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.

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.