As the holiday shopping season hits its peak, not only are consumers buying lots of gifts, they are accumulating an incredible number of plastic bags.  Combined with the ongoing plastic bag use, New Yorkers gets an incredible number of plastic bags – almost always for one, and only one-time, use.  According to the Cuomo Administration, “residents use 23 billion plastic bags annually.  A significant number of these bags make their way into the environment causing litter and damaging wildlife, which can be seen within our waterways, along our streets and in our oceans and lakes.  Moreover, these bags do not biodegrade – they persist for years.”

The problem is not unique to New York; it is a global problem.  According to a recent report, experts estimate that over eight million tons of plastic waste ends up in the world’s oceans each year, and that amount is likely to increase dramatically over the next decade unless nations act.

The amount of plastics waste found in the ocean is the equivalent of “five plastic grocery bags filled with plastic for every foot of coastline in the world.”  Experts estimate that by 2025, the amount of plastic waste entering the oceans would double, or the equivalent of 10 bags per foot of coastline.  The plastic that ends up in the ocean isn’t just unsightly and harmful to aquatic life, it ends up in the food chain, including shellfish, fish and even sea salt.

While the United States is not the world’s worst offender – that distinction goes to China – the U.S. generates an estimated 110,000 metric tons of marine debris a year.

The average American throws out 185 pounds of plastic every year.  Cutting plastic bag use can dramatically reduce waste.

In addition to the benefits to reducing the amount of garbage in the oceans, plastic bags aren’t biodegradable, and less than one percent of plastic bags are recycled.  Even when they are, it costs more to recycle a plastic bag than the cost of producing a new one.  One staff member from San Francisco’s Department of the Environment, commented, “There’s harsh economics behind bag recycling: It costs $4,000 to process and recycle one ton of plastic bags, which can then be sold on the commodities market for $32.”

Earlier this year, Governor Cuomo approved legislation that retroactively overturned New York City’s then recently passed local law to address the proliferation of plastic bags as litter, ecological damage and as part of the City’s solid waste disposal burden.  The new state law also prohibited the City from passing a new law until January, 2018 at the earliest.  Oddly, other local laws around the state that banned plastic bags were not covered by the legislation.

In order to take some of the sting out of his approval of the state legislation overturning a local law, Governor Cuomo created the New York State Plastic Bag Task Force.  The Task Force was charged with developing a report and proposed legislation to address the detrimental impact of plastic bags on the state’s environment.  The Task Force has been meeting and it is expected that the governor will advance changes during the 2018 state legislative session.

It is hoped that the governor will advance a plan to drastically restrict, and in some cases ban, the use of plastic bags for retail purchases.

There is ample evidence that such a program could work.  California’s experience is most instructive for New York.  Like New York, California has a large, diverse population with large urban areas and a substantial coastline.  California’s law has been in force for over a year.

The California law has two major components: (1) a statewide ban on thin plastic bags (under 2.25 mils) that are the ones most often distributed by supermarkets (those with handles, not the ones used to wrap foodstuffs); and (2) a minimum 10-cent fee for paper & reusable bags (including thicker plastic bags).

California’s law has been a success.  As described by the Los Angeles Times, “Californians took in stride the sudden absence of some 13 billion bags that in previous years were handed out at grocery checkout counters and by other retailers of all sorts.”  Not only were consumers able to handle the change in their shopping experience, but there was a significant reduction in the amount of plastic bags found on California beaches.  Again according to the Times, “Plastic bags (both the banned and the legal variety) accounted for 3.1% of the litter collected from the state’s beaches during the 2017 Coastal Cleanup Day, down from to 7.4% in 2010.”

The result?  The Times calls it a success: “Shoppers did not revolt or launch recall campaigns against state lawmakers. Food still gets to people’s houses. Reusable bags did not spark an epidemic of food-borne illnesses, as some critics suggested they would. Consumers didn’t go broke paying 10 cents apiece for the thicker, reusable plastic bags stores are allowed to distribute instead.”

California’s experience shows that its law is a good model – consumers can easily adapt and plastic bag trash is slashed.  Let’s hope that with Governor Cuomo’s push, next holiday season will be just as cheerful – for New Yorkers and the environment.

Last week, the New York State Assembly Higher Education committee held a public hearing to review the performance of the new Excelsior Scholarship program.  The Excelsior Scholarship was established in this year’s state budget and was rolled out with great fanfare by Governor Cuomo and Vermont’s U.S. Senator Sanders.

After other aid dollars are used up, the Excelsior Scholarship pays for 100% of the in-state, public college tuition for state residents whose families earn below a set annual income cap: $100,000 in 2017.  The scholarship only covers tuition; students bear the additional cost of fees, books, room and board, which can cost up to $14,000 annually.

To maintain the scholarship, Excelsior students must obtain 30 class credits in a year and at least 12 credits per semester at a state public college, either in the State University of New York (SUNY) or the City University of New York (CUNY).  The annual income eligibility cap will increase as the Excelsior program is phased in (to $110,000 in 2018, and $125,000 in 2019).

The Fall 2017 academic semester was the first time the scholarship was offered and the Assembly hearing focused on how well the rollout was conducted and how many students were benefitting.

Of particular concern was the late, compressed time frame that students had to apply for the scholarship.  The program was established as part of the state budget in April.  It wasn’t until June 7^th that the application window for the scholarships even opened.  It closed 45 days later on Aug. 21^st.  As a result, some students weren’t notified until mid-semester that they were eligible for an award, and many had still not seen the tuition deducted from their bills.

During the 45-day window this past summer, more than 95,000 students applied for a scholarship and 46,000 of them learned they would receive free tuition.  But not all of those received the new Excelsior Scholarship.  About 22,000 students ultimately were accepted into the Excelsior program, while another 23,000 who applied were deemed eligible for other tuition-assistance programs, such as the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP), because their income fell below $80,000 a year.

That’s because the scholarship is a “last-dollar” award, meaning it applies only after all other forms of financial aid are taken into account.  For decades, the lowest-income students in New York have been able to receive free or discounted tuition through the state’s Tuition Assistance Program.

Interestingly, it’s been reported that the vast bulk of the Excelsior Scholarships went to students in SUNY; more than 17,000 went to students in SUNY and 4,700 were for CUNY.  In SUNY, about 12,000 students at four-year colleges and 5,300 at community colleges are receiving free tuition this fall as part of the Excelsior Scholarship program.

According to that report, the most Excelsior grants in SUNY went to1,576 students at the University at Buffalo; 1,044 at the University at Albany; and 940 at Binghamton University.  Those numbers are not surprising, since SUNY’s University Centers have the most students.  What is surprising is how few awards went to students in the City University system.  While there is a significant difference in the total number of undergraduates, SUNY has around twice as many full time students as compared to CUNY, it received more than three times as many Scholarships.

For example, it has been reported that Queens College in the City University with an undergraduate population of nearly 13,000 full-time students received 774 Excelsior Scholarships, while the State University College at Oswego, with a full-time undergraduate population of over 7,000 received 700.  Of course, since the Scholarships are based on income and academic schedule, there are likely to be big differences between SUNY and CUNY public colleges.  But that disparity is an interesting outcome of this first semester.

Neither the hiccups in the rollout nor the interesting differences between public college systems should undermine support for the program.  Starting up a new program will always have its difficulties.  What is most important is that policymakers learn from those experiences and act to improve this important program.

At the hearing, the Cuomo Administration testified that the plan for next academic year includes a much earlier recruitment period for the program.  What should also be provided is a detailed “report card” on the current year’s Scholarship awards.

In addition, the Administration could more formally release detailed campus-specific data and analyses on the demographics of Excelsior applicants, how many students were rejected from the scholarship, and the reasons applicants were denied.

Detailed information will help inform and drive the upcoming state budget debate in ways to improve the program and to maximize the benefits to college students.

New York considers itself a “progressive” state.  Progressive meaning that New York’s political leaders view the policies of the state as “cutting edge” in its responses to society’s problems.  And in New York State, there is a track record that backs up that view.

New York State granted women the right to vote before the rest of the nation; young adults got the right to vote early too; the state’s constitution includes protections for workers, requirements that the needs of the poor are addressed, that children are guaranteed a sound, basic education; and the state had the foresight to extend constitutional protection to the largest wilderness areas east of the Mississippi.

In recent years, the state was the first to grant marriage rights to gay couples through legislation.

So, there is a lot that New York can point to in terms of being progressive.

But when it comes to its democracy, the state is anything but progressive.

New York State’s system of campaign finance allows enormous campaign contributions.  New York allows the largest campaign contributions of any state that has limits.  Under state law, contributions of $109,000 are completely legal.

New York’s system of establishing political boundaries is hardly a national model:  When it comes to drawing state legislative district lines those with a vested interest in the outcome – lawmakers – draw their own districts.  In effect, state lawmakers choose their voters, not the other way around.

New York’s programs to curb corruption are, to say the least, sadly lacking.

When it comes to the core activity in a democracy—voting—New York has one of the most onerous ballot-casting systems in the nation.

For example, despite the fact that the state constitution makes it clear that no one can register to vote within 10 days of an election, state law goes beyond that and says that no one can register and vote within 25 days of the election – thus a previous governor and state legislature made it harder to vote.  And that 25-day deadline is one of the longest in the nation.

The state even has the longest period of time between when a voter can switch political parties and then vote in a Presidential primary.

The result of the state’s approaches to campaign financing, to redistricting, to ethics, and to voting are not progressive, to say the least.

Instead New Yorkers are increasingly cynical and frustrated by their own government.  And the evidence is clear that the policies and the public’s reactions are damaging: New York consistently has one of the lowest voter participation rates of any state in the nation.

In the 2016 election, for example, New York’s voter turnout rates were worse than states like Alabama and Louisiana.

New Yorkers deserve a better democracy.

The next opportunity to fix things is fast approaching: 2018 will be a reelection year for the Governor, the Attorney General, the state Comptroller and all 213 state legislators.  Next year will also be the year that the nation starts to grapple with the fallout from the policies enacted in Washington – laws which may strip away health insurance for millions and destabilize the budgets of some states, including New York’s.

But voters can’t let candidates for state office off-the-hook for the sad state of democracy in New York.  New Yorkers need to press the governor and legislators for specific responses to the real problems facing the state, such as:

What will they do to end the secrecy that surrounds too much of state decision-making?

What will candidates do to make it easier to vote?

What will they do to end rigged elections?

What will they do to establish independent ethics enforcement?

What will they do to curb the influence of the rich and powerful over the awarding of government contracts and enacting legislation?

The drama playing out in Washington has real-life implications, no doubt.  But it shouldn’t be used as a dodge or a shield from the work that state public officials must do, the work that transforms New York from the nation’s democracy “caboose” to its progressive “engine.”

Thanksgiving was the start of the holiday shopping season.  The holiday shopping season is a time when many adults look for gifts for children.  And while the holidays are a time for fun and giving, it is important that it be a safe time as well.

A recent survey of toys found some that posed health and safety threats to children (the New York version of the report can be found at https://www.nypirgstudents.org/pubs/201711/NYPIRG_Toyland_Report_Nov17.pdf).  Among the toys surveyed, there were examples of choking hazards and toys with concentrations of toxics exceeding federal standards.  The continued presence of these hazards in toys highlights the need for constant vigilance on the part of government agencies and the public to ensure that children do not end up playing with unsafe toys.

The problems the report identified included:

• Toys containing toxic substances, specifically lead.Childhood exposure to even low levels of lead can undermine development, damaging academic achievement and attentiveness.
• Toys with small parts have pieces that might block a child’s airway. Children, especially those under age three, can choke on small parts. Small balls less than 1.75 inches in diameter represent a choke hazard for children three years old and younger. Balloons are easily inhaled in attempts to inflate them and can become stuck in children’s throats. Balloons are responsible for more choking deaths among children than any other toy or children’s product. 
• Beyond choking hazards, some small, easily ingested, toy parts pose other hazards. When two or more powerful magnets are swallowed, they can have fatal health consequences as their attractive forces draw them together inside the body, perforating intestinal walls.
• Toys with batteries.When batteries are ingested, chemical reactions can burn through the esophagus and blood vessels, causing fatal internal bleeding.
• Toys that generate excessive noise.Excessive noise exposure can lead to hearing loss. This is especially problematic for young children: Hearing loss at an early age has ramifications for speech development.

In addition, the advent of new interactive toys can pose other concerns.  The report alerted parents and toy givers to so-called “connected toys” that may violate children’s privacy and other consumer protection laws. As more and more products are part of the “Internet of Things,” data collection and the sharing of consumer information become greater concerns. As an example, the report listed a doll, which has been banned in Germany for privacy violations and is the subject of a complaint by several consumer groups to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission because it may violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

In July, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issued a warning to consumers to “consider cyber security prior to introducing smart, interactive, internet-connected toys into their homes.”

Despite recent progress in making toys safer, the report highlighted the need for continued attention to shortcomings in existing standards and vigilance on the part of the shopping public. To keep children safe from potentially hazardous toys, there is still more to do.

• Examine toys carefully for hazards before purchase – and don’t trust that they are safe just because they are on a store shelf or available on-line. Generally, we found that retail stores were conscientious about keeping toys subject to recall off their shelves.  However, some recalled toys were still available on-line.
• Report unsafe toys or toy-related injuries to the CPSC at saferproducts.gov.
• Subscribe to government announcements of recalled products at recalls.gov.

For toys already owned:

• Remove small batteries if there is any question over their security or inaccessibility and keep them out of reach of children;
• Remove batteries from or tape over the speakers of toys you already own that are too loud; and
• Put small parts, or toys broken into small parts, out of reach. Regularly check that toys appropriate for your older children are not left within reach of children who still put things in their mouths.

Policymakers must do more to protect children from dangerous toys.  But until actions are taken, adults should take care in the gifts that they purchase.  Smarter choices can help keep this holiday season safe.