Finally, Spring has arrived.  The weather is warming up and many think of lying in the sun to get some relaxation and a tan.  Others look to a short-cut: Indoor tanning.  You can see it already, with high school prom and other big events, like graduations, looming, many high schoolers are rushing to look their best, some go to indoor tanning salons.  That decision could change their lives.

Indoor tanning raises the risks of skin cancer as well as immune suppression, eye damage, and premature aging of the skin. The World Health Organization has elevated tanning beds to the highest cancer risk category – group 1 – “carcinogenic to humans.”

Subsequent research by the nation’s top medical facilities, including Harvard Medical School and the Yale School of Public Health, has reinforced that finding.  In New York, according to the American Cancer Society an estimated 4,920 people will be diagnosed with melanoma this year. Tens of thousands more will be diagnosed with basal or squamous cell carcinomas of the skin.  Many of those will be the result of frequent use of indoor tanning.

UV radiation exposure, particularly from indoor tanning, is a leading risk factor for the development of skin cancers. While excessive exposure to the sun permanently increases one’s cancer risk through cumulative damage, indoor tanning compounds the risks by delivering concentrated bursts.  This results in faster mutations in the body, as the UV rays alter the configuration of human DNA. This explains why individuals who have used tanning beds have a much greater risk of developing skin cancers as compared to those who have never used tanning devices.

The risk is significant to all users, but there has been increasing data showing the impact it can have on younger people, particularly those under the age of 18.  Currently, a substantial number of young teens are using tanning beds, with use increasing with age.  Among those teens, the rates were highest among female 17-year-old high school students.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies strengthen the indoor tanning-cancer connection.  A recent review of 27 European studies concluded:

Sunbed use is associated with a significant increase in risk of melanoma. This risk increases with number of sunbed sessions and with initial usage at a young age (<35 years). The cancerous damage associated with sunbed use is substantial and could be avoided by strict regulations.

Here in the United States, a growing number of researchers have identified the use of indoor tanning to be linked to cancers.  Some key findings:

• There has been a dramatic increase in the use of indoor tanning facilities – particularly among teenagers. Since 1998, teens reporting use of tanning beds has increased from 1% to 27%.  The more you expose yourself to UV radiation, the more likely you are to get skin cancer.
• When the World Health Organization determined that the UV rays found in indoor tanning booths were a human carcinogen, they also stated that individuals who used indoor tanning devices before the age of 30 increase their risk for melanoma by 75 percent.
• People who use indoor tanning equipment face a 59 percent higher risk of melanoma than those who do not, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.

The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation and World Health Organization all have called on states to bar children under 18 from tanning salons.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states and the District of Columbia ban the use of indoor tanning beds and booths for people under 18.  New York is not one of them.

Those over the age of 18 also need to know the facts.  Unfortunately, New York’s warning labels at indoor tanning facilities and its mandated disclosures say little about the cancer dangers associated with the use of indoor tanning.  The Cuomo Administration has the regulatory authority and obligation to strengthen those warnings.

States across the nation have already responded to the weight of scientific evidence and the staggering harm caused by indoor tanning by banning its use by minors.  New York should act too.

Energy efficiency means using less energy to provide the same level of energy.  If a house is properly insulated, less energy is used in heating and cooling to achieve a satisfactory temperature.  Houses can be built facing the sun to take advantage of solar energy.

Another example is installing fluorescent lights or skylights, instead of incandescent lights, to attain the same level of illumination while using less energy.  Appliances can be designed to reduce the amount of electricity they use.  Power management systems also reduce energy usage by turning off idle appliances. Smart meters allow a building’s energy use to be monitored to assess and regulate usage.

Energy efficiency reduces the amount of energy used, which helps lower energy costs for consumers, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions which drive climate change.  Energy efficiency also helps reduce the cost of producing energy and building power plants. Utilities are also able to save money by not building new power lines, substations, and transformers.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) energy efficiency programs return three dollars for every one dollar invested.  And that doesn’t include health benefits or reductions in climate change.

So, emphasizing programs to make New York more energy efficient would be a “win-win”; it would help reduce global warming emissions and help consumers to save money.

But New York has been going in the wrong direction.  New York’s ranking on energy efficiency has slipped under Governor Cuomo, falling from 3^rd to 7^th nationally in the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) State Energy Efficiency Scorecard.  Massachusetts is the national leader.

New York’s current 2016-2018 utility energy efficiency targets are far below what the Cuomo Administration assumed in its Clean Energy Standard (CES), and significantly lower than those of other nearby states—Massachusetts and Rhode Island—that lead in energy efficiency. And to make things worse, New York missed a prior target of 15% energy savings from energy efficiency promised by former Governor Paterson expired in 2015.

Rhode Island and Massachusetts see annual incremental savings from energy efficiency programs of nearly 3%, Vermont saves more than 2% and California saves nearly 2% (California recently set a goal of 4% annual incremental savings).  Currently, New York is estimated to be saving about 1%.

In his 2018 State of the State, Governor Cuomo announced a plan to create new energy efficiency targets and appliance standards, acknowledging that “much work remains to realize the full potential of energy efficiency for New Yorkers.”  He directed state agencies to propose new 2025 energy efficiency targets by Earth Day, April 22, 2018.

Earlier this month, and in advance of Earth Day, the governor issued his plan.  The goal is to save energy equivalent to the amount used by 1.8 million homes by 2025.  All combined the new efforts would increase annual electricity savings to more than 3 percent by 2025, which if achieved, would make New York among the top tier of states in terms of savings from energy efficiency.

Promises are important and goals help focus government agencies.  There can be no doubt that if the state is to achieve its environmental goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it can only do so by making New York’s energy grid more efficient and shifting from a system powered by fossil fuels to one powered by renewables like solar, wind, geothermal power.

But saying so does not mean it will happen.  As mentioned earlier, a previous goal was not achieved.  And despite the state’s promises of investments in renewables and efficiency, the governor’s decision to spend billions to prop up out-of-date nuclear power plants has drastically reduced available resources.

When it comes to the looming catastrophe the world is facing from global warming, talk is insufficient.  Actions matter most.

Given the shockingly dangerous policies of the Trump Administration and the Congressional majorities that ignore science and instead push for more use of fossil fuels, states like New York must lead – by actions, not just goals.

Let’s hope that the Cuomo Administration not only advances laudable goals, but also offers regular metrics on how well they are moving in the right direction.

This week we celebrate Earth Day.  Earth Day is an annual event that started in 1970 and is an important opportunity for our society to examine how well we are protecting the environment.  In a sense, Earth Day is the day we issue a “report card” on our stewardship of the planet’s natural resources.

There is no other way to describe it, we are failing.

Just reviewing the record on climate change underscores that failure.  The planet continues to heat up and that warming trend is accelerating.  The amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere is in the “red zone.”

The results are devastating: the oceans are becoming more acidic; sea levels are rising and threatening coastal regions; deserts expand and with them famines; food shortages and extreme heat waves trigger violence; populations are displaced; and species across the planet are becoming extinct.

How should we respond?  Scientists’ recommendations are quite clear – reduce reliance on existing fossil fuel powered energy sources and keep reserves in the ground.

Yet, the opposite polices are being followed.  The Trump Administration ignores science and appoints political allies to dismantle environmental programs.  The Trump Administration wants to leave the Paris Climate Change accord, one that has been ratified by every nation across the globe.

And the Congress does nothing, on a good day.

Why do our elected leaders act in such a reckless and irrational way?  Because there is a political constituency that has been created by the oil, gas and coal industries to block science-based solutions.

Those industries wield tremendous political clout and are able to use their muscle to protect their corporate interests – even if that results in tremendous harm to the public interest and threatens our survival.

And the fossil fuel industry also has been using that power to create an atmosphere of doubt around the science of climate change.  It is their public relations and political campaigns that have allowed it to have a stranglehold over national policies.

But the industry is not all powerful.  In the early years of the Cuomo Administration, oil giant Exxon-Mobil put its considerable political clout behind an effort to get New York to allow fracking; a controversial type of drilling that allowed for the extraction of natural gas.  At that time, it had the support of the governor.  It was on a roll.

Yet today a ban is in place.  The reason for the change?  An unprecedented statewide citizen mobilization in opposition to the plan.  New Yorkers from Buffalo to Long Island decided that allowing the oil and gas industries the rights to large scale mining of natural gas reserves was simply too much of a public health and environmental threat.

And in this age of climate change they knew that fossil fuels must stay in the ground, not be burned and released into the atmosphere to make global warming worse.

The clout of arguably the most powerful economic force on the planet was not a match for widespread grassroots mobilization grounded in scientific fact.

It is no secret what needs to be done to slow down, and hopefully reverse, the terrible impacts of the world’s reliance on fossil fuel power.  The world needs to collectively agree to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, there needs to be massive investments in energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and energy efficiencies.  There needs to be a ban on the sale on new cars that run on fossil fuels.

And there must be a halt on the expansion of new fossil fuel pipelines and other facilities.  These capital investments take decades to pay for themselves and the planet simply does not have decades to continue to rely on fossil fuel generated power.

These goals can be accomplished if Americans mobilize into a national civic campaign to avert an environmental catastrophe.  2018 is an election year—the time when it’s most important to deliver a message to candidates: we want you to pledge to follow science, not lies; we want actions, not promises; we want policies designed for the public’s best interests, not the economically powerful’s campaign contributions.

Earth Day is a time to take stock, to review how well we are taking care of the world – for ourselves and our children.  It is time to act.

Air emissions from the combustion engine cause many health problems.  When it comes to the emissions of diesel powered engines, the impacts are serious and potentially deadly.

Diesel-powered vehicles and equipment account for nearly half of all nitrogen oxides and more than two-thirds of all particulate matter emissions from U.S. transportation sources.

Particulate matter or soot is created during the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel.  Its composition often includes hundreds of chemical elements, including sulfates, ammonium, nitrates, elemental carbon, condensed organic compounds, and even carcinogenic compounds and toxic metals, such as cadmium and zinc.  Particulate matter is tiny, small enough to penetrate the cells of the lungs.  These small particles make up 80-95% of diesel soot pollution.

Particulate matter irritates the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, contributing to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and even premature death.  Although everyone is susceptible to diesel soot pollution, children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting respiratory conditions are the most vulnerable.  Researchers estimate that, nationwide, tens of thousands of people die prematurely each year as a result of particulate pollution.  Diesel engines contribute to the problem by releasing particulates directly into the air and by emitting nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides.

Diesel emissions of nitrogen oxides contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, which irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity.  Ground level ozone pollution presents a hazard for both healthy adults and individuals suffering from respiratory problems.  Urban ozone pollution has been linked to increased hospital admissions for respiratory problems such as asthma.

Diesel exhaust has been classified as a potential human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.  Exposure to high levels of diesel exhaust has been shown to cause lung tumors in rats, and studies of humans routinely exposed to diesel fumes indicate a greater risk of lung cancer.  For example, occupational health studies of railroad, dock, trucking, and bus garage workers exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust over many years consistently demonstrate a 20 to 50 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer or mortality.

For those reasons, in 2006 New York State officials took action.  They enacted a new law, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (“DERA”), designed to curb diesel emissions by mandating the use of low-sulfur fuel and applying stringent standards to heavy-duty vehicles used by the state and its contractors.  The law required the state and the businesses it contracts with to replace or retrofit these vehicles to dramatically reduce diesel emissions.

But there has been a hitch: Despite the fact that DERA was supposed to be fully implemented by 2010, each year it has been delayed in the state’s secret budget negotiations, allowing vehicles with antiquated emission controls used by the state and its contractors to continue to pollute our air and threaten the health of our communities.  A dozen years after DERA was signed into law, once again the 2019 budget delayed its full application.

Instead of continuing to kick the can, and putting the public health at risk, New York must take action to be a national environmental leader by finally fully implementing the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act.  This is a must to improve air quality and reduce asthma rates—particularly important for communities subject to multiple pollution sources.

New York must finish the job, by fully implementing DERA to protect public health—particularly children in highly-impacted communities—and advance the state’s climate change agenda.

Last week, the Trump Administration moved to roll back the nation’s auto emission and fuel economy standards.  The current regulations are aimed at cutting tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming.  The Trump Administration also demanded that California, which has its own state-based, more stringent auto emission standards, must follow the federal decision or face legal challenge.

California’s authority to regulate auto emissions has been supported by the courts and has allowed 13 other states, including New York, to follow California’s standards.  California, New York, Massachusetts and the other states following the stricter standards comprise more than a third of the national car market.

Introduced in 2012, the current federal rules require automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.  If fully implemented, they would cut oil consumption by about 12 billion barrels over the lifetime of all the cars affected by the regulations and reduce carbon dioxide pollution by about six billion tons, according to the U.S. E.P.A.

So far, California hasn’t shown any interest in weakening their regulations.  In fact, California Governor Jerry Brown announced plans to have the state mandate that 5 million zero-emission vehicles be operated on its roads by 2030, up from a planned 1.5 million in 2025.  California has a legislative mandate to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.  California will also propose in the next few months that the state’s transit agencies buy zero-emission buses.

Whether the federal proposal will eventually trigger a legal battle with California is unclear and there have been media reports of negotiations between federal and state regulators.  But let’s hope that California does not buckle under the pressure.

Personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming.  Cars and trucks emit around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas.  About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions—more than 19 pounds per gallon—comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.  Cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles in the U.S. are responsible for about two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector.

For the first time in more than 40 years, the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. isn’t electricity production, but from the transportation sector.  Nationwide, nearly 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are generated in the transportation sector.  In New York, transportation is responsible for 41 percent of fuel-combustion greenhouse gas emissions in the State – almost double the emissions of electricity production.

Since cars are increasingly the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions, countries around the world are racing to phase out gasoline and diesel cars.  China, the world’s largest car market, is working on a plan to ban the production and sale of vehicles powered only by fossil fuels.  In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has hinted that it’s only a matter of time before the country that invented the modern car sets an expiration date of its own.

Norway has set the year 2025 as its goal to ban the sale of fossil fuel powered autos, India by 2030, France and the United Kingdom have set their goals for the year 2040.

As mentioned earlier, federal law allows states to either follow the federal requirements or adopt California’s tougher vehicle emission regulations.  Under the Obama administration, the federal standard was raised to match California rules.

Thus, the federal proposed rollback will increase greenhouse gas emissions – which heat the planet, and will allow higher levels of pollutants to be emitted by cars – which are a health hazard, particularly with regard to asthma.

California’s plans, it seems, are not only to dramatically increase the number of electric cars, but to also prohibit the sale of fossil fuel powered cars.  Last fall, the head of California’s Air Resources Board, suggested the state could move to set a date within the next decade to require the sale of only 100% new electric cars or those running on other renewable energy.  If California acts, New York should follow suit.

New York Attorney General Schneiderman has already promised legal action if the Trump Administration moves forward on its rollback plan.  Governor Cuomo, to his credit, has criticized the rollback plan.  But New York should do more.  New York must pledge to both defend California’s legal authority to protect the environment and, working with California, it should set a target date to move to the state toward banning the sale of fossil fuels cars.

In concert, these two states should act now to set a clear environmental policy goal that illustrates just how far the Trump Administration is putting the public’s – and planet’s – health at risk and to show what leadership looks like in the face of a rapidly heating planet.