New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been battling with Texas based oil giant ExxonMobil for nearly a year.  Last year, the Attorney General launched an investigation into whether ExxonMobil had deliberately ignored its own research about the dangers of global warming and instead set about a campaign to mislead the public – and investors – about the dangers caused by burning fossil fuels, one of which is oil.

The AG’s investigation seemed focused on whether the company, as well as other oil businesses, had taken a page from the tobacco companies by twisting and mischaracterizing research to manufacture doubt and undermine the legitimate scientific evidence showing that human activities are warming the planet.  Moreover, the AG was looking to see if ExxonMobil’s actions to undermine the science misled investors about the financial threats the industry faced from possible global regulatory efforts to curb fossil fuel use.

After initially looking at whether the company misled investors about the risks of climate change, the New York Attorney General is reportedly looking at the potential impact on the valuation of ExxonMobil‘s assets from a global crack down on carbon pollution.

The valuation of a company’s assets is an accounting practice used to determine the worth of the resources under its control.  In this case, oil is the key asset for ExxonMobil.  Yet, the company reportedly is the only one of the major oil producers which has not reduced the value of its assets despite a 60 percent drop in oil prices.

Whether that allegation turns out to be a threat to the company remains to be seen, but the fact that New York’s AG is widening his investigation is not good news for the nation’s biggest oil company.  Over the past two years, as the price of oil has dropped, so has the value of Exxon’s stocks.  An AG investigation adds more pressure.

And while the investigations of possible illegality will play out in the courts, what is clear is that ExxonMobil used its knowledge of global warming not as a tool to educate the world on the rising dangers to the planet, but instead to confuse the public and muddy the debate – in order to continue to maximize its profits.

According to media reports, Exxon was well aware of the dangers caused by the burning of fossil fuels at least as early as the 1980s.  According to corporate documents a obtained by the Los Angeles Times, a leading Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991, greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody disputes this fact.”  The senior Exxon researcher went on to add that there was no doubt those levels would double by the middle of the 21st century.

Yet at the same time, the company was telling board members concerned about climate change that it had studied the science of global warming and concluded it was too murky to warrant action. The company said that its “examination of the issue supports the conclusions that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.”

Why would a company with well-documented research hide its conclusions and publicly argue the opposite? According to the Times, it was that Exxon feared a growing public consensus would lead to financially burdensome policies. And Exxon saw an upside to a warmer climate: Less expensive exploration and drilling in the Arctic.

According to the Times, top officials proposed “a plan for the ‘Exxon Position’: In order to stop the momentum behind the issue, Exxon should emphasize that doubt. Tell the public that more science is needed before regulatory action is taken and emphasize the ‘costs and economics’ of restricting carbon dioxide emissions.”

And they succeeded.  So much so that national political figures still argue that global warming is a hoax.

Exxon now argues that their internal science led them to make statements that at the time they believed were the truth.  The AG’s investigation may well shed light on the truth of that statement.

But what cannot be ignored is that climate changes are occurring due to global warming – and that such warming is primarily the result of human activity. The world has lost valuable time due to the tactics of the opponents of that scientific fact. As a result, millions worldwide will suffer.

Setting the record straight about what Exxon knew and when it knew it is important to moving forward decisively on climate change in 2016. Exxon fully understood that denying climate science was influencing not only investors and members of the general public, but the lawmakers and regulators who had the power and responsibility to craft policies to act by clamping down on climate pollution.

The world cannot ignore this rising threat. As one of the world’s leading contributors to global warming, the United States must take the lead in curbing the damage that is due to come. And it must do so by the following the advice of the world’s leading scientists: leave fossil fuels in the ground and rely on safe, non-polluting, energy sources.

This week, New Yorkers will vote again – for the third time in six months – in primary elections. Yup, that’s right, New Yorkers vote in, and pay for, two primary elections, and this year a Presidential primary as well.  In June, New Yorkers enrolled in political parties, voted in Congressional primaries and this week they voted for state legislative candidates.

And people wonder why New York has such a lousy voter participation record.

The multiple primaries are just an example of a system that has gotten twisted for the benefit of the two major parties and not the public’s best interests.  Here’s another example of a rigged system: If a voter wanted to switch parties to vote in last April’s Presidential primary, they would have had to do it by October 9, 2015 – 193 days before the primary and the earliest voter registration deadline in the nation.

There are more examples of voting roadblocks: New York State prohibits citizens from registering to vote a full 25 days before a general election – one of the earliest in the nation.

New York is one of eleven states that have “closed primaries” – primaries that only allow voters of the political party to participate.

The stories go on and on; from the purging of over 100,000 voters in Brooklyn, to tiny fonts on the ballot, even policy gridlock at the state Board of Elections (which is run, incidentally, by the two major political parties).

As a result of these, among other, restrictions, New York State ranks near the bottom of the nation’s barrel in terms of voter participation. In the Presidential primary, New York had the second lowest turnout.  In the 2014 general election, the Empire State also ranked 49^th among the states in voter eligible turnout.

Why does a state that prides itself on its openness have some of the nation’s worst voting laws?

Part of the problem rests with politicians themselves.  In order to win elected office, you have to convince your voters to show up.  Newly registered voters are political unknowns and could throw a monkey wrench into a candidate’s campaign.  The fact that New York legislators have benefited from the noncompetitive nature of elections and the status quo may have helped.  If the few voters who do vote keep reelecting the same politicians —even though the public at large claims to be endlessly frustrated with status quo representation–why would you change the rules?

Given that dismal picture, what should be done?  The most obvious step is to encourage widespread voter participation–no matter how awful the current system itself is.  The jolt of this year’s Presidential primary season may help.  According to the New York City Campaign Finance Board, its Spring registration effort was “very encouraging.” During its drive to register eligible 18-year-old high school students, the Board saw a big jump in interest.  Before the drive, there were 16,000 18-year-olds registered to vote.  Around 8,500 students were newly registered during its drive, about a 50 percent increase. “These students are willing and hungry to get involved,” the Board said, “but they simply want to be asked to participate.”

The rest of the adult voting population has to be asked too.

In an effort to get the ball rolling, here is some voting information.  For those who are not registered, forms are available online at the state Board of Elections website (see http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/voting/voteform_enterable.pdf).  If you want to register, you must do so before October 14^th – the deadline.  You can download and print the form and mail it in or complete an online form if you have or create a state DMV account.

For those who are registered, you can verify your registration and also find out your polling place through the Board’s website too (it’s a little tricky, but use the term “look up voter information” available at: https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx).

If you’re not sure who your state or federal representatives are, the Board has information on that too at http://www.elections.ny.gov/district-map/district-map.html.  If you want some background on each legislator, you can get it on the website of the New York Public Interest Research Group and go to the “legislative profiles” option (available at https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx)

Of course, policy changes are needed.  Voter registration is a right, not a privilege.  But it’s also our responsibility to vote and improve the work-in-progress that is our democracy.  Public policies should center on making it easier, not harder, to vote.  Governor Cuomo and state lawmakers must do a lot more to fix New York’s voting crisis.

Colleges and universities are kicking off their Fall semesters across the state.  As the summer winds down and the dorms open up, it is a good time to review how state policies are impacting higher education.

The case for public investments in higher education is compelling.  A college-educated workforce is in demand; a recent Georgetown University study found that by 2018, nearly two-thirds of New York jobs would require a post-secondary education.   What’s more, college-educated workers still earn more than their high-school educated peers – in fact, by an average of $17,500 per year.   Higher education institutions also boost civic empowerment by exposing students to new and enriching experiences.   For one, college graduates are more likely to vote and to volunteer.  For another, higher education institutions house key democracy-building groups such as student government associations and public interest groups who empower students to be active participants in their own democracy and bring about meaningful social change.

Unfortunately, despite the compelling arguments in support of state investments, the opposite has occurred.  On top of mounting textbook, housing, and transit costs, New York’s so-called “rational tuition” policy jacked-up the cost of tuition at public colleges by over 30% since 2011.  At the same time, state funding had remained largely flat and funding for financial aid programs has stagnated.  Programs like the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) don’t cover college costs for many who qualify and have not kept up with the needs of all students, beyond just the straight-from-high-school-to-college full-time student. This combination has eroded college affordability and has resulted in rising debt for too many college students.

As the state’s policies have been to increase the cost of attending college and limiting the availability of financial assistance, the income growth of New Yorkers has remained stagnant.  In a recent analysis, nationwide from 2000 to 2014, the average cost of in-state tuition and fees for public colleges in America has risen dramatically. During that same time period, the median American household income dropped.

In New York State during that same period, the cost of public college is up nearly 40 percent, while media income in New York has declined by 3 percent.  Rising college costs have been neither offset by rising wages nor offset by rising state-funded grants.

Rising costs and stagnant support have contributed to another problem: a college student “brain drain.”  According to the New York Times, budget cuts have led to sharply higher tuition in New York State, which now exports far more college students than it imports from other states.   And one can see it in the numbers: last year over 3,600 college students came to New York to attend public college, while over 10,000 New York students left the state to attend college – a ratio of 3 to 1.

Just as New York invests in Kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) because full and equal educational opportunity is a public good, expanding investment to higher education will benefit New York’s economy and communities at large.

Without increased public funding, CUNY and SUNY cannot improve rising full-time faculty-to-student ratios, provide adequate counseling and mentorship services, and fund support services critical for students’ success.  Increased state funding will alleviate future pressure for a tuition hike, provide critical resources to protect the quality of a CUNY and SUNY education, and provide higher education accessibility for all students.

Let’s hope that this academic year sees government policy get it right and that it invests more in colleges and universities.  That’s one investment that has guaranteed payoffs.

According to the New York Times, “The United States, the wealthiest nation on Earth, also abides the deepest poverty of any developed nation, but you would not know it by listening to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.”

While it is undeniable that the economy has improved since the Great Recession, it is also undeniable that the levels of poverty have not recovered to where they were before the nation’s economic downturn.

Here are two examples:

According to a recent poll, when asked “Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?” nationally one in six households answered “yes.”  And while that is an improvement over the year before, one in six is a lot of Americans.

Not surprisingly, New York State has its own hunger issues.  Overall, more than 3 million New York residents rely on emergency food programs.  In a recent media report, the head of the Food Bank of the Southern Tier stated that, “We are seeing 30 percent more people than we were before the recession.” New York City’s food pantries and soup kitchens have continued to face an increased demand, on top of increases every year since 2009.

Statewide in New York, in 2012-2014, three million people lived in ‘food insecure” households.  “Food insecurity” is, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, when “the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food.”  In other words, when a household is worried that it may not have enough money to buy enough food to eat.

In 2012-2014, one million New York State residents lived in households that included at least one person working, but was food insecure, unable to consistently afford enough food.  In New York City alone, in 2012-2014, fully 450,000 residents lived in households that included at least one person working but were food insecure.

Another indicator of poverty is the rate of homelessness.

In 2014, 7 million Americans in poor households were doubled up with family and friends, the most common prior living situation before becoming homeless. This represents the first significant decrease since the Great Recession. Still, the number of people in poor households living doubled up is 52 percent higher now than in 2007, prior to the recession.

Here in New York, during the period 2007 through 2015 the state had the largest increase in homelessness in the nation, rising over 40 percent.  Between 2014 and 2015 alone, New York State’s homeless population jumped and experienced the largest increase in the nation for the one-year period.  This single-year increase accounted for nearly 33 percent of New York State’s total homeless population growth in the eight-year period since 2007. Of the State’s new homeless, 98 percent were living in New York City.

In 2015, New York City despite the recent slowing of the historic surge in the number of people in New York City’s homeless shelters that began in 2011, homelessness continues to hover at near-record levels: More than 60,000 men, women, and children sleep in municipal shelters each night, including 24,000 children.  Over the course of the last fiscal year, more than 109,000 adults and children slept in the City’s shelter system — a decrease of six percent from last year, but still up since 2005.

Yet few meaningful remedies are being debated in the Presidential race.  As is too often the case, real reforms are being debated at the state level.  Here in New York, the last budget saw an agreement to phase in an increase in the minimum wage and an agreement to mandate paid family leave, both of which will help.

But much more needs to be done.

State and municipal policies have to bridge the gap resulting from the failures of federal policies.  New York State cannot continue to be the nation’s leader in homelessness.

In November, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that his office would investigate ExxonMobil—the world’s biggest oil and gas company—for misleading the public about global warming.  Under New York law, the Attorney General has the power to investigate whether companies issue misleading statements that could amount to financial fraud.

The relevant New York law in this area is known as the Martin Act.  The Act, passed in 1921, allows the state to bring an action against a company if it can prove that the company deceived the public by misrepresenting or omitting a material fact in the offering of its securities.  The state law is unique in the nation in that no proof of intent to deceive is required to bring a claim, and prosecutors do not even need to show that anyone was in fact defrauded.  The Act allows for criminal as well as civil charges.  New York State’s highest court ruled in 1926 that it covers “all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty.”

It was the Martin Act that was used by former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to aggressively go after Wall Street firms.  Since then, it has been used to prosecute large-scale Ponzi schemes, major investment banks accused of misleading investors and other cases.

Now, Schneiderman is wielding the statute in his probe of Exxon.  Schneiderman subpoenaed Exxon, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents to probe the company’s knowledge and disclosures about climate change going back to the 1970s.  In response to the probe, Exxon has said it has worked on climate science in a transparent way for nearly 40 years and has regularly disclosed the business risks of climate change to investors for years.

Exxon has now submitted thousands of its documents to Schneiderman’s office in response to the Attorney General’s subpoena.  Since his action, nearly twenty other states’ Attorneys General have gotten involved in bringing charges against Exxon.

Exxon is, of course, not taking these actions lying down.  They have filed actions to block some states’ investigations and have argued that they did not mislead the public.

Exxon has stated that it “recognizes the risks posed by climate change,” and that the accusations are based on the “preposterous” claim that the company “reached definitive conclusions about climate change before the world’s experts” and withheld it.  The company shared its findings in peer-reviewed publications, it said.

The pushback came from sympathetic members of the Congress as well.  Last month, Congressman Lamar Smith, from Exxon’s home state of Texas, issued a subpoena to the New York Attorney general and demanded all communications since 2012 between the AG’s office and climate change activist organizations.

Congressman Smith said that the Attorney General and environmental groups have secretly collaborated “to act under the color of law to persuade attorneys general to use their prosecutorial powers to stifle scientific discourse, intimidate private entities and individuals, and deprive them of their First Amendment rights and freedoms.”

Attorney General Schneiderman fired back saying that the Congress has no authority in this area and rejected the subpoena, arguing that the request was “unprecedented.”

Instead of a First Amendment issue – infringing on the right of a corporation to freely express its opinion – the New York Attorney General rested its argument on its power under the Martin Act.  In effect, the AG argued, “The First Amendment … doesn’t give you the right to commit fraud.”

While this issue is ultimately going to be decided in the courts, New York’s unique law gives the Attorney General wide powers to police the securities marketplace and protect investors.  Armed with the Martin Act, the AG can determine whether, and if so how, Exxon and other oil companies used their internal research to bamboozle the public – and investors – about the dangers of burning fossil fuels that accelerate global warming.

If he succeeds, the AG may use the legal tools of his office to force the industry to confront its role in climate change.  If that happens, this may be a turning point in history