The world’s leaders are meeting at a U.N. conference in Glasgow, Scotland to decide how to respond to the worsening environmental emergency caused by global warming.  The burning of fossil fuels has created an existential threat to all living things.

There is no longer a credible debate about whether human activity, primarily the use of fossil fuels to create energy, is dangerously heating the planet.  Even in the pandemic downturn economy, 2020 was the hottest year on record.

This year’s U.N. climate summit renews an urgent question to the international community: Can the world come together to confront the common enemy of global warming before it’s too late?

To limit the growing menace from global warming, the Glasgow conference must, at a minimum, achieve five goals: 

1. Rich nations need to meet the 2015 Paris Accord goal of transferring $100 billion each year for poor nations to cope with climate change. 
2. Rules for international carbon trading, which is seen as a key instrument to harness market forces in the fight against global warming, need to be implemented.  So far, those rules have not been realized. 
3. Transparency measures need to be put in place to prove that the world is making progress toward meeting emission reduction targets. 
4. Reductions are needed in methane emissions. 
5. Greenhouse gas emissions must be cut by 45% by 2030 compared with 2010 levels.  Yet so far emissions are going up, not down.  Cutting emissions in half over the next decade is essential to averting global catastrophe.

For the first time in years, the United States is sending a President with promises to help in the fight, a President who follows the science.  But the U.S. is sending a President who carries promises, but not real programs.

As part of last week’s Build Back Better “framework,” the President and the leaders of the Congress agreed to advance legislation that will meet certain goals.  The “framework” promises to spend $1.75 trillion over the next decade on a wide range of domestic programs. 

In the area of climate change, the “framework” pledges $555 billion for clean energy and climate investments.  Most of the funding, $320 billion, would go toward 10-year expanded tax credits for clean energy, transmission and storage, clean passenger and commercial vehicles and clean energy manufacturing.

Given the magnitude of the existential threat posed by climate change, $555 billion over a decade is simply not enough.  Nevertheless, it would greatly increase America’s odds of keeping its climate pledges.

President Biden’s initial plan was far more ambitious, with $3.5 trillion in spending and a much more robust climate package.  For example, the President had proposed the Clean Electricity Performance Program, which would have required all electric utilities to draw 80 percent of their power from non-carbon sources by 2030, or else face steep fines.  That plan dropped out of the “framework” due to opposition from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

The “framework” reflects the tiny margin that the Democrats have in each house of the Congress.  In the House, Democrats hold 220 of 435 seats, meaning they can’t afford to lose more than three votes on any given issue.  To take on the oil industry the House essentially needs a consensus, which is extremely difficult.  Just to illustrate the difficulty, of the 38 house members from oil-industry dominant Texas, 13 of them are Democrats.

In the Senate, the Democrats only have an advantage in a 50-50 Senate thanks to the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President.  Thus, the final “framework” reflects Senator Manchin’s philosophy:  “You can’t use things as a hammer.  You’ve got to give an incentive to do the right thing….”  “Incentivize or penalize.  Penalize doesn’t work, incentivize does work,” Manchin said.  We all know that penalties do work.

Nevertheless, because of Manchin’s demands the “framework” reflects his view with the bulk of climate spending focused on incentives and does essentially nothing to penalize bad behavior.

And when it comes to bad behavior, the oil industry takes the cake.

The public record makes clear that – based on their own research — for the better half of the late 20th Century oil companies knew that burning fossil fuels was warming the planet.  Yet, starting in the 1980s the industry championed climate change denial and opposed regulations to curtail global warming.  To this day, they are still fighting science-based climate legislation in the Congress.

That’s why there is a “framework” but no final legislation.  The hordes of oil and gas lobbyists fighting for a deal that protects the profits of the fossil fuel industry could further weaken an already limited “framework.”  Hopefully, the pressure from the Glasgow conference will stiffen the spines of those who seek to curtail environmental catastrophe, and the nation ends up with a better Build Back Better plan and more than empty promises from Glasgow.

New Yorkers began casting their ballots last Saturday and some of the most important decisions appear on the back of the ballot.  There voters will find five proposals to change the New York State Constitution.  While important ballot proposals may be on your local village, town, city or county ballot, four of these statewide proposals could have profound impacts on New York’s democracy and its environment.

Here’s a look at the statewide proposals:

Proposal #1: This proposal addresses New York State’s redistricting process – the process whereby congressional and state legislative district boundaries are adjusted to account for population shifts.  This amendment updates the state’s Constitution, eliminates unfair or unconstitutional provisions, and adds new measures to strengthen the redistricting process.

The proposal caps the number of senate districts at 63, removes a 1894 rule so cities and towns are on equal footing in senate line drawing and removes “dead wood” provisions long ruled unconstitutional under U.S. Supreme Court decisions.  The proposal also addresses timetable issues – the Constitution was based on state primaries in September, they are now held in June.  Supporters argue that this amendment improves the state’s redistricting process. Opponents argue that the changes to the Redistricting Commission’s voting rules hurt Republicans.

Proposal #2:  This proposal addresses the state’s environment.  There can be no doubt that New York’s natural environment is under siege, threatening the state’s precious ecology and human health.  Recent examples include drinking water contamination uncovered in Hoosick Falls, Newburgh, and on Long Island.  Many other communities across the state suffer from threats posed by multiple pollution sources, particularly in communities of color and/or low-income areas. 

While New York has been a leader in environmental preservation, environmental health, and environmental justice, in key respects the lack of constitutional recognition of this fundamental right is glaring.  Six states—Illinois, Pennsylvania, Montana, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Rhode Island—have environmental protection planks in their constitutions.

Supporters argue that elevating the right to clean air and water and a healthful environment to a constitutional protection will help ensure that New Yorkers have a basis in which to protect themselves, their families, and communities.  Opponents argue that it will lead to an explosion of lawsuits.

Proposal #3: This proposal addresses New York’s voter registration deadlines. The state’s voting rates are lower than the national average.  The state’s antiquated system of voter registration is a relic of a bygone era, perpetuating the re-election of incumbents and limiting voter participation.  This proposal, if approved, would allow—but not require—legislation to give New Yorkers the right to register and vote on the same day.  States that have same-day or no registration systems have among the highest voter participation rates in the nation. 

Supporters argue that often elections capture public interest only when the election is close at hand, past the current registration deadline.  Opponents argue that this proposal will add too much work for elections officials and that fraud may occur.

Proposal #4: This proposal addresses greater use of absentee, mail in, ballots.  The state Constitution places restrictions on New Yorkers applying for an absentee ballot.  New York’s experience with the pandemic-inspired “no-excuse ballot by mail” underscores the benefits of allowing voters to mail in their ballots instead of going to the polls: e.g., safer for voters and poll workers, more convenient for voters with physical limitations, and reduced voter traffic at early voting and election day polling sites.  Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit any qualified voter to vote absentee without offering an excuse. 

Supporters argue that allowing voters an easy opportunity to vote through the mail is an important way to make civic participation easier in the modern age.  Opponents argue that this proposal makes it too easy for fraud to occur.

Proposal #5:  This proposal pertains to the New York City civil court system and would increase the court’s monetary jurisdiction from claims up to $25,000 to claims of no more than $50,000.  Supporters argue that this limit was set in 1983 and should be adjusted upwards to account for inflation. 

When it comes to changing the state Constitution, voters get the final say.  Don’t forget to flip over your ballot and make sure your voice is heard. 

Ever since former Governor Cuomo resigned in the wake of bombshell investigations that found that his Administration had misled the public about nursing home deaths and that he had harassed his staff, the calls for reform have been growing.

Governor Hochul has said that she wishes to completely overhaul the state’s ethics oversight, reportedly saying that she wants “blow up” the state’s ethics watchdog.

Bravo!  But the problems of Albany are not solely the result of a failed ethics enforcement system.  The problems go much deeper.

For a decade New York State has plowed billions of dollars into programs that were designed to be “transformational” and to recharge economic development.  But the decisions were largely made behind closed doors and no systems were put in place to monitor whether those programs succeeded or failed.  In fact, when it came to the efforts to revitalize Buffalo and Syracuse, all that resulted was scandal.  The then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s investigation led to the conviction of top Cuomo aides and allies for widespread “pay-to-play” schemes.

The Legislature never followed up to investigate these failures or to comprehensively review the track record of the Cuomo Administration’s multi-billion-dollar initiatives.

They should and they must.  There is still time to learn from those scandals.

But it is also the case that new systems need to be put in place so that the public can better monitor state programmatic initiatives without having to hope that lawmakers will take their oversight responsibilities seriously.

Last week, the state Comptroller took one step in that direction.  Comptroller DiNapoli unveiled a new program to track where federal pandemic relief money is going.  As part of the federal efforts to bolster states’ finances in the wake of the COVID pandemic, New York State has received $21 billion in federal pandemic relief money and has spent $6.1 billion – or one-third –since the end of September.

Having a system in place to monitor what the state is doing with federal aid is, of course, important.  The federal aid was designed to bolster programs that were impacted by the pandemic.  Taxpayers need to be sure that their federal dollars are being spent appropriately and not diverted to spending in other areas.

And the public needs to know if the money is being spent, and how quickly it’s “going out the door.”  Sitting on federal aid only exacerbates the financial pain caused by the pandemic.

The Comptroller’s “tracker” can be expanded to cover all state spending, not just federal pandemic aid.  It’s very hard for the public – and rank-and-file lawmakers – to monitor state agencies’ spending.  It’s impossible to know how to hold government officials accountable if you don’t have the basic facts.

Even better monitoring of state government spending is only half of the picture – New Yorkers need to know how well funded services perform.

Public monitoring of government service delivery is not some pie-in-the-sky notion.  The City of New York has a program, known as the Mayor’s Management Report (MMR), that annually publishes city agencies’ performance.

The report was first produced by the Mayor’s Office in 1977 as a part of the City’s response to the fiscal crisis, to highlight the impacts on performance in that challenging budget environment. The MMR includes both quantitative metrics and qualitative explanations that show how each city agency and related projects are doing and allows for year-over-year comparisons, to show where progress has been made, where more attention is needed, and where there are opportunities for improvement.

There can be no doubt that Governor Hochul’s Administration has its hands full – it needs to hire new staff, deal with the ongoing pandemic, get government up and running, and prepare a budget for next year – all while preparing to run for election.

Yet there also can be no doubt that an overhaul of the state’s ethics oversight is desperately needed.  New Yorkers need to have tools to hold all of government accountable for the work that taxpayers fund.  Unlike ethics reform – which requires the cooperation of the Legislature – developing a program to hold state government spending accountable is something that the governor can do on her own.

Through her executive powers, the governor can mandate a system that tracks the program used in New York City.  She can mandate that and have her agency heads publicly testify to the Administration’s successes or failures in delivering services.  If Governor Hochul builds on the work of the Comptroller and the New York City model, she will have made her mark in the short time that she has left in her term.  A mark that could make a huge difference in holding government accountable and, hopefully, make it harder for political insiders to game the system to enrich themselves.

After all, a more accountable government is a more ethical one.

New York’s much maligned state ethics watchdog, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), agreed last week to launch an investigation – of itself.  The reason?  The Commissioners want an independent review of the agency’s decision to bless former Governor Cuomo’s $5 million book deal.

Some background.  As the COVID pandemic first swept the nation, the former governor was widely applauded for his public educational efforts on the disease and how government and the public should respond.  His presentations – which ran daily for months – were seen as a constructive alternative to the grossly incompetent response by former President Trump.  Trump’s misleading, misinformed, and often malignant COVID briefings contributed to the nation’s failure to adequately address the pandemic.  Former Governor Cuomo’s presentations, on the other hand, were widely viewed as competently presented, reassuring, and helpful to the public’s understanding of the pandemic.

The national acclaim prompted the governor to write a book on his experiences.  At the time, the idea that a sitting governor would write a book to essentially “cash in” on his public service should have raised flags within the ethics oversight board.  The governor and other members of New York’s executive staff are considered full-time employees and are not allowed to have outside income unless it is approved by ethics monitors. 

New York’s governor is the highest paid in the nation and has significant public benefits in terms of travel, security, housing, and other perks all paid for by taxpayers.  Allowing outside income to the governor should have triggered an independent review.

And so, the governor requested an ethics approval.  That request was written by public servants during (apparently) their public time on the job and was presented on gubernatorial letterhead.  Essentially the public was paying for the governor’s attorney to make his personal request for outside income.

That alone should have been a no-no.  But the ethics watchdog agreed to the request for review.  The staff of the ethics watchdog decided to conduct an internal, staff-only review without taking the request to the full Commission.  The staff approved the former governor’s request, apparently without a review of the multi-million-dollar contract offered by the book publisher.

The request was approved with the caveat that no public resources could be used in writing the book.

As it turns out, the governor did use public resources in writing the book and that decision is currently under investigation by the Attorney General.  Former Governor Cuomo argues that the staff who worked on the book did so voluntarily and that public resources were only incidental.  We’ll see whether the investigation agrees with him.

The agency action that led to approval of the agreement in the first place is what the JCOPE Commissioners appear to be investigating.  The members of the JCOPE Commission are appointees of the governor and the legislative leaders (itself a fundamental flaw) and with new members being appointed by the governor, it is far more likely that the episode will get a fresh examination.

The new chairman of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (a Governor Hochul appointee) announced that JCOPE would hire an outside attorney to examine the operations of the Commission.  This vague announcement has been supplemented by reporting that the investigation would look at the decision-making into the approval by JCOPE of former Governor Cuomo’s book deal.

They would be right to look closely.  This isn’t the first book deal that led to a big payday for the former governor.  It is obvious that he should not have been allowed to use public resources to request approval for either one of the book contracts; he should have been told to use his own resources.  That needs to be made clear by the Commission.

It should also be made clear that no public resources should be used for a public official’s private enrichment.  None.  Having subordinates allowed to voluntarily work on projects that personally enrich elected officials should be verboten.

And it should be made clear that plans to allow for significant outside income for full-time public employees must be made by a full Commission review. 

This entire episode underscores a fundamental problem with ethics oversight in New York: The public can’t trust an ethics oversight system that relies on appointees of those whose behavior is being monitored.  Governor Hochul and the legislative leaders need to replace the current flawed ethics oversight system. 

There is no need for an investigation to make that decision.  New York ethics needs an independent watchdog. 

We all know that when we buy things in bulk, we can save money.  Economic theory and our own shopping experiences are that sellers are much more likely to give the consumer a break on the per-item cost if the consumer buys more of them. 

Over the long haul, buying in bulk can save real money.

And that’s what government can do.  Governments are the biggest purchasers of health care – both through public programs like Medicare (health insurance for seniors), Medicaid (health insurance for lower income individuals) and through health coverage for public employees.

At the federal level, the government currently negotiates drug costs for veterans (through the Veterans Administration) and Medicaid beneficiaries.  Yet, because of a federal law passed in 2003, the government is specifically prohibited from negotiating for Medicare drug prices.

That prohibition was part of a deal that expanded drug coverage to seniors.  The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act expanded the Medicare program by creating a voluntary prescription drug benefit known as Part D.  The benefit took effect in 2006 and provided prescription drugs through private stand-alone drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans.  

However, as part of the deal and to sweeten the benefits for pharmaceutical companies, that law prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from negotiating Medicare drug costs. 

Instead, Medicare prescription drug prices are negotiated between prescription drug manufacturers and hundreds of insurance companies that administer Part D plans.  Of course, insurance companies have some clout, but it is nothing compared to the negotiating power of the federal government.  As a result, Medicare drug costs are higher – and seniors must pay more.

Generally, those who support allowing the federal government to negotiate for lower Medicare prescription drug costs argue that Medicare beneficiaries should receive the same lower prescription drug prices that veterans and Medicaid beneficiaries receive.  Specifically, establishing the government as the single negotiating entity, instead of thousands of individual private plans, would result in significantly lower prices for beneficiaries and reduce program costs.

Opponents argue that doing so would be a form of price control that would interfere with market competition.  They also cite concerns that a reduction in prescription drug manufacturers’ profits may result in less money for researching and developing new drugs.  Opponents ignore the facts that drug therapy research is often conducted using taxpayers’ dollars and that allowing the Veterans Administration and Medicaid to negotiate drug costs has not impacted the pipelines for new medicines.

Since passage of the 2003 law, there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts to allow the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, in the same way it does now for veterans.  That fight has reached a new peak as part of the Congressional debate over the Biden Administration’s Build Back Better Act, the proposed $3.5 trillion stimulus program.

The President’s plan is central to the Congressional budget reconciliation debate.  Under Congressional rules, budget reconciliation proposals merely require majority approval in the U.S. Senate – circumventing the filibuster obstacle that requires 60 votes to end debate on policy-focused bills.  Measures considered under budget reconciliation must be narrowly tailored to the implementation of the federal budget.  A plan to change the nation’s immigration policy, for example, has been barred from budget reconciliation since that plan was more policy than budget.

However, when it comes to Medicare drug costs, the plan to allow the government to negotiate for lower costs is far more compelling.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that allowing Medicare to negotiate prices would save government health plans more than $450 billion over 10 years.  And those savings clearly make sense as part of a multi-trillion-dollar budget plan.

Of course, the benefits would not be to the government alone.  Lower drug prices would result in lower costs for Medicare beneficiaries.  Under drug price negotiation, Medicare beneficiaries would see a savings from an estimated 9% of the Part D base premium in 2023 to 15% in 2029.  The lower prices would benefit the more than 45 million Americans who participate in Medicare prescription coverage.

As the Congressional debate over budget reconciliation and the Biden plan unfolds, making sure that seniors benefit from lower drug costs and the government saves hundreds of billions of dollars must be a top priority.  The financial health of the nation – and the health of seniors – hang in the balance.