The United Nations’ Climate Action Week wrapped up with intense speeches, promises and emotional pleas for action.  Here in New York, the battle over how best to respond to the unfolding climate catastrophe is intensifying.

Let’s start with the science. 

Since the beginning of industrialization in the second half of the 18th century, humans have released so much CO₂ into the atmosphere that the global average temperature has increased by around 1 degree Celsius (nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit).  And temperatures currently continue to rise by a further 0.2 degrees Celsius each decade.  The amount of carbon dioxide in the air—the key metric of greenhouse gas pollution over time—is at 408 parts per million, well beyond the safe level of 350 ppm and 46% more than pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.

The consequences of global warming have long since become tangible in the form of heat waves, rising oceans, floods and droughts.  And the costs could be much more dramatic, far-reaching and lasting than anything the civilized world has ever had to contend with.  Heatwaves, droughts, storms, forest fires, floods, disruption to the entire food chain: The impacts are becoming more visible all the time.

In October 2018, the world’s climate experts (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued a report examining whether the world will meet the target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times—a target contained in the 2015 Paris Agreement.  Their conclusion was that every nation needs to do a lot more, much more than they are currently doing.

According to the experts, there is only one way to meet the 1.5-degree goal: the world’s CO₂ emissions must be cut nearly in half by 2030.  By middle of this Century at the latest, the world must reach a carbon “net zero.”  That means that if CO₂ is released at all, the same amount must be removed from the atmosphere.  If the climate warms by 2 degrees Celsius (nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit), the future looks even more dire.

Two degrees would mean a complete destruction of the coral reefs, huge crop losses, the melting of the Greenland icepack and catastrophic threats to millions of people.

It bears noting that more recently climate scientists have stated that the climate crisis is accelerating even faster than they believed and that things are perhaps even more dire than the 2018 report indicated.

Which brings us to the fight in New York.

Despite the growing existential climate crisis, some continue to advance plans seemingly without concern for the consequences.

For example, National Grid—a United Kingdom company which provides power to much of New York State, wants to build a new $1 billion natural gas pipeline under the Hudson River. The rationale for this expansion is that the company expects there to be a 10 percent increase in gas demand over the next decade due to a growing New York’s economy and as building owners stop using oil as a source of heat.  

The pipeline would take time to build and would have to operate for decades for its investors to make a profit from the construction of the pipeline.  Organizations concerned about the threat posed by the burning of fossil fuels have opposed the plan (and others like it) stating that expansion of the use of any fossil fuel makes no sense due to the growing threat from global warming.  Governor Cuomo has pledged to block the pipeline.

What should be done?  Instead of building new natural gas hook-ups, many customers should look at relying on electricity for their needs.  While much of the power for electric use comes from polluting sources, ultimately those will be replaced with renewable sources and thus building for that future makes more sense than building out new fossil fuel infrastructure.

No one is arguing that people should stop driving cars, turn off the lights, eat only cold foods and live in homes with freezing or hot temperatures.  But the planet must stop building for a fossil fuel future.  The fossil fuel era, like the steam engine before it, has passed.  We are now living with the consequences.  It’s time to focus our resources and planning on a non-fossil fuel future.

New York cannot invest in long-term fossil fuel capital projects at the same time that state law mandates a rapid transition to renewable energy in all sectors—housing, transportation and industrial and commercial.  The policy in New York is settled and we must move quickly away from fossil fuels.  As the world’s experts have said, there is no time to waste.  Actions to curb such use must be taken now.

This week is the deadline to register for those who wish to vote in the 2019 election in New York State.  That’s right, a full 25 days before the election is the deadline to register.  In many cases, busy New Yorkers may not be paying attention to the candidates until Election Day gets closer.  For those would-be New York voters, they will be shut out.

Why a 25-day deadline?  Good question.  Voting is a constitutional right, not a privilege.  Yet New York is notorious for making it difficult to vote.   And the impact is clear:  New York State had a Voting Eligible Population (VEP) of nearly 13.8 million in 2018.  VEP is the most reasonable measure of participation and includes citizens over 18 who are not incarcerated for a felony.  However, 12.7 million New Yorkers were listed by the New York State Board of Elections as either active or inactive voters for the same time period.  That means over one million eligible citizens were not registered to vote.  While the comparison of these two datasets is imperfect, it underscores that many New Yorkers who are eligible, are simply not registered to vote.

Simply put, New York’s voter registration and voter participation rates are anemic.  In the 2018 general election, a stunningly low percentage of registered New Yorkers – an estimated 45.2 percent – voted.  A review of the U.S. Elections Project analysis showed New York to be among the worst in the nation in terms of eligible voter turnout.  

When New York is near – or at – the back of the nation in voting, why hasn’t the state acted to improve things instead of making them worse?  One reason is that partisan differences on the issue have blocked needed reforms.  Another reason is that incumbents get elected by those who do vote – incumbents may fear that reforms that bring in new voters may put them at risk.

After years of failing to act, Governor Cuomo and the State Legislature this year began to attack some of the long-festering problems in New York’s system of elections.

Among the changes, lawmakers agreed on legislation to allow for early voting and to allow 16 and 17 year olds to register to vote prior to their 18th birthday.  They also agreed to the first passage of a constitutional amendment that – if approved a second time and then approved by the voters in a referendum – would allow voters to register and vote on Election Day.  Fifteen states plus the District of Columbia offer “same-day registration” so any qualified resident of the state can go to register to vote and cast a ballot all on the same day. 

Two weeks ago, the governor approved legislation that took another step toward modernizing New York’s elections.  New York has one of the nation’s earliest deadlines for being able to register in advance of an election.  And in a peculiar twist, the state’s registration deadline rules dramatically impact voter participation in Presidential primaries.

The Democratic and possible Republican Presidential primaries in New York will be in April 2020.    Until recently, the last day voters could change their party enrollment for the 2020 Presidential and state primaries was Friday, October 11, 2019, making New York the longest wait time in the nation.

Under the legislation approved by the governor, New Yorkers will have until February 14, 2020 to decide if they wish to change political parties in order to vote in April’s Presidential primary.

For years, New York’s election calendar has been criticized, especially before and after the 2016 presidential primary.  Many unaffiliated voters didn’t learn until days or weeks before the primary election that the deadline to change their enrollment had passed months before.  The approved legislation changes that from a 190-plus day period to roughly 70-plus days for the Presidential primaries.  Still a long time to wait, but far better than the current situation.

Of course, it’s always best to register in advance of the deadline for this November’s election – October 11, 2019.  In this way, you can be sure to have your voice heard in the elections of 2019 and 2020.

Earlier this summer, the state Health Department issued proposed drinking water standards for certain types of contaminants that have been found in the drinking water supplies serving millions of New Yorkers.

The standards focused on three chemical threats: 1,4-dioxane, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).   PFOA and PFOS endanger public health at very low levels of exposure, resulting in developmental effects to fetuses, thyroid disorders, ulcerative colitis, high-cholesterol, preeclampsia, and kidney and testicular cancer.  Studies find that exposure to 1,4-dioxane can cause liver cancer and chronic kidney and liver effects.

According to an analysis of the most recent government data available, the drinking water of over 2.8 million New Yorkers has levels of 1,4-dioxane that are above the most stringent levels recommended for safety. This is also the case for PFOA and PFOS for over 1.4 million New Yorkers.  And that’s only for communities that have conducted testing.  One estimate is that 2.5 million New Yorkers in communities with 10,000 people or less have not yet had their water tested for PFOA and related chemicals.

The state Health Department has recommended that the drinking water supply of any New Yorker does not contain any more than 10 parts per trillion of PFOA, 10 parts per trillion of PFOS, and 1 part per billion of 1,4 –dioxane.

While those levels are small, according to leading environmental and health groups, the proposed levels are not small enough. 

The groups are calling for maximum contamination levels that are the most protective of human health and are in line with the latest science and available detection and treatment technologies; in terms of PFOA and PFOS, the groups have urged that the maximum level be no higher than 2 parts per trillion (combined) – one fifth of the proposed level advanced by the Health Department, and that the acceptable level of 1,4-dioxane be no more than 0.3 parts per billion or one-third the level in the Department’s proposal.

And the impact of unregulated contamination of drinking water supplies has real life consequences.  In Hoosick Falls, New York, Saint Gobain Performance Plastics used PFOA for years in their manufacturing process. Many in the town and village became sick with diseases linked to exposure to the chemicals.  Other communities with PFOA water contamination problems include Petersburgh and Newburgh.

If PFOA, PFOS and 1,4 dioxane had been regulated years ago, communities may not have had to face the pollution problems they are currently contending with.  Unfortunately, too often steps to protect water aren’t taken until after a water contamination crisis has already unfolded.

This is a vicious cycle that the public is counting on New York to break.  New Yorkers can’t wait for people to get sick from exposure to dangerous chemicals to take action.

New York has pledged $5 billion in water improvements, but that’s just a drop in the bucket.  Water infrastructure needs alone are huge in New York state – it’s been estimated that over the next 20 years, New York will need to invest $80 billion to make all the needed repairs, upgrades, and replacements – and that doesn’t include the costs associated with treating chemicals like PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane.  More state support will be needed.

In addition, there is much more to do than simply spending money (although that is needed).  One key step would be to expand regulation of contaminants already found in drinking water.  There are over 80,000 chemicals on the market that are unregulated, which means that even though they may not be safe for public health, they can be in our products or water anyway. PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane are only the start.  New York must test for unregulated chemicals, set drinking water standards, and ban the use of chemicals that pose health risks.

Last week, New York moved one step closer to putting these standards into effect, with the closure of the comment period for their proposed regulations.  Environmental and public health groups are calling for the governor and the Health Department to move forward with drinking water standards that align with the latest science.

The public has the basic right and expectation that the water from their taps will be safe to drink. The Health Department must rely on the best science in guiding its decisions and move quickly to tackle other hazardous chemicals that threaten drinking water supplies. 

The United Nations Climate Action Summit kicked off with two completely different visions of the planet’s future: Action by the Trump Administration to kill California’s clean car program and the worldwide Climate Strike inspired by teenage Swedish high schooler Greta Thunberg.

In his all-too-typical and frightening behavior, the President has rejected science.  His and his Administration have taken steps to eliminate the power of the state of California to set its own more stringent vehicle emission standards.  Thirteen other states, including New York, follow the California standards.  In total, roughly one-third of all cars sold in America are covered by these standards.

California’s emissions standards are stricter than the federal EPA requirements.  They’re more stringent on hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions — which become smog — from vehicles, and require that older construction vehicles be retrofitted to be less polluting.  California’s gasoline also must have less sulfur, benzene and hydrocarbons than most gasoline sold elsewhere in the U.S.

The state has created a number of categories for motor vehicle emissions.  Even if you don’t live in California, if you have a relatively new car, you’ve likely seen stickers somewhere on the vehicle that reference the California standards: Cars with stickers that say they are low emissions (LEV) or partial zero emission, or a zero emissions (usually a plug-in electrics).

The Obama Administration had adopted regulations that mirror California’s; the Trump Administration killed those and is now trying to eliminate the power of the states to set stronger environmental standards.

In a state like New York, transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – the gases that are fueling global warming.  Unless those emissions are reduced – as California has taken steps to do – the climate crisis will get worse. 

And the climate changes that result from global warming pose an existential threat.

As usual, the Trump Administration simply doesn’t care about the science or the suffering of billions of people that will result from its deadly decisions. 

However, the states are fighting back and last week New York State Attorney General Letitia James signed on to a lawsuit spearheaded by California to block the Trump Administration’s proposal to revoke the ruling that allows for tougher emissions standards. 

At the same time, millions of protesters worldwide – led by school children on strike from classes – rallied to demand action on stopping the unfolding climate catastrophe.

And unfolding is the correct word.  Hurricanes are stronger, sea levels are rising, glaciers are receding, surface water is evaporating, all as the planet has been heating up.  Experts have said that unless the world keeps global warming to a rise of no more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2030, it may be impossible to curb runaway climate changes that could devastate the planet.

The planet is already two-thirds of the way there; the average worldwide climate temperature has risen nearly two degrees Fahrenheit, leaving little room for additional fossil fuel emissions.

That was the message of the children and their supporters; unless sweeping actions are taken right away, their futures could be hellish.  Yet due to the negligence of the Trump Administration and others, renewable energy investments globally have dropped 14% this year compared with 2018 and carbon emissions are rising at their fastest rate since 2011, thanks to increased energy consumption led by China, India and the United States.

Here in New York, the Governor and the Legislature have agreed to a plan of action, but the plan has yet to be implemented. 

Goals are far better than denials – or actions that make the situation worse.  Our nation’s leaders need to heed the children’s clarion wake up call, and the rest of us need to fight hard to get them to act with urgency.  The crisis isn’t looming, it’s here now.  And if we don’t act, those children will face a world destroyed by our folly.

The electronic cigarette industry has done much to make up for the decline in tobacco consumption in America by getting the public to buy into its arguments that e-cigarettes are a “safer” alternative to smoking tobacco.

Of course, the electronic cigarette industry has never proven their products’ safety, they just assert the benefits.  Now, after aggressively marketing their products – particularly their flavored products – the health damages are becoming more apparent.

Earlier this month the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said the number of electronic cigarette use – or vaping – related illnesses had increased to at least 380 cases in 33 states and cautioned people about using e-cigarettes.  In addition, the CDC reported five deaths from vaping-related respiratory illness.

And the flavored vaping has had a tremendous impact on the number of minors using these products.  Five million minors, mostly in their high school years, reported that they had used e-cigarettes. About one-quarter of the nation’s high school students reported vaping within the last 30 days in this year’s annual survey, up from 20 percent last year.

This rapid increase in usage, as well as the growing number of reported illnesses and deaths, has pushed public officials to begin to act. 

At the federal level, the federal Food and Drug Administration sent a warning to the largest electronic cigarette maker – Juul – that accused it of violating federal regulations by its promoting of its vaping products as a healthier alternative than traditional tobacco cigarettes.  Next, the President has said that his Administration is considering a ban on all flavored vaping products. 

Over this past weekend Governor Cuomo announced that the state’s Public Health and Health Planning Council would take up regulations that would ban the sale of candy and fruit flavored vaping devices and pods.

One major difference between the Trump Administration’s and the Cuomo plans is that the federal regulations would include a ban on the sale of mint and menthol flavors, New York’s plan would not.

The governor’s rationale to defend his decision to allow menthol flavors to continue to be sold was his assertion that those menthol products could help people stop smoking traditional cigarettes.  The governor’s surprising assertion is not backed up by the Food and Drug Administration which has not approved e-cigarettes as smoking cessation devices. In fact, a recent study found that most people who intended to use e-cigarettes to kick the nicotine habit ended up continuing to smoke both traditional and e-cigarettes.

Menthol is a particularly deadly flavor.  When used in cigarettes, menthol poses a tremendous public health threat. A 2013 FDA report on the health impact of menthol cigarettes determined that menthol cigarettes lead to increased smoking initiation among youth and young adults, greater addiction and decreased success in quitting smoking.  Further, FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee’s concluded, “Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.”  When Ontario, Canada banned menthol cigarettes in early 2017, its initial evaluations suggested that the law resulted in increased attempts to quit and smoking cessation among adult menthol smokers.  As a result, the Canadian government subsequently banned menthol cigarettes nationwide later in 2017.

Menthol has particularly appealing qualities for novice smokers. Menthol is a chemical compound that cools and numbs the throat, reducing the harshness of cigarette smoke, making menthol cigarettes more appealing to young people who are beginning to use tobacco.

Allowing the continued use of menthol vaping products makes little sense.  The Trump Administration may, or may not, knock out menthol flavors.  The track record of the President delivering on his promises is not great, but if he does, it would supersede New York’s weaker approach.

But the decision of the Cuomo Administration is only final when the Public Health Council acts.  New Yorkers who care about curbing the deadly impact of vaping should hope that they go further than the governor’s statement and ban all flavored vaping products, including menthol.