When it comes to climate, this year has been horrendous.  Wildfires across Canada were so bad that the air in New York City turned orange; there was massive flooding in New York, Europe, Brazil, and China (among others); “heat domes” made life miserable in the United States and nearly impossible in the Middle East; and there were the rising sea levels and melting polar caps.  All in all, it’s hard not to be depressed about the fate of the planet.

Our political debates are almost as bad as the deteriorating climate.  The oil, coal and gas industries are pulling back their “green” investments and battling legislation to protect the planet from a worsening environment.  They have been so successful that leading candidates for President are saying that an appropriate response to greenhouse gas warming is to push the pedal to the metal and rely more heavily on fossil fuels, despite the overwhelming science that says to do the opposite.

That fossil fuel industry’s public relations jiu-jitsu brings to mind Chico Marx in the movie “Duck Soup” when he gets caught red handed and says “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

In the last year alone our eyes have seen it all – floods, wildfires, deadly heat and pollution.  Obviously, something must be done, not anti-science flim flam, but tangible steps to avoid climate catastrophe.

Luckily, the scientific consensus that the planet is heating up largely due to the burning of fossil fuels points to an obvious response – wean the world off those fuels and shift to a green economy.  But those options have been well known for years, with little policy actions.  The power of Big Oil and their political henchmen have been successful in blocking needed changes, all the while making enormous profits

So, what can you do?

It’s pretty clear that despite the overwhelming scientific conclusion that the burning of fossil fuels is a key driver in the planet heating up and that we are seeing the impacts with our own eyes, the problem of climate catastrophe is a political one – and one that needs a political response.

It’s time to take it to the streets.

This Sunday is an opportunity for individuals to stand up to the oil lobby and push the political establishment toward meaningful action.  On September 20^th, the United Nations Secretary-General is convening a Climate Ambition Summit at United Nations Headquarters in New York.  The UN Secretary-General called for a global climate action summit in New York City and the “ticket to entry” for countries will be tangible action to keep fossil fuels in the ground – in the form of policies, and not just empty declarations.

The Summit presents a critical milestone for demonstrating politically that there is collective global will to accelerate the pace and scale of a just transition to a more equitable renewable-energy based, climate-resilient global economy.

To show the world’s leaders that there is widespread, potent public support for climate action, concerned individuals are organizing a “March to End Fossil Fuels” that will take place on Sunday, September 17^th in New York City.

The march will start on Broadway, between 54^th and 57^th Streets in Manhattan and proceed on 52^nd Street and end with a rally at 1^st Ave and 50^th St.  For those of you who are familiar with New York City, that route is flat and about 1.5 miles.

There are coordinated transportation options for those who want to attend, including for travel from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and upstate New York. 

Of course, participation in one rally doesn’t win the day.  It will take consistent, fierce advocacy to shift the political dynamic toward protecting the planet.  But this Sunday is one way to show your determination, either by showing up for the march, or by calling your Congressional representatives to tell them that you support climate action, not inaction.

New York colleges and universities have opened and with it comes the excitement of new educational and personal experiences for the students.  But for nearly all, the escalating cost of attending college and the resulting student debt looms.

By now it is well established that getting a college degree can be extremely costly. 

The cost of college has steadily increased at a pace that exceeds the nation’s inflation rate.  Nationally, over the past 20 years the average cost of college tuition and fees at public four-year institutions has risen 9% annually on average.  The rise in tuition between public institutions and independent (private) ones is different, but the conclusion is the same – the costs of attending college have been rising for decades and are increasing at a rate faster than overall inflation.

With college costs rising at a rate faster than the incomes of most Americans, college students and their families took out loans to make up the difference.  As costs rose, so did the amount borrowed.  The impact has been well documented.  The data paint a troubling picture:

• Nearly 44 million Americans have federal student debt.
• In total, the U.S. has over $1.77 trillion in outstanding student debt.
• Student loans are the second-largest type of consumer-generated debt behind mortgages, accounting for 9.5 percent of the nation’s consumer debt.
• Over half (54 percent) of college undergraduates finish college with student loan debt.

The debate over how to address this enormous debt burden has been among the top domestic concerns for the Biden Administration.  Yet, the underlying discussion over how best to reduce the initial costs of attending college has been more directly a state issue.

New York, like the rest of the nation, has for decades shifted the costs of higher education from the public to the families of college students.  During that time, the shift was largely done out of sight, during last minute state budget deals.  The burden-shift policy became most explicit during the Cuomo Administration.  The former governor made a big deal out of the need for “predictable tuition” increases and drove the state toward adopting that approach starting in 2011.  For the next decade nearly constant hikes raised tuition rates by more than 42%, yet direct state aid to colleges was largely stagnant.

For five decades, New York has helped to offset the costs of attending college through its Tuition Assistance Program, known as “TAP.”  TAP was established in the early 1970s as the way of directing financial aid to the neediest students in both the public and independent college sectors.  In its first academic year (1974), the program offered $1,500 for the neediest students to cover tuition.  While the $1,500 was in excess of the maximum public tuition charged at the State University and the City University of New York, the goal at that time also was to help stabilize the costs of attending college in the independent (private) college sector.  At that time, the existing state support for independent colleges and universities covered only 22% of private tuition (the maximum state financial aid award to a private college student prior to TAP was $600).  The goal of the then-new TAP assistance was to boost that support to cover half of independent college tuition for the neediest students. 

Today, the maximum TAP award does not cover public college tuition and comes nowhere near half of the costs of tuition costs for independent colleges.  Add to that the significant additional fees charged at public institutions, which are not covered by TAP, and books and housing, it’s easy to see how college has become increasingly unaffordable – unless loans are taken out. 

A lot has changed on college campuses since the early 1970s.  A college degree is far more necessary than it was five decades ago.  Today’s college students are older, more likely to be female, and far more diverse than in 1974.  Also, a lot more students have to work to afford college (in addition to the increased debts).

In one of the more bizarre policy decisions, despite an increased need for more students to go into graduate programs, in 2010, the state ended TAP assistance for graduate programs.

With the fifty-year anniversary of TAP, it makes sense for Governor Hochul and state lawmakers to modernize the program to fit the needs of today’s college students – both undergraduate and graduate – and to do it in a way that will help stabilize both public and independent colleges in New York. 

Educating the state’s future workforce and citizens is not only a powerful rationale for making college more affordable, but investments in higher education also pay dividends as an economic strategy – every dollar of public investment gets paid back in multiple dollars of economic activity.  The governor and the Legislature can act to make sure TAP’s 50^th anniversary is a golden one that lays the foundation to meet the needs of students over the next half century.

For many, August is the traditional time for vacationing.  Vacations are often the week or so before Labor Day.  Yet, while many would like to relax, it’s hard to chill out with the ongoing drumbeat of bad news about the worsening climate.

Interested in going to Hawaii?  Bad news there, as out-of-control wildfires have devastated one of the islands.  America’s central plains?  Heat domes contributing to very hot temperatures.  Planning a trip to the Mediterranean?  Wildfires there too, as well as unprecedented water temperatures, heat domes, and flooding.  Africa is facing severe climate disasters.  Asia has more than its share of problems, too.  South America?  Same.  Even Antarctica, which is in its winter season, is breaking up due to unseasonably warm temperatures.

When it comes to the worsening climate, there is nowhere to hide.

Here in New York, Governor Hochul has spent a good chunk of her past year responding to this state’s climate catastrophes.  Since last summer, the governor has unveiled at least $1.8 billion in state money for climate related projects – either responding to disasters or spending to help protect from future ones.  All of those monies came from New Yorkers’ wallets –  and that doesn’t include additional spending that local governments are allocating for climate costs.  A study from NYS Comptroller DiNapoli found that over a ten-year period (the last five and next five years), 55% of New York localities’ municipal spending outside of NYC was or will be related to climate change.

New Yorkers are spending big and that spending is expected to increase to as much as $10 billion annually by the middle of the century. 

The debate in Albany has been on how to shift from an economy that relies on fossil fuels to one that does not.  The state has a goal of “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century. A laudable, and scientifically-backed, goal, but it ignores an important question:  Who pays the costs for climate damages that occur in the meantime and who pays for projects to allow the state to adapt to a hotter planet?

The current policy of the Hochul Administration is to pass those enormous costs onto the public, while opposing legislation that would force the biggest oil companies to pay for those costs.

There is good reason to make the oil companies pay. First, they are responsible; the oil industry knew that the burning of fossil fuels would lead to a greenhouse gas effect that would warm the planet. Instead of alerting the world to what was coming, they did all they could to undermine climate action.  Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for Exxon made “remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet.”  Yet for years “the oil giant publicly cast doubt on climate science and cautioned against any drastic move away from burning fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change.”

And it’s not like the oil companies don’t have the money.  In a new review of the oil industry’s profits, it was estimated that over the past two and a half years the largest, publicly-traded oil companies, as well as the Saudi Aramco company, rang up profits of three-quarters of a trillion dollars.  You heard correctly, three-quarters of a trillion dollars in 30 months.  Those profits are expected to continue for quite some time.

Big Oil certainly has the money – their coffers are filled from the actions that have contributed mightily to the catastrophic conditions we are experiencing now, and will continue to endure.

And while Big Oil has the money and continues to rake it in hand over fist, New York does not.  According to the most recent state analysis, New York is facing state budget deficits of $36 billion over the next few years.  Of course, that could look different when lawmakers return to Albany in January, but it’s safe to say that big projected budget deficits will result in stingier spending on services. One area where costs cannot be ignored is the infrastructure costs resulting from climate-caused damages.  Roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure that we all rely on every day will need to be repaired, rebuilt, and protected.

It is mind-boggling that the governor would review the state’s budget situation and its rising climate costs and ignore the profits of the oil industry.  The legislation that is under consideration has been approved by the state Senate and has the virtue of forcing some of the massive oil industry profits into state spending, and doing it in a way that ensures that any such charges are not borne by the public.

It’s bad enough that New Yorkers are suffering from dangerous air, intense storms, and rising sea levels, they are also on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with the costs from a worsening climate.  At the same time, Big Oil is reporting staggering profits on top of record earnings last year.  Making Big Oil pay is the obvious solution.  If Governor Hochul and the State Assembly want to deal with affordability and the climate crisis, they must join with the Senate and pass the Climate Change Superfund Act and make corporate climate polluters – not hardworking New Yorkers – pay.

For most of us, bees are a common insect – we see them around flowers, buzzing by our heads, and sometimes even stinging us. However, bees play a critical role in the natural world: they are responsible for pollinating 80% of flowering plants. In the US, honeybees pollinate $15 billion in agricultural products each year, including more than 130 types of fruits, nuts, and vegetables.

They play a vital role in producing food for wildlife, maintaining soil health, and keeping water clean, in addition to their role in pollinating agricultural products. Bees are one of the most important pollinator species to our food security and ecosystems.

There are more than 1,000 plants grown for food, spices, beverages, medicines, and fibers that require pollination. Without the help of bees, the world would be without such well-loved foods as chocolate, coffee, peaches, almonds, tomatoes, blueberries, strawberries, apples, pumpkins, melons, vanilla and many other fruits, nuts, and vegetables.

Yet bees are at risk.  In 2007, honey bees began disappearing. Beekeepers across the United States reported that adult worker bees were leaving their nests, queens, larvae, and resources with no apparent cause. Large, industrial beekeepers suffered dramatic losses.

In North America, four species of bumblebees are in decline, and one is already extinct. Far less is known about the situation with solitary species. Recent evidence suggests that as many as 700 of the 4,000 bee species in the United States are facing devastation.

There are multiple reasons for the devastation of the bees: diseases, parasites, pesticides, loss of habitats, are among the top reasons. Of those, the use of pesticides is the one we can control the most.

Neonicotinoids (or neonics for short) are a class of pesticides that have been linked to bee die-offs. Neonics are a relatively new class of pesticides that hit the market in the 1990s, billed as being less harmful to mammals and other vertebrates. They’re a synthetic, neurotoxic pesticide applied directly to the soil or as a seed coating and used widely in agriculture, residential use, golf course maintenance, and in pet flea and tick treatments. As their use has climbed, so too have studies revealing that they threaten birds, bees, aquatic creatures. Potential human health risks remain under investigation. 

Wild bees living and foraging near crops grown from neonic-treated seeds showed large population die-offs in a study funded by pesticide manufacturers.

Honey bees are reared and managed for their honey production and ability to pollinate crops, among other services. Research shows the insecticides kill worker bees, reduce immunity of the hive and leave colonies without their queens. Neonics attack bees’ brains, impacting their ability to sleep, forage, fly and even find their way home.

As researchers uncovered more about the threat neonics pose to bees, policymakers began to act. The European Union placed restrictions (including bans) on several neonics for outdoor uses because of the risks to bees. And some states in the U.S. already have some restrictions (or bans) on the use of neonics.

New York has taken steps to limit the use of neonics. Earlier this year, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), citing the dangers to pollinators, restricted the use of neonics.  

New York State lawmakers went one step further during the 2023 legislative session and approved the Birds and Bees Protection Act. This legislation would ban the sale or use of corn, soybean, and wheat seeds coated with neonics beginning in 2026. In addition, the bill commissions a study on the feasible alternatives to toxic pesticide use to be submitted to the Governor and Legislature no later than January 1, 2025. The bill also provides the commissioner of the DEC the authority to temporarily suspend the ban if there’s a lack of a commercially available alternative for a specific seed; and allows the DEC to provide a use exemption if there is an environmental emergency that no other less harmful pesticide could effectively address.

The use of neonics in seed treatments pose risks to bees (and other pollinators) since they can move from the targeted pest areas. For example, planter dust, which is generated during and shortly after planting treated seeds, contains high concentrations of neonic insecticides. Dust can move beyond field margins and land on flowers and other vegetation and potentially expose non-target insects (including bees and other pollinators). Neonics are highly soluble in water, which facilitates movement beyond field borders via drainage and runoff. Studies also show that neonic contamination in water bodies has a negative effect on arthropod communities, which are the bases of local food webs.

A report by researchers at Cornell University concluded that the most common uses of neonics in New York, which pose substantial risks to pollinators, provide little to no benefits to users and can be replaced by safer alternatives. Supporters of the Birds and Bees Act argue that the bill will help stop approximately 80-90% of the total outdoor neonic use from entering the environment.

The bill will land on the governor’s desk sometime this year. How she acts on the bill may well determine the future of bees in New York.  Let’s hope she protects the bees.

In his State of the Union address, President Biden focused part of his comments on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs.  In his remarks he noted that the drug companies are  “unfairly charging people hundreds of dollars.”  The President was drawing a line in the sand that he would veto any measure that weakened the ability of the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.

American drug prices are the result of myriad factors, one of which is the nation’s system for allowing patents for medicines.  Granting a “patent” bestows an exclusive right “for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.”  In the area of drugs, it allows a company the exclusive right to sell a medicine approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States.

During this patent-protected period, drugs are exempt from normal price competition – usually from “generic” drug companies.  Thus, the manufacturers can charge whatever prices they want in order to maximize profits and reap the rewards of their investment.

The rationale for the patent system was to encourage and incentivize innovation.  Companies that successfully bring new therapies to the market can be rewarded handsomely. 

Yet, nowadays most companies are no longer innovating new medications.  Instead, they’re monopolizing existing ones.  For example, it is estimated that as much as 80% of new patent applications are not for new medicines but are for minor changes that allow companies to argue that the drugs are “new.”

Allowing new patents for essentially old drugs extends the period in which price competition is prohibited, resulting in higher costs for patients.

These increased costs impact many Americans.  Two-thirds of U.S. adults rely on prescription drugs.  And one in four people struggle to pay for them.

When people can’t afford their medicines, they often have to decide whether to skip doses or not fill their prescriptions.  High prices impact all insured people, not just those taking medications. Because drug expenses make up 20 percent of health insurance costs, when drug prices go up, so do premiums.

But policymakers can change that by doing more to allow generic competitors to come to market.  Savings from new generic drug approvals are dramatic – $10-20 billion annually.  That’s the power of a competitive marketplace.  Unfortunately, abuse of the patent laws by pharmaceutical companies undermines price competition.

Patents are meant to spur innovation.  But the monopoly-pricing granted by a patent isn’t meant to last forever.  Too often drug makers spend significant time and money obtaining new patents to gain protections for medications already available – thus blocking access to generics and biosimilars.  And while a wrongly-granted patent can be challenged in federal courts, these challenges take years and come with a median cost of $3.5 million per case.

So, what should be done?  Clearly, the Congress must push both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the FDA to more closely examine what gets patented and eliminate incentives for drugmakers to game the system by obtaining frivolous patents.  More vigorous regulatory oversight – and whatever needed additional resources – is a critical step that must be taken.

Also, there needs to be a public database combining both agencies’ information on new and pending patents and their related drugs.  Regulators and academics need a one-stop shop for reliable information on FDA and USPTO applications and decisions.  A more robust database could inform solutions to barriers that keep drug competitors off the market.

There is growing bipartisan support for tackling this problem.  Republican and Democratic Senators have called on the patent office to crack down on the practice of granting multiple patents for minor variations on a single invention, which they said drug companies have sometimes used to stave off generic competition for decades.  According to the Senators, “The Patent Act envisions a single patent per invention, not a large portfolio based on one creation.”

Regulators must heed their call.  Unless action is taken, too many Americans will be stuck with making the cruel choice between paying for needed medicine or food.  No one should have to be forced to make that choice.