Gov. Cuomo (photo via the Governor's office)
In outlining his agenda for the first 100 days of his third term, Governor Cuomo said in December he would launch a Green New Deal. I have been calling for a Green New Deal since 2010 in three Green Party gubernatorial campaigns against him.
Cuomo has already nominally adopted a number of my platform planks, including the fracking ban, marriage equality, a $15 minimum wage, tuition-free public college, paid family leave, and legalization of marijuana. Unfortunately, the implementation of some of these measures fall short of full realization and the same appears to be true for what will be Cuomo’s Green New Deal.
The Green Party’s Green New Deal would fulfill the full promise of the original New Deal as articulated by President Franklin Roosevelt in his last State of the Union address in 1944 when he called upon Congress to enact a second, economic bill of rights, including the rights to a job, an adequate income, decent housing, comprehensive health care, and a good education. What makes it a Green New Deal is that the rapid build out of a 100% clean energy system would provide the sustainable economic foundation for the realization of economic human rights for all.
The only specific measure Cuomo announced is a goal of 100% clean electricity by 2040. The reality is that electricity accounts for only about 20% of New York’s carbon emissions. We must also zero out the other 80% of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation, buildings, industrial, commercial, and agricultural sectors. Cuomo’s Green New Deal thus falls far short of the reduction in carbon emissions that climate science indicates is needed to avert the tipping points of runaway global warming and a climate catastrophe of widespread extinctions, collapsing ecosystems, food and water shortages, generalized impoverishment, masses of climate refugees, and resource wars.
The recent International Panel on Climate Change report says net zero carbon emissions by 2050 across all sectors worldwide is needed in order to stay under a “safe” rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial temperature. The world already reached a rise of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in 2015. Because the UN’s IPPC reports have to be approved by the major petro-states and carbon emitters such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Brazil, and the United States, their reports have consistently underestimated the pace of global warming and understated the measures needed to stem it. Independent studies by climate scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen and his colleagues conclude that global warming must be limited to 1 degree Celsius to avoid the tipping points of runaway warming, which requires carbon emissions to zero out in 15 years combined with drawing down existing atmospheric carbon through massive reforestation and rebuilding living soils through sustainable agriculture.
The good news is that a crash program for clean energy is economically and technically feasible. And make no mistake, this is an emergency that must be dealt with as such.
Following up on a 2009 study demonstrating the planetwide feasibility of 100% clean energy by 2030, Mark Jacobson and colleagues found in a 2013 study for New York that a 100% renewable energy system by 2030 was not only feasible, but would create an economic boom. It would create 4.5 million jobs construction and manufacturing jobs during the build out. It would improve public health (more than 3,000 New Yorkers die annually from air pollution) and lower electric rates up to 50% compared to the continued use of fossil and nuclear fuels.
A Green New Deal for New York should start with the NY Off Fossil Fuels Act (A5105A/S5908A), which halts all new fossil fuel infrastructure and creates a program for 100% clean energy by 2030.
The Off Fossil Fuels Act requires state, county, and local governments to adopt detailed, enforceable clean energy plans with two-year benchmarks, timelines, and reporting. It would require new buildings to have net zero carbon emissions by 2020 and new vehicles to be emissions free by 2025. It has strong environmental justice provisions for a “just transition” that ensures that low-income communities and communities of color, and communities dependent on fossil fuel and nuclear plants, are made whole in terms of jobs, wages, benefits, and tax revenues during the transition.
Climate action must be linked to economic justice to sustain political support. New York’s Green New Deal should also embrace the New York Health Act for universal health care, fully-funded public schools, tuition-free public colleges, and building quality public housing to address the housing affordability crisis.
New York’s Green New Deal should halt new fracked-gas pipelines and power plants. The corruption-ridden Competitive Power Ventures fracked-gas power plant in Orange County alone will add 10% to the state’s carbon emissions. The governor supports upgrading the Sheridan Avenue gas plant to power, heat, and cool state government buildings on Empire State Plaza. That plant has poisoned and sickened the largely low-income African-American Arbor Hill neighborhood for over a century by burning coal, oil, garbage, and now gas.
Governor Cuomo should use his authority under the Clean Water Act to deny permits to gas pipelines and power plants, which invariably negatively impact streams and watersheds. He should embrace the Renewable Heat Campaign to replace gas heating with ground- and air-source heat pumps. He should fix the existing Green Homes Green Jobs program to energy retrofit hundreds of thousands of homes for insulation, efficiency, and heat pumps. He should compel the DEC and NYSERDA to complete and report out their long-delayed study he asked for two years ago to plan a transition to 100% clean energy (a report we are now told will not be released).
Jacobson and colleagues put the capital cost for a 100% clean energy system at $460 billion. The $14 billion clean energy loan guarantee program of the 2009 Obama stimulus leveraged 47 times more in private investment. Using a conservative 10 to 1 leveraging ratio, a state investment of $46 billion would generate the $460 billion.
The money should come from a combination of taxes and lending. The pending bills for a progressive state carbon tax would generate at least $7 billion a year, more than enough to invest $4.6 billion a year over ten years. A carbon tax will enhance the leverage of public investments by creating predictable market signals for savings from private clean energy investments. A state public bank could extend the credit for private clean energy investments at lower cost than borrowing through Wall Street, with the interest and principal returning to the state for public purposes. Taking public ownership of all power utilities, and operating them at cost for public benefit instead of at cost-plus-profits for absentee owners, will enable us to plan the energy transition for lower cost and without obstruction from the vested interests of the incumbent utility, fossil fuel, and nuclear industries.
If these measures sound like democratic socialism, they are. The federal government nationalized 25% of U.S. manufacturing during World War II in order to turn industry on a dime to build the “arsenal of democracy” that defeated the Nazis. We need nothing less to defeat climate change.
***
Howie Hawkins is a three-time New York gubernatorial nominee of The Green Party and long-time climate activist. On Twitter @HowieHawkins.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(photo: Gotham Gazette)
If the 2018 election cycle is any indication, voter turnout is on the rise. Now is the time to take advantage of this moment to keep voters engaged in the electoral system and really give them a voice.
One of the best ideas for promoting more diverse, open, and democratic elections is instant runoff voting (IRV). In New York City primaries, runoffs are forced for citywide elected positions when votes are split and no one candidate receives more than 40 percent of the vote. With IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins with a first choice majority of 50 percent, the lowest vote-getters are eliminated, and the ballots where they were selected first are added to the next choice among the candidates advancing to the next round of the instant runoff. And so on, until one candidate hits 50 percent.
In 2013 – the last time a runoff was held, in the Democratic primary for Public Advocate – it resulted in an additional multi-million dollar election and a drastic decline in voter turnout to just 6.9 percent. And runoff elections are often made up of an older, whiter, and wealthier electorate. This is no way to run an election. Nor is accepting city leaders being elected with a low percentage of votes that negate the votes of the majority.
Given the recent election of Letitia James to the office of Attorney General, the public advocate is now vacant. More than 20 people have declared their candidacies, a list that seems to have grown daily for weeks. If the actual number of candidates on the February 26 ballot is anywhere close to 15 or 20, this special election we will likely see votes widely split among the candidates, ensuring that no one will win a majority of the vote. And while there would be no runoff based on city law (there are no runoffs in special elections), this election could nonetheless be a poster child in the case for instant runoff voting, which is also known as ranked-choice voting, giving more voters an actual say in choosing the next public advocate.
It should be noted that there will be another public advocate election this fall, where another crowded field could lead to a runoff, to fill out the rest of James’ term through the end of 2021. The winner of the special election is assured the office for the rest of this year only.
We will also have a environment in 2021 where ranked-choice voting will be essential. The races for mayor and comptroller are all but certain to be open, with no incumbent, and there will be another public advocate race, not to mention races for all five borough presidencies and all of the City Council. Those 2021 City Council elections, in which 36 current members are term-limited and all 51 seats up for election, will see a flood of candidates. Many races, especially the Democratic primaries, could see four, five, six, or even more candidates. Winners of a number of races may only have a plurality of the votes, unless we enact ranked-choice voting. And the citywide races could feature runoffs unless we act smartly in advance.
In 2018, the mayoral Charter Revision Commission reviewed policies that would make our city a better functioning democracy, among them, IRV. Despite widespread support, the commission bucked on the opportunity to put IRV on the ballot. It is disappointing that the commission missed this chance. Despite this, we have other avenues in which to institute IRV.
This session in Albany, I will be looking at how we can implement IRV through state legislation, engaging with my colleagues in both the Assembly and the Senate on why this policy is beneficial not only in saving taxpayer money, but also in helping us to elect candidates more representative of the city we live in, including more women and more people of color.
The 2018 Charter Commission’s failure to fully address IRV creates opportunity for action in Albany, and I expect to see people from all political sides coalesce around IRV as we move beyond whether or not it is a good idea to how, where, and when to implement it.
Instant runoff voting is used in major cities, such as San Francisco, Oakland, and Minneapolis, and this year Maine became the first state in the country to use it for congressional elections. We have allowed other states and cities to take the lead on smart and innovative voter reform while New York has stood by.
We are a city and state that often considers ourselves to be on the front lines of progressivism, but on voting reform, we often fall short. We should capitalize on the opportunities we have now going into future elections to ensure that all voices are heard and New York City and State stand up for democracy.
***
Walter Mosley is a member of the New York State Assembly representing Brooklyn neighborhoods including Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Prospect Heights, and parts of Crown Heights and Bedford-Stuyvesant. On Twitter @WalterTMosley.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(photo via the Governor's Office)
This fall Governor Cuomo signed a campaign pledge with Long Island State Senate Democratic candidates, many of whom won their elections, to make New York City bear greater responsibility for the subway and bus system’s capital needs. The campaign pledge was the continuation of a long-standing demand by the governor that New York City contribute more toward the enormous costs of the MTA capital budget. He even suggested in his budget proposal that the city take full financial responsibility for the MTA New York City Transit capital plan, but it was not accepted by the Legislature at the time of budget adoption in April 2018.
The political candidates from Long Island who signed that pledge may not have realized that today the Long Island Rail Road is the most heavily subsidized operation of the three transit systems, including New York City Transit and Metro North.
These excerpts from the new MTA budget, adopted in December, show that LIRR riders pay the lowest share of the respective operating budgets of the three systems. Called the FareBox Operating Ratio, the table shows the percentage of each system’s costs paid for by the fare and other basic operating revenue, like advertising. The data come from the MTA Dec. 2018 Adopted Budget, p. 1-7, Vol.2.
FAREBOX OPERATING RATIOS
November Forecast 2018 | Final Proposed Budget 2019 | Plan 2020 | Plan 2021 | Plan 2022 | ||
New York City Transit | 52.50% | 51.10% | 49.90% | 48.50% | 47.10% | |
Long Island Railroad | 47.80% | 43.40% | 42.30% | 39.30% | 38.30% | |
Metro-North | 54.20% | 54.80% | 54.90% | 56.20% | 56.40% |
The data show the LIRR farebox will contribute 43.4% of the LIRR’s operating costs in 2019 and declines to about 38% by 2022. New York City Transit’s fare provides 51.1% in 2019 and about 47% in 2022. Metro North riders contribute a higher share than either system. The costs do not include debt service, which must be paid, of course, or an item like depreciation, for which there is no out-of-pocket cash charge but still measures wear and tear on the original costs of putting assets in service. The MTA also provides the FareBox Recovery Ratio, which shows theses fare revenue and cost figures.
Is there a dollar figure that can be put on the LIRR’s higher loss ratio, compared to the other MTA systems? I have made an estimate that adds debt service to operating expenses.
First one can look at the amount of fare and other revenue each part of the system contributes to the total amount of revenue. New York City Transit fare revenue brings in $4.87 billion a year, 75% of total system revenue. The Long Island Rail Road brings in $790 million a year, about 12% of total system revenue.
FAREBOX AND OTHER OPERATING REVENUES
Revenue (000) | % Total System Fare & Other | |
NYCT | $4,870,000 | 75.2 |
LIRR | $790,000 | 12.2 |
MN | $815,000 | 12.6 |
TOTAL | $6,475,000 | 100 |
Then one can compare the percentage of system revenue contributions with the total deficits each part of the system experiences. The deficits have to be made up from taxes and other subsidies.
OptgExp | DebtSvc | TotalExp | Deficit | %ofDef | Compare %RevCont | ||
NYCT | 8,754 | 1,324 | 10,078 | 5,208 | 70.9 | Over $312 | |
LIRR | 1,686 | 449 | 2,135 | 1,345 | 18.3 | Under $448 | |
MN | 1,322 | 285 | 1,607 | 792 | 10.8 | Over $134 | |
TOTAL | 11,762 | 2,058 | 13,820 | 7,345 |
This analysis shows that the Long Island Rail Road’s deficit is $1.345 billion a year and is more than 18% of the MTA’s total deficit, although its fare and other operating revenue provide about 12% of the MTA’s total revenue. The difference -- 12% vs. 18% -- amounts to an under-contribution by the Long Island Rail Road from the fare of $448 million a year that has to be made up by taxes and subsidies. New York City Transit is about 71% of the system’s total deficit. If one measured NYCT’s percentage of contributing revenue, compared to the percentage of the deficit, NYCT fares are over-contributing $312 million a year more than the taxes and subsidies needed to make up the deficit.
New York City Transit’s deficit, $5.2 billion, is numerically far larger than the deficits of the other two systems, but that is not really an issue because the New York City economy is the main generator of the taxes and subsidies within the region that are used to make up the deficits.
The money to make up the system deficits comes overwhelmingly from a group of taxes enacted by the state Legislature levied on the metropolitan region but not Upstate New York. Begun in the early 1980s and continued into the 21st century, the regional taxes include a payroll tax, a surcharge on corporate profits, a sliver of the sales tax, the mortgage recording tax, and a New York City stand-alone commercial real property transfer tax. The commuter rail systems and New York City Transit split about $590 million in surpluses from the bridge and tunnel tolls about 60%-40% for the suburban systems pursuant to an early ‘70s formula. The state, city, and county governments contribute small amounts from their general funds.
About 75% of the wages paid within the region go to persons employed in New York City, according to 2017 data from the state Labor Department, and that compensation forms the base of the payroll tax. A Rockefeller Institute of Government estimate of business profits surcharges from 2009 data showed nearly 78% of taxes from business profits in the region came from the city (and the city is a larger share of the regional economy today than nine years ago). This surcharge is the second largest dedicated regional tax contributor for the system.
One large dedicated tax to the MTA is the city’s commercial real property transfer tax, which provides a sum of more than $600 million a year for New York City Transit. Looking at where these streams of revenue come from leaves little doubt that taxes collected within the city cover New York City Transit’s farebox deficits and, must, by logical extension, cover some of the Long Island Rail Road’s deficits too.
The governor justifies his demands that the city cover more system cost by citing a 1953 law that created the New York City Transit Authority and required the city cover its capital costs. With cost estimates of the MTA’s next capital plan, and New York City Transit President Andy Byford’s Fast Forward Plan, reaching $40-$60 billion, who should pay is a very important question. But the answer already exists.
As the transit system deteriorated during the New York City-State financial crisis of the ‘70s, Governor Carey and the Legislature devised a solution to the problem of the city’s obligation to cover the NYCT capital costs. That solution was the set of dedicated taxes just listed above, the enactment of which began in 1981-82.
Since the city only has the power to increase the property tax and has many basic governmental obligations already (schools, police, social welfare), the city would have needed the Legislature to approve a group of special new taxes to cover the transit system’s costs at that time. The Legislature just required the region’s residents and businesses to do indirectly -- pay new taxes going to the MTA -- that which the city and the other local governments would have had to do directly -- levy new taxes -- for the same purpose. If the city was forced to contribute billions in new revenue to the transit system it would need to get permission from the Legislature for new taxes now, just as it would have had to do nearly 40 years ago. Otherwise funding for the basics like schools, cops, sheltering the homeless, etc., could be seriously impaired.
The net effect of the regional taxes was that New York City residents and businesses continued financial responsibility for the system anyway since most of the taxes collected came from the city. The taxes from the suburbs contribute to the commuter rail system, except the Long Island Rail Road’s riders don’t cover a proper share of that system’s costs and get subsidized by taxes collected from the remainder of the region.
***
Jim Brennan was a member of the New York State Assembly for 32 years, where he chaired four committees. On Twitter @JimBrennanNY.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.