1.5 billion each year.

At the same time, the use of fossil fuels is causing enormous damage as the climate gets worse.  The climate crisis costs New Yorkers, including tens of billions of dollars in damages and hundreds of lives lost.  A 2022 federal report found New York State experienced 51 billion-dollar disaster events due to the climate crisis from 2000 to 2021—costing the State between $50 to $100 billion dollars, and up to $20 billion in 2021 alone.  A total of 594 deaths have been linked to severe weather in New York between 1996 and 2024. 

Climate change resiliency measures are uniquely necessary—and expensive—in New York.  A review of Governor Hochul’s climate-related public announcements documented that she had pledged over $2 billion in 2023 to cover damages and projects to boost the resilience of New York’s infrastructure damaged by climate change-driven extreme weather.  This spending is entirely funded by New York taxpayers. 

A study by New York State Comptroller revealed that over a ten-year span, more than half of New York localities’ municipal spending outside of New York City was or will be linked to climate change.  New York City may need to spend around $100 billion to upgrade its sewer systems to withstand intensified storms.  And those costs are on top of the $52 billion that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated it will cost to protect New York Harbor from rising sea levels and storms.  Estimates suggest that Long Island alone could incur up to $100 billion in climate-related costs.  These financial burdens are projected to escalate, potentially reaching $10 billion annually for New Yorkers by the middle of the century.

The industry has known for decades that the burning of fossil fuels will lead to the planet heating up.  Instead of taking responsibility for their business practices, they engaged in a campaign of aggressive climate denial.  Decades of opposition to environmental protection legislation and international treaties have resulted in a climate crisis that only dramatic action can help to mitigate. 

As New York State—and the world—struggles with the ravages of climate change, the oil industry is raking in enormous profits.  In an analysis released last week, the total amount of profits over the past four and a half calendar years for Big Oil is over $1 trillion.

The question is obvious: Why is New York offering tax incentives to those same companies?

Some of the tax benefits are really ones that ultimately benefit consumers, like providing heating assistance to low-income New Yorkers.  Yet some do not.

A bill has been introduced that eliminates tax provisions that benefit the fossil fuel industry, while minimizing the impact on the public.  This bill repeals the most egregious fossil fuel subsidies and saves the state approximately $350 million annually, or roughly one-fourth of the total benefits to the industry.

Why should New York taxpayers grant tax benefits to an enormously profitable industry—and one that has contributed mightily to the climate crisis?  The industry knew of the dangers, deceived the public, and they are making staggering profits.  And the state is facing fiscal difficulties.  Why allow benefits to this undeserving wildly profitable industry?

In a year where the state budget is likely to be buffeted by changes enacted by the Congress—like eliminating health coverage benefits for some lower-income New Yorkers—Governor Hochul and lawmakers will be looking to make every penny count.

Eliminating wasteful tax benefits for the oil industry seems like a good place to start.  We’ll see what the governor does early next year.

We all are familiar with New York’s Bottle Bill. That’s the law that requires a nickel deposit on some beverage containers – soda, beer, and water. It’s been on the books for over 40 years. The laudable goal of the law is to divert some beverage containers from landfills and incinerators to the companies that make the products so that they can be recycled.

It’s worked reasonably well over its long “life” in New York. But for the law to work best, the purchasing consumer should have easy ways to get their nickel back. If it’s hard to get, it essentially becomes a “tax” that makes soft drinks and water container purchases less affordable.

When the law was originally approved back when Hugh Carey was governor, it included a requirement that helped make it easier for the consumer to understand how to get their deposit back.

The law requires the posting of a sign informing consumers about how to get their deposit back and how to complain if they have a problem doing so. The law is very detailed in how it should be written and where it should be posted at the retailer who sells the products. The law says that the “sign must be no less than eight inches by ten inches in size and have lettering a minimum of one quarter inch high, and of a color which contrasts with the background. The department shall maintain a toll-free telephone number for a ‘bottle bill complaint line.’”  This became what’s known as the Bottle Bill “Bill of Rights.”

The law states that the sign must be posted at the “point of sale” – meaning where the consumer pays for the product.

Despite the clear language in the law, most people would say they have never seen such a sign. To test whether those anecdotes represent a failure of the law was put to the test by community volunteers all across New York State earlier this Fall.

Last week, a coalition of environmentalists, charities, and civic groups released a compliance-check survey showing a widespread failure of retailers to post a Bottle Bill “Bill of Rights” sign as required by state law. The survey of nearly 300 retailers across New York State found that 80 percent failed to post the signs visibly and that an additional 10 percent did not post those signs at the “point of sale” as required by the state.

Only 10 percent posted the sign as required by law.

In a letter to Governor Hochul, the groups called on the Administration to “direct the DEC to act to ensure that all retailers are aware of, and comply with, New York’s ‘Bottle Bill’ signage law.”

The groups also noted that “The lack of the required signage is no small matter. If consumers are unaware that they can return their used beverage containers to the store at which they purchased them, it adds at best an inconvenience – since the container would have to be returned somewhere else – or an increased price – since the consumer may simply be unaware of their rights and discard the used container.”

Lastly, the groups urged the governor to make modernization of the Bottle Bill a legislative priority next session. The groups cited the Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill (S.5684/A.6543) as their preferred approach.

Enacted in 1982, the New York State Returnable Container Act, commonly known as “the Bottle Bill,” requires a 5-cent refundable deposit to be placed on eligible beverage containers. Upon passage the Bottle Bill covered only beer and soda sold in New York. Water containers were added later. The Law requires retailers who sell covered beverages to accept returns of empty containers for the products they sell and refund the deposits. The Law also requires beverage distributors to compensate retailers for the cost of collecting and returning empty containers by paying them a small “handling fee” for each redeemed bottle and can.

Over its 40-year history, New York’s Bottle Bill has proven to be a highly effective program to reduce litter, increase recycling rates and support a local “circular economy.” The Bottle Bill reduced roadside container litter by 70%, diverting 6.4 billion cans and bottles each year from the environment and landfills and putting them towards productive use at recycling facilities. On average, containers with a deposit are three times more likely to be recycled in America than those without.

The groups’ compliance check underscored not only a specific problem, but an overall need to modernize New York’s 40+ year old law. Approval of the “Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill” would benefit state revenues, enhance recycling, save local taxpayers’ money, and support struggling businesses and charities that provide critical services to the needy. Let’s see if the governor acts. And if you buy soda, beer, or water containers, stand up for your rights and make sure you get your nickel back.

The big news last week was the election results.  By and large, it was a good election day for Democrats across the nation.  Here in New York, Democrats won in many parts of the state.  For example, Democrats picked up control of the Onondaga County Legislature, a feat that they have not accomplished in almost half a century.

Yet in many ways, the New York results were about Democrats both mobilizing their base and also doing well with unaffiliated voters.  While New York is known as a “blue state” – meaning Democrats dominate – the data paints a more complex picture than the conventional wisdom.

A recent examination of partisan voting enrollments over time showed just how nuanced New York’s electorate is.

While Democrats continue to dominate partisan enrollments, their advantage has been slipping in recent years.  In addition, Republicans – who had seen significant erosion in their enrollments — have recently stopped their enrollment decline.  Yet, when looking at both parties’ enrollments over the past two decades, they have more or less stagnated in their relative enrollments.

Where New York has seen the most enrollment growth is among unaffiliated voters, the so-called “blanks” category.  The non-partisan blanks have seen their enrollments swell, having overtaken Republican enrollment as of 2020.  And that advantage is growing.  In 2010, Democratic enrollment totaled just short of half (49.66%) of New York voters, Republicans were a bit shy of one-quarter (24.93%), and “blanks” slightly more than 20% (20.04%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage has slipped a bit (now 48.15%); Republicans dropped (22.41% – though that was a bit higher than recent elections); and “blanks” increased to over one quarter (25.24%) of registrants.  

“Blanks” have exceeded Republicans in New York City for years and are now neck-and-neck with Republicans in the three downstate NYC suburbs.  In 2021, Democratic NYC enrollment totaled more than two-thirds (67.52%) of voters, Republicans 10% (10.08%), and “blanks” nearly double that of Republicans (19.43%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage of NYC voters slipped to just under two-thirds (65.9%), Republicans inched upwards (to 10.73%), and “blanks” increased to over 20% (21.01%).  

In 2021, Democratic Suburban NYC (Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester) enrollment totaled more than 40% (40.13%) of voters, Republicans nearly 28% (27.98%), and “blanks” more than 26% (26.41%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage slipped to under 40% (38.57%), Republicans inched upwards to more than 28% (28.23%), and “blanks” increased to nearly 30% (28.91%), now exceeding the percentage of Republicans.  Unaffiliated voters also have inched ahead due to a growing gap in favor of “blanks” in Westchester County.

And the rise of the unaffiliated voter is not just a downstate phenomenon.  When examining the enrollments in counties north of the Greater NYC region the trend is similar.  It appears that “blanks” may even overtake Democratic enrollment in those areas.  In 2021, Democratic non-Greater NYC voter enrollment totaled a bit more than 37% (37.16%) of voters, Republicans nearly 31% (30.92%), and “blanks” nearly one-quarter (24.39%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage slipped to 35% (35.23%), Republicans inched upwards to more than 31% (31.18%), and “blanks” increased to over 27% (27.56%).  

These trends show how daunting it is for Republicans to win statewide office, which they have not done since 2002.  This underscores that the road to a statewide Republican win in New York is paved with strong appeal to the unaffiliated voter.  Nearly half of all registered voters are Democrats; in order to win, Republicans have to run the table among the rest of the electorate.

Which may explain the successes Democrats had in many parts of the state last week.  While the election ensured that Democrats kept the mayors offices in urban areas (replacing Democratic mayors with Democratic mayors), the suburban successes that Democrats had was a testament to Democrats’ appeal to the “blanks.”  Not to be overlooked however, Republicans did score key victories in suburban areas.  Incumbent Republican County Executives won in Rockland and Nassau counties.  And it was in Nassau that Republicans won all countywide offices, despite being at an enrollment disadvantage.  Their successful appeal to unaffiliated voters carried the day.

These unaffiliated voters, the “blanks,” may well determine state and national policies next year.  Appealing to “blanks” by Republicans will likely demand they stake out significant policy differences from the President – who is deeply unpopular in New York.  Appealing to “blanks” by Democrats will likely demand greater appeal to suburban voters’ concerns.  

Given the redistricting changes the nation is seeing, it is likely that the party that controls the House of Representatives will have a small majority.  The appeal that downstate Congressional Representatives have toward “blanks,’ may determine who controls the House, as well as New York’s Governor’s Mansion.

When it comes to politics, enrollment “demography” can be destiny.  The interests of the unaffiliated voter may be most important ones come next November.