|
NASSAU COUNTY CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. "The government is us, we are the government, you and I." Teddy Roosevelt |
 |
| Home Page
OPINION AND EDITORIAL PAGE |
December 30, 2024Hopeless Hochul Hurts New Yorkers The Governor's policies drive up cost of living Just when you think it couldn't get any worse for New Yorkers struggling to survive in this state, Governor Hochul has done it again. Her decision to go full steam stupid by signing into law new legislation entitled, the Climate Change Superfund Act will further drive up energy costs for all New York residents and businesses. The law imposes strict liability for carbon dioxide emissions against companies both foreign and domestic who sell oil and natural gas in New York. The law is projected to impose $75 billion dollars in penalties against oil and natural gas companies over a twenty-five year period. The law was modeled after the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. CERLA was designed to hold companies who pollute the environment strictly liable, compel them to clean up polluted sites referred to as "superfund sites" and if they failed to do so, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would complete the clean up under the Superfund Program then seek reimbursement. New York has turned this successful program on its head. Instead of fighting to clean our environment of known toxic chemicals, this legislation seeks to remediate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Proponents claim that higher amounts of carbon dioxide correlate to higher temperatures which in turn have caused more natural disasters referred to as "climate change" and are only seeking reimbursement of the increased costs to government and society. The reality is simple, this is nothing more than a new energy tax as the companies will pass the cost to consumers. The issue of assessing blame or liability for carbon dioxide is quite dubious. Is the law constitutional? Who can be held legally accountable? Does it serve the common good in its totality and effect? What is the real impact of carbon dioxide on the environment? If people use gasoline to drive their vehicles, natural gas to heat their home like Americans have done for over hundred years, how can government make a rational argument of strict liability against companies that produce carbon fuels which are the lifeblood of the American economy? A law that seeks to target companies for prior carbon emissions retroactivity is by definition unconstitutional. By reserving 35% of the funds raised for "disadvantaged communities" partly based on race and ethnicity violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The effort to hold only the producers of carbon fuels culpable for carbon emissions and not other industries that use carbon fuels is arbitrary and capricious. What about auto companies that produce vehicles with the combustion engine, companies that produce home heating systems, or gas operated power tools? Airline companies operate some of the largest hubs in New York making thousands of flights in and out of New York. Delivery vehicles such as trucks, diesel trains, diesel powered ships and even Uber drivers all produce carbon Dioxide. Climate change alarmists have cited concern over excessive flatulence from cows. New York is one of the largest diary producers in the country. Where does this insanity end? This effort does not serve the common good. Oil, gasoline, propane, natural gas and firewood are lawful products. These products perform as required and in doing so, have transformed America into an economic power house. This in turn has improved the quality of life for millions of Americans in the United States and New York. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas which is an extremely small part of the gases that compose the earth's atmosphere. It actually comprises .004% of the atmosphere. Therefore, there is a real question as to carbon dioxide's impact on the environment given its prevalence in the atmosphere. Like all of the other foolish and absurd schemes enacted recently by Governor Hochul and the New York State legislature, this will go down as another abject public policy failure. Not only is there serious questions about the issue of asserting strict liability against companies that produce a lawful product which brings significant benefits for society, there are questions as to whether this extreme effort to mitigate carbon dioxide will bring any significant benefit. After all, the stated goal is to reduce carbon dioxide to reduce the world's temperature which will in turn help mitigate "climate change" and therefore reduce the amount of significant natural disasters. The science of "climate change" and the so called remediation efforts are still subject to debate as there remains a dispute over the direct correlation between carbon dioxide and a change in the world's temperature. But even if it can be proven, there would be no actual benefit to society. A study found that even if the whole world stopped using fossil fuels, the temperature would change by one tenth of one degree. Thus the march toward economic suicide and societal destruction will come directly from these type of disastrous public policy choices by our elected leaders. This recent decision comes on top of a long line of reckless moves perpetrated by Governor Hochul and the legislature. All of these radical changes accomplish only one thing and that is the rapid acceleration of energy costs in New York. The first act of insanity was passage of a mechanism to address "climate change" in 2019 referred to as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act CLCPA). The purpose of the law was to address "climate change" by reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050. The law would require a reduction of emissions from 1990 levels by 40% in 2030, 85% in 2050 and the remaining 15% would be offset by the planting of more trees. These proposed goals require a wholesale change to New York's power grid from carbon fuels to carbon free sources with the latter being much more costly and unreliable. The CLCPA created a twenty-two member Climate Action Council (CAC) who are tasked with publishing proposals to lower carbon emissions. In 2022, the CAC came out with several new proposals. The first was to ban the sale of all new gas powered vehicles in New York by 2035, a shift of one-two millions homes from natural gas to heat pumps by 2030, three million electric cars in use by 2030, a shift of the power generation in New York to 70% renewable energy by 2030 and a cap and trade system (penalties charged to entities who emit above a specific carbon monoxide cap or credits to those who are below the cap) by the end of the decade. New home construction would ban fossil fuel heating systems by 2025, and ban the replacement of existing heating systems with fossil fuel systems by 2030 for residential homes and 2035 for commercial buildings. The technology for high volume transition to renewable energy remains untested, the cost of the transition will be catastrophic and the proposed time rime is not feasible considering these limitations. Given practical realities, these extreme proposals are nonsensical and non viable. In 2021, Governor Hochul signed a law banning the sale of all gas powered internal combustion engine vehicles, light duty trucks and off road vehicles by 2035. The law also bans the sale of all gardening equipment including lawn mowers, trimmers and leaf blowers by 2027. In 2023, Hochul also announced a ban on the purchase of new internal combustion engine school buses beginning in 2027 consistent with the CLCPA. This mandate would require all 50,000 school buses to transudation to electric with a target date of 2035. As we have written previously, the economic bond passed on 2022, the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Act only provides 3% of the cost for the transition to electric buses. Therefore, unless other funding is provided from other sources, the remaining cost will be bourne directly by residents through higher local school taxes. The key takeaways are the necessity of this transition, the unrealistic time line for the transition, the reliability of renewable energy overall and the huge increase in energy costs associated with the transition and use of renewable energy. The end result is a higher cost of living in every aspect of New York's economy and inflation thanks to hopeless Hochul.
Previous Opinion and Editorials
|