The Editorial Board: Albany should pass important environmental bills

Many observers blame the severity of December 2022 blizzard on a changing climate. A proposed Albany law would require fossil fuel industries to help shoulder the cost of responding to those changes.

Better late than never.

As New York's legislative session enters its final weeks, it's also fair to say that we are within the final decades of being able to avert climate catastrophe for the planet.

Bills now before the Legislature offer viable – and interesting – solutions to environmental problems and how to pay for climate-related damage. This legislation should be given prompt and serious consideration before lawmakers adjourn the 2023 session.

As the 2023 legislative session ends, there are several important pieces of environmental law that should pass. One creates a climate change Superfund.

Climate Change Superfund

Making a statewide switch to green energy and protecting New York's infrastructure from environmental damage already occurring on a regular basis isn't an inexpensive proposition. While consumers are being offered a diverse range of incentives to wean themselves off fossil fuel-powered systems, there are huge costs that go along with decarbonization at every level. The sponsors of the Climate Change Superfund Act (A.3351/S.2129), Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and state Sen. Liz Krueger, think that the entities largely responsible for greenhouse gas-related global warming – oil and gas producers – should help pay the costs of climate disruption. This could include paying for infrastructure upgrades to protect against rising sea levels, upgrade stormwater drainage and sewage treatment systems, prepare the power grid for severe weather, create systems to protect people from extreme heat and other climate resilience projects throughout the state.

There's nothing new about this concept. The original federal Superfund program was established in 1980 – shortly after a state of emergency was declared at Love Canal in 1976 – to force parties responsible for environmental contamination of the land and drinking water to either perform cleanups or reimburse the U.S. government for Environmental Protection Agency-led cleanup work.

It was easy then to trace toxic waste back to the chemical companies that dumped it. It's equally logical now to trace greenhouse gas emissions back to fossil fuel companies. By every known official measure, burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation is the largest source of these pollutants.

The new Superfund, as proposed, would raise $75 billion through a $3 billion annual assessment over a 25-year period on the 35 largest greenhouse gas emitters. Given that the five biggest oil companies reported combined profits of $196.3 billion in 2022, it's unlikely such a levy would strain the resources of these industrial behemoths to any appreciable degree.

And there's evidence that this damage was inflicted knowingly for decades. Both University of Miami and Harvard researchers report that ExxonMobil scientists were uncovering information that confirmed the effect of fossil fuel emissions on climate change as early as the 1970s – and then for decades, the company adamantly denied such man-made damage was occurring.

If the bill becomes law, the companies will fight it. But this is a reasonable ask and – because it is a one-time fixed cost – will help alleviate climate action costs without causing pain to consumers. The Legislature should pass it.

Reducing plastic and glass pollution

Most of the plastic packaging well-meaning New York residents put in their recycling bins goes directly into a landfill. Nobody wants it. Single-use plastics must be reduced and that won't happen without regulatory help. The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (S.4246/A.5332) requires producers to reduce packaging by 50% over 12 years. It also phases out chemicals such as PFAS – the "forever chemicals" being found at high levels in local waterways – and prohibits chemical recycling from being considered a recycling strategy. (Chemical recycling subjects plastics to high heat, releasing toxic chemicals like benzene, mercury and arsenic.)

The strategy this legislation proposes is known as extended producer responsibility (EPR). Bills proposing various versions of EPR have been in New York's legislative mix for some years now. That's because they make sense. By the time plastic gets to the consumer level, it's too late; this legislation would address plastic pollution at its source and should become law.

Plastics have their uses – think syringes – but we should use them as little as possible. This bill gets us closer.

The situation with glass is even sadder, because so much of the glass used by consumers is 100% recyclable. Unfortunately, New York's single-stream recycling methodology, which mixes all types of recyclables together, without pre-sorting, causes recyclable glass to get broken and irretrievably contaminated. Hence, only about one-third of eligible glass is being recycled. That amount could be tripled if Senate Bill S.237, which attaches deposits to wine, liquor, cider and distilled spirit beverages, is passed. Then, just like glass containers for juice, beer, soft drinks and other products, wine and liquor bottles would be worth 5 cents each – increasing to 10 cents in 2025 – at the redemption center. If passed, as it should be, this legislation would make New York's returnable container policy, already a great success, even more effective.

New York residents are lucky their lawmakers are keenly aware of environmental issues. These bills, among others, are aimed at keeping the state – and planet – livable for generations to come.

• • •

What's your opinion? Send it to us at [email protected]. Letters should be a maximum of 300 words and must convey an opinion. The column does not print poetry, announcements of community events or thank you letters. A writer or household may appear only once every 30 days. All letters are subject to fact-checking and editing.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

"It's still important to keep in mind that LGBTQ+ residents need support and celebration all year round.," writes The News' Editorial Board.

Is there a lesson to be gleaned from this crisis at one of Buffalo's most revered private schools? Oh, yes.

Rights have limits; they may be indistinct and subject to interpretation, but they exist, regardless of the braying of absolutists.

With this much money at stake, the Thruway Authority should pay serious attention to any recommendations from New York's top fiscal office.