A new report from the State Comptroller found that severe weather events in the state are more frequent and that these storms require New York taxpayers to shoulder a growing financial burden. The report found that:

• Weather-related disasters that cause $1 billion or more in damage have occurred at an increasing rate since 1980.
• Severe weather events are increasing in New York and certain types of events, including thunderstorm-related damaging wind and flash floods, are also increasing.
• Since 1998 there have been an average of 2.5 weather events per year in New York that resulted in federal disaster or emergency declarations with authorized annual assistance averaging nearly $1 billion.

The report also identified the New York counties getting hammered worst, including Saratoga, Herkimer, Ulster, Albany, Dutchess, Columbia, Rensselaer, Oneida and Washington counties.

The costs are staggering and taxpayers – both federal and state – bear those costs. The Comptroller’s report mentioned that the state’s recently approved Clean Water, Clean Air and Green Jobs Bond Act covers some of the costs, but you pay for that too.

What the report failed to mention was New York’s new law, the landmark Climate Change Superfund Act. The Climate Superfund requires that major polluters like Exxon, Saudi Aramco, and BP for the first time will pay for some of the costs of extreme weather.

New York’s law shifts the financial burden from local taxpayers to polluters. New York’s Climate Superfund is a mechanism to ensure that state and local taxpayers are not on the financial hook for 100% of the damages caused by severe storms, rising sea levels, and hotter temperatures. New Yorkers are already paying billions in climate-related damages. There is no doubt that those costs will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

Why should the fossil fuel industry help offset the state’s costs for a worsening climate? The oil industry knew for decades that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to rising temperatures and correctly anticipated all of the havoc that it would cause. Yet, instead of being responsible members of civil society, they bamboozled the public and lawmakers about the dangers in order to maintain their profits.

Now the costs are coming due. Here are some examples facing New York: Recent estimates put the price tags at $52 billion to protect NYC Harbor, $100 billion to upgrade NYC’s sewers to handle more intense storms, $75-$100 billion to protect Long Island, and $55 billion for climate costs outside of New York City. The state Comptroller has predicted that more than half of local governments’ costs will be attributable to the climate crisis.

The costs will be staggering, yet they are costs that must be paid. New York has decided that the companies most responsible for the emissions of greenhouse gases should pay their share. Thus, the Climate Superfund assesses the largest oil companies $3 billion annually for each of the next 25 years to help offset these costs.

It does so in a way that ensures that the companies cannot pass these costs on to the public.

According to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, companies’ payments would be based on historical greenhouse gas emissions, so oil companies would have to treat these as one-time fixed costs. Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz agrees, concluding that the Superfund Act will not raise the price of oil on consumers since “the assessment generated by the Climate Superfund is based on past pollution and therefore does not affect today’s marginal cost of production, there should be no shifting of costs to consumers.”

While it lost in the state Legislature and with Governor Hochul, the oil industry is not giving up the fight to stop New York’s Climate Superfund law.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the oil industry has met with the President to urge action to both overturn New York’s law as well as to more generally block environmental litigation. If the oil industry is successful, those $3 billion will be charged back to state and local taxpayers – either through a massive increase in taxes or draconian cuts to government-provided services.

To reiterate, these climate costs are not optional, they have to be paid, there is no getting around it. If a roadway gets flooded, or a bridge washed away, they have to be replaced. The question is should the public pay all of these costs? New York says no. If Washington overturns New York’s law, taxpayers will have to pick up the entire cost, increasing taxes (or cutting services, or both) to the tune of $3 billion annually. Here’s hoping that our Congressional delegation makes sure that does not happen. Otherwise, expect another climate hit to your wallet.

The federal government’s slashing of domestic spending (while boosting tax cuts for the wealthy) has put states’ budgets at risk. The impact on New York’s budget is unquestionably significant.

The federal legislation approved this past summer, dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” covered a lot of issues. The ones that received the most attention are the changes to Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and the SNAP program (subsidies to purchase food for the needy), the elimination of federal spending on climate programs, as well as increasing the nation’s debt ceiling to $5 trillion.

New York has been bracing for the state budgetary impacts: an estimated cumulative budget gap of $34.3 billion over the next three years.

Yet, last week New York received some good news on the budget front. According to the State Comptroller, Wall Street’s profits increased at “a faster pace than last year” and represented “the fourth-highest level on record.” The analysis concluded that Wall Street’s “profits and bonuses could help generate higher-than-expected city and state tax collections if this pace continues.”

While no one should bet the ranch on Wall Street continuing to boom for the rest of the year, it looks like its strong performance may cushion the expected fiscal blow to the state from the federal budget.

The smart move is to prepare for a still bad state budget next year. The state will need to focus on fixing or eliminating programs that are inefficient and spending that makes no sense. One obvious place to look is the state’s economic development and benefit programs.

New York spends billions on its so-called economic development programs, more than virtually every other state. Those programs have been subject to ongoing criticisms, in particular for the state’s failure to conduct a comprehensive review that evaluates whether these programs actually work. The state support for these programs hinges on the promise that they will generate jobs and stimulate economic activity.

In some cases, the failures are obvious, like the “Buffalo Billion” program, which came way short of the promises. In others, it’s hard to tell if the state got any “bang for its buck.” A fundamental problem is that there are few mechanisms for real-time evaluation, in particular to answer the “but-for” question: Would companies have hired workers or made investments at the same level they did but-for the tax incentives? In other words, was the tax incentive necessary to induce the companies’ investments or would they have happened anyway?

According to some analyses, the answer to that question is “no.”

In addition, some tax incentives make little sense. For example, New York law provides tax benefits for the use of fossil fuels, usually to protect consumers from some taxes, like buying home heating products.

In the age of climate catastrophe – and possibly shrinking federal support for climate programs – tax incentives for oil, gas or coal products should be examined carefully to make sure that they are reasonable, meaning that they protect the public not Big Oil and its allies. Good examples of tax benefits that makes no sense in the age of climate catastrophe are those that give $350 million in benefits to the oil and gas industry.

The oil industry has been enormously profitable. And while a chunk of those profits have been used for additional investment in exploration, a lot has been “invested” in our political system. Here in New York, those political investments have paid off.

Their recent campaigns to roll back the state’s climate law, postpone fees on greenhouse gas emissions, and undermine electrification in the building of new homes, have registered. You can hear it in Governor Hochul’s pledge to support “all of the above” in terms of sourcing power. “All of the above” includes relying on fossil fuels, even though climate experts warn that such an approach will accelerate the climate catastrophe.

New Yorkers see the propaganda campaign advanced by Big Oil and its allies for what it is. But they should also know that they are unwittingly helping to subsidize this enormously profitable and dangerous industry. That subsidy should stop.

Legislation has been introduced to close loopholes in state law that benefit the oil industry. Of course, $350 million is a far cry from the billions needed to close next year’s budget gap, but it’s a good place to start.

While Election Day is still a couple of weeks away, voting has started here in New York.  Over recent years, New York has taken steps to make it easier to vote.  After all, under the state’s Constitution, citizens have a right to vote.

For over a century New York voters used lever machines, the most recent of those machines dating to the early 1960s.  These 840 lb. behemoths were relatively easy to use (unless one had a disability).  That changed two decades ago when the state moved to rely on paper ballots, in which voters filled out paper-ballot bubbles that were then scanned and tabulated.  Reliance on paper ballots made elections less susceptible to fraud since there was now a physical document that contained voters’ choices, unlike the old days when no such record existed.  Keeping a physical voting record is a crucial component of a secure election system.

And that’s not the only thing that’s changed.  Instead of only being able to vote on the first Tuesday in November, New Yorkers can vote during an early voting period and can cast their choices through the mail.

As a result, New York votes are now more secure and casting a ballot is much easier.  New Yorkers can choose one of three ways to vote:

In person (during the early voting period or on Election Day);

By requesting an absentee ballot (if you will be traveling or due to an illness); or

By requesting an early voting mail-in ballot.

It has been the mail-in voting option that has recently gotten the most attention.  The Trump Administration’s disinformation operation has switched into high gear stating – falsely – that mail-in voting has been rife with fraud.  As usual, no proof is offered because it isn’t true.  Don’t get distracted by this obvious effort to undermine voter confidence.

For those who are interested in voting through the mail, this is the last week to register to do so.  Here is how.  Request a mail-in ballot online or visit your local Board of Elections office.  Mail-in ballot applications must be received by the Board of Elections by this Saturday, October 25th.  Your ballot will be sent to you immediately after your application is received and processed.  When you have finished voting, fold the ballot and put it in the security envelope.  Sign, date, and seal the security envelope.  Put it in the return envelope and mail it, postmarked no later than November 4th.  Return envelopes already include postage and the return address of your Board of Elections.

If you do not want to mail your ballot, you have a few options: Hand deliver it to your local county Board of Elections office by November 4th before 9 p.m.  Bring it to an early voting site in your county between October 25th and November 2nd (hours and locations vary by county).  Or bring it to a poll site in your county on Election Day (November 4th before 9 p.m.).

Once you have mailed in your ballot, after a few days you can then track your early mail-in ballot online.

If you haven’t registered to vote, you still have time.  This Saturday, October 25th is also the voter registration deadline.  If you are not sure if you are registered to vote, you can check your voter registration status online.  If you are not registered yet, you can register online or visit your local Board of Elections office, or a state agency office that allows a voter to do so, to pick up a voter registration form.  

October 25th is also the first day of early voting.  Early voting lasts through November 2nd.  The best way to know the hours of early voting and the polling locations – which are often different from those used for the traditional General Election Day voting– is to check with your local county board of elections.  

The General Election Day is Tuesday November 4th during the period 6 a.m. through 9 p.m. (remember if you have voted during the early voting period, or if you voted by mail, you cannot vote again during the General Election).  

However you choose to vote, when you have received your ballot, vote for the candidates of your choice on the front, and flip over your ballot to vote on the question(s) on the back (every voter will have a statewide ballot proposal, and your ballot may also include local ballot proposals from your municipal government, for example in New York City there are six ballot questions).

Given the propaganda efforts seeking to undermine elections, it’s possible that voters may run into issues when casting their ballots.  If any voter gets harassed at a polling place, or if there is some other difficulty, the New York State Attorney General runs an Election Protection Hotline that can help answer voters’ questions.  The Attorney General’s hotline can be contacted ((866) 390-2992) during the early voting period from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. and on Election Day from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. or any time through the Attorney General’s online complaint form.  

Wherever you are along the partisan divide, over the next couple of weeks you have your opportunity to have your voice heard.  You can vote by mail, cast a ballot early starting this Saturday, or vote on the traditional General Election Day, November 4th.  As the saying goes, not choosing is choosing.  Vote.

New York State has consistently blocked the construction of new pipelines to allow for the transportation of gas. The state Department of Environmental Conservation has rejected new gas pipeline construction on the grounds that it would harm water quality.

The rejection was also driven by a recognition that construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure is at odds with the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (known as the “Climate Law”). It is the Climate Law that requires that 70% of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy by 2030 and that New York effectively eliminates greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

After all, how could the state reconcile expanding reliance on fossil fuels while at the same time seeking to eliminate its use in generating power? It could not.

The rationale for acting to slash the emission of greenhouse gases is backed up by the world’s experts and climate science. For example:

• Earth’s temperature has increased by about 2.3°F (1.1°C) and 2024 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous records set in 2016 and 2023.  The decade from 2015 to 2024 was the warmest recorded decade. 
• The rate of global warming has been faster since 1970 than at any other time in the last 2,000 years. 
• The warming is triggered by greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of oil, gas, and coal, causing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels to reach a record – now more than 50% higher than pre-industrial levels.
• The increased heat has impacted the world. The global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880.

As one of the world’s biggest economies, New York’s actions not only impact the nation, but can affect global climate policies, as well.

As long as its policies stayed in place, that is.

Reportedly as a result of pressure from the Trump Administration, New York is changing course and on the verge of allowing construction of pipelines it had previously banned as environmental threats a few years ago.

The pressure started with an attack by the Trump Administration on a nearly completed wind farm off of Eastern Long Island. In April the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary ordered that the project be halted. The Secretary later elaborated, saying that the Biden administration’s approval of the “Empire Wind project was built on bad and flawed science.” At that time, Governor Hochul issued a statement sharply critical of the stop-work order, declaring it was the product of “a shortsighted, political agenda.”

Then in May, with no explanation on how the “flawed scientific methodologies” were resolved, the Trump Administration rescinded the stop-work order for Empire Wind.

The Interior Secretary commented on his social media account that “I am encouraged by Governor Hochul’s comments about her willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity.”  The existence of a deal to lift the stop-work order in exchange for Governor Hochul’s approval of constructing natural gas pipelines has been widely reported.

The governor has said that no such deal is in place. However, the White House has publicly stated that the governor “caved” to Trump on allowing two new gas pipelines through New York.

This past summer, the Hochul Administration began to move the pipeline projects. It issued a notice that it was opening a public comment period, but with no public hearings. That approach stood at odds with New York’s previous reviews of the pipeline projects, which included public hearings. And in September, the state’s Public Service Commission – an agency effectively controlled by the governor – gave its approval to the pipeline project. While the PSC has no formal role in the pipeline approval process, its endorsement is viewed as an indication of how the permit process is likely to play out.

If approved, how will building pipelines square with the state’s Climate Law? At the moment, there is no answer.

If approved, what will be the likely results for New Yorkers? Higher utility rates. If the pipelines are approved, New Yorkers will pay dearly. Estimates show ratepayer costs at $200 million annually for the next 15 years. And that’s just to build the pipeline itself. The cost of gas is rising – gas supply costs remain relatively low, but gas utilities are allowed to charge us through the nose to maintain and build out the aging gas system. And looking forward, the price of piped gas is rising more than 2x that of electricity.

If these pipelines are approved, these costs – both environmental and financial – will be paid for over a decade or more. Time that the planet’s climate does not have and money that New Yorkers would rather keep in their pockets.

Here’s hoping that Governor Hochul gets the message and that New York’s climate reversal doesn’t happen.

When it comes to government services, generally speaking there are two major categories: “rights” and “benefits.” A “right” is a service that one is entitled to under law; a “benefit” is a service that you can access if you do certain things. In terms of health insurance, wealthier nations view health care as a “right”: You get it based on being a citizen, no questions asked. Here in the United States, health coverage is a “right” to everyone aged 65 years and older. When you hit that age, you are entitled to it.

Health insurance benefits for those under 65 are often provided by an employer; it is a “benefit” that one receives for working. If the employer doesn’t offer coverage, the state provides coverage with the cost subsidized by government.

Of course, a benefit that is unaffordable for many isn’t much of a benefit.

The fight over the size of federal health insurance subsidies is at the heart of the partial federal government shutdown that started last week. Most Republican members of Congress and the President want to reduce subsidies; most Democrats want them to stay the same.

There is no entitlement at risk, only the size of the subsidy for the benefit.

For lower income individuals, there is a form of a health coverage entitlement through the Medicaid program. If an individual is under a certain income, they qualify (or if they have some form of disability). Since Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, those income levels and scale of coverage can be significantly different from state-to-state.

But until recently, if you were low income, you were entitled to coverage.

National policy on access to health care changed significantly this past summer. As part of the Trump Administration’s budget, the Medicaid program saw dramatic changes, most fundamentally one in which many current beneficiaries have lost their entitlement, their right to coverage. For those individuals, in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage, you now have to find work.

Proponents say the policy will reduce federal spending and promote self-reliance. However, according to experts, that plan is unlikely to work. Here is why:

Most non-disabled Medicaid enrollees already work, perform other qualifying activities, or are exempt from work requirements. The current proportion of adult Medicaid recipients who work now is 44% and most of the other 56% are engaged in alternative work activities like caring for children or have a health-related work limitation. Only 10-15% of adult Medicaid beneficiaries are estimated to be impacted by the work requirement.

Where states have enacted similar programs, they have failed. In the state of Arkansas for example, after its enactment, 18,000 adults left Medicaid in just six months. Research found that many people were unaware of the new rules and confused about reporting requirements. There was no evidence that workforce participation increased.

Remember, the only way to realize savings is by getting people off Medicaid. That means current Medicaid beneficiaries would either find work with health coverage, or they would have to drop off the rolls completely. Forcing people to become uninsured is an indefensible policy, but effectively that’s what is likely to happen.

The changes would result in 7.5 million Americans losing Medicaid coverage, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. One medical journal study projected the changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act would result in as many as 16,000 preventable deaths annually nationwide.

Why is this happening? First the projected “savings” were used to offset a massive tax cut for the wealthy. Second, there are those who simply are philosophically opposed to “rights.”

What can be done? It is far past time for the United States to follow the lead of other wealthy nations. As mentioned, the U.S. already has a program for those 65 years of age and older – Medicare.

Legislation proposed in New York, the New York Health Act, would end the needless rationing of health care that defines the current system. Instead, it would establish, simply, that health care is a right and that all New Yorkers have access to care. Regardless of ability to pay. Regardless of race or ethnicity. Regardless of whether they live in a city or rural area. Regardless of employment status. Regardless of pre-existing conditions.

The New York Health Act should improve health care as well. New Yorkers would have better insurance — with broader coverage, including for long-term care — than they do now. Doctors and nurses would be freed to provide care, rather than spend their time on billing. This new system would also be vastly more efficient than the current system.

Under the changes resulting from the Trump Administration and the Congressional majorities, people will lose their health coverage, all to help finance tax benefits for the wealthy. It’s up to states to blaze a different path. Scores of countries provide universal health care to their residents. It’s about time that the U.S. join them. New York should lead the way.