Author: Shachar Sharon

Recap: Western NY Health and Wind Energy Forum

Posted on by Shachar Sharon

On November 21st, 2019, the New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV) co-hosted a forum with the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, New Yorkers for Clean Power, and the Union of Concerned Scientists on health and wind energy at the University at Buffalo. The goal of the forum was to provide attendees with scientific and fact-based information about the health impacts of wind turbines. Expert panelists included Dr. Jonathon Bunicore, Mike Hankard, Dr. Bob McCunney, and Jason Kehl. Featured lecturer, Dr. Simon Chapman from the University of Sydney, Australia spoke via telephone. All of the panelists agreed on the importance of addressing myths about wind energy using science and facts.

As New York State expands its investment and use of renewable energy, like wind power, it is important to address any potential impacts. The panel addressed many of the common myths associated with the impacts of wind energy and health, including the wind turbines cause insomnia, depression, and even cancer. The panel of scientists discussed these concerns and concluded that there is no scientific basis for many, if not all, of these myths.

Dr. Jonathon Bunicore, a research associate at the Harvard School of Public Health, presented his research on the public health benefits of wind energy. By first citing the endless dangers of climate change on human health, he said that renewable energy is needed to transition away from polluting fossil fuels that do pose proven threats to public health.

A common concern from community members living near proposed wind projects is the impact of noise pollution from the wind turbines. This was addressed by panelist Michael Hankard, a principal acoustic consultant from Wisconsin. Mike clarified many of the scientific measurements of sound that he says are often conflated on the internet and among wind opposers. He described his research on the noise levels of standard wind turbines and concluded that wind turbines are not even close to registering above unsafe levels.

Dr. Bob McCunney, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, further explained the lack of evidence for health impacts from wind turbines. Dr. McCunney described a Health Canada study that he was involved with that looked at the effects of wind turbine noise and health. He concluded that the study shows no association between the two. He highlighted the need to be careful when assessing the causality of symptoms, as there are many outside variables that could produce adverse health effects, not necessarily due to the wind turbine itself.

Speaking on his own experience living in close proximity to wind turbines, Jason Kehl, a dairy farmer from Sheldon, NY expressed his appreciation for renewable energy. With 10 years of having multiple wind turbines on his property, Kehl says he has had no issue with noise levels or bird strikes. Among the benefits he discussed, he emphasized the financial incentives of having no town taxes and increased property values as a result of the wind turbine installation. For the town of Sheldon, he says that this project has been widely successful and he has personally seen no adverse impacts from the wind farm.

Featured speaker Dr. Simon Chapman, an Emeritus Professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney Australia, gave the concluding presentation on “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” This phrase, as he explains, refers to widely circulated myths about how wind turbines negatively impact health. While the previous panelists spoke of the lack of evidence for these false beliefs, Dr. Chapman reviewed the anti-wind farm claims and highlighted the phenomenon  of “confirmation bias.” Those with such strong opinions against wind turbines are likely to set out to find information that confirms these false beliefs. Dr. Chapman stressed the need for the public to follow only peer-reviewed studies and facts, and to be wary of the vast amount of false information on the internet.

These expert panelists highlighted the lack of scientific evidence that wind turbines cause negative health outcomes. In fact, the panelists demonstrated the benefits renewable energy, like wind power, can bring to society, including as a way to combat climate change and address local air quality concerns.

A recording of the event is available on YouTube, and ACE NY published their own recap of the event (including photos).

Thanks again to the University at Buffalo for hosting this forum and to all of our partners for organizing it with us: ACE NY, New Yorkers for Clean Power, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

 
Posted in Policy Forums, Our WorkLeave a Comment on Recap: Western NY Health and Wind Energy Forum

Our Forum on Coastal Resiliency on Long Island

Posted on by Shachar Sharon

On Monday, December 9th, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF) and Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) hosted an educational forum on coastal resiliency strategies. Our panel of experts discussed the benefits and challenges of implementing nature-based coastal management projects on Long Island. The panelists included Alison Branco from The Nature Conservancy, Kathleen Fallon from New York Sea Grant, Alexa Fournier from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Marian Russo from the Village of Patchogue, and Michael DeGiglio from Cameron Engineering. The panel discussion was moderated by Larry Swanson from SoMAS. The program featured special guest speaker Jack Schnirman, Nassau County Comptroller, who introduced the Resiliency Progress Tracker for Nassau County. 

The forum highlighted living shorelines as a nature-based solution to creating resilient coasts on Long Island. Living shorelines use natural items such as rock, vegetation, mollusks, and various natural structures to buffer storm surges. Living shoreline components are sometimes used in combination of “hardened” structures, such as bulkheads and concrete sea walls. Hardened structures alone can impede ecological processes near the shore, affecting marine wildlife and the progression of wetlands. Living shorelines transform overtime and create viable habitats for wildlife, while protecting coastal communities. 

The topic of coastal resiliency is very timely for the communities of Long Island. Over seven years ago, Superstorm Sandy demonstrated the damage a powerful storm could do to Long Island’s infrastructure and communities. In consideration of sea level rise, there is great urgency for coastal municipalities on Long Island to begin coastal resiliency initiatives. Our moderator, Larry Swanson from SoMAS, made this very clear in his opening remarks, sharing examples of what the counties of Long Island are already doing to increase resiliency outside of living shoreline projects. 

Our panel discussion began with emphasizing the importance of preserving natural spaces and coastal lands to increase resiliency from storm surges and sea level rise. Alison Branco from The Nature Conservancy explained that wetlands and marshes along the shoreline reduce wave height and energy, and therefore reduce the potential of waves to do damage. Branco also explained that wetlands naturally migrate and respond to sea level rise, usually moving inland. The issue then, is the presence of property and infrastructure. She recommends that if it’s possible and reasonable, to retreat from the coast and allow these natural habitats to adapt. 

Kathleen Fallon from New York Sea Grant expanded on the various shore types of Long Island and the types of natural shoreline strategies best suited for each type of coastal environment. For Long Island’s bays and tidal wetlands, which act as buffers to storm sturges, it’s best to implement wetland restoration and living shorelines to provide stabilization and risk reduction to communities. The natural structure of the wetlands will increase the ecological benefit to these habitats, as well. Sandy beaches, including barrier islands that protect the island from large waves, are very dynamic in that sand is constantly moving on, off, and along the shore. Bluffs face erosion due primarily to groundwater, runoff, and wave action. Both bluffs and sandy beaches can become more resilient with added vegetation, which bind sediments together and actually help to grow dunes and bluffs. 

When discussing living shorelines, it’s important to put this fairly new strategy into perspective and compare it to the traditional hardened strategies. Alison Branco explains that one strategy is not necessarily better than the other by default. The goals of a specific project, whether to reduce the risk of flooding from storms or from sea level rise, and the physics of the project area, will help determine the appropriate approaches to increasing resiliency. In addition, she had some recommendations for decision makers, including creating more robust programs to help people move away from flood zones if they’re at risk, putting up walls during storms which come down after the storm has passed, and rethinking zoning in order to protect and prevent the development of the natural shorelines that are still intact.

For those considering implementing living shorelines, DEC has created a Living Shorelines Guidelines document. Alexa Fournier, from DEC, shared an overview of the document, which serves as a resource for property owners and design professionals on permitting requirements and considerations. Before beginning a project, DEC requires a permit. Fournier advised that applicants first reach out and speak to people from different programs on the island, like the Peconic Estuary Program and NY Sea Grant to discuss some preliminary ideas. For municipalities, it’s recommended to look for grant opportunities to fund the project. During the application process, she recommends face-to-face meetings with DEC officials. 

Living shoreline projects are often complex and require professional environmental engineers and landscape architects to design a plan and implement it. Michael DeGiglio from Cameron Engineering shared what professionals take into consideration when planning coastal management projects for a given location, including erosion rates and wave energy. He shared that because living shoreline permits are relatively new and the process is not always straightforward, permitting will take longer than for traditional projects like seawalls and bulkheads. 

Marian Russo from the Village of Patchogue shared her experience with the living shoreline project that’s underway in her community. Russo shared the cost of some of the components for the project, including $200,000 for design and $1 million for construction. Her advice to other municipalities that are considering doing a living shoreline is to secure funding for the project by applying for grants that will cover the high costs for planning, implementation, and maintenance.

Kathleen Fallon wrapped up our panel discussion with options residents and homeowners can take for increasing resiliency. She clarified that there is always some risk when living on the waterfront, but there are ways to reduce one’s risk for flooding:

  • Do nothing if erosion is minimal and the property has natural protective features
  • Conserve the sand dunes and wetlands in between the property and shoreline by preventing destruction of habitats or planting coastal species
  • Raising the property to allow water to move under
  • Relocating out of the flood area altogether 

Each option is outlined in this NY Sea Grant document about flood risk reduction. 

You can watch the full program on our Youtube channel. Stay tuned for NYLCVEF’s continued work on resiliency.

Thank you to our sponsor, ROUX, and to Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences for hosting this event. 

Posted in Policy Forums, Our WorkLeave a Comment on Our Forum on Coastal Resiliency on Long Island

NYLCVEF Co-Hosts Forum on New York’s Climate Law

Posted on by Shachar Sharon

Last month, we joined Columbia Law School, The Earth Institute, and Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell to host a policy forum on implementing the landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). Two panels of experts discussed the opportunities and challenges of implementing the new climate law.

The CLCPA is an ambitious plan for New York State to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040 and economy-wide carbon-neutrality by 2050. A minimum of 35% of clean energy and energy efficiency funds collected will be directed towards disadvantaged communities with a goal of 40% investment. In addition, this law requires that by 2050, New York its reduce greenhouse gas emission by 85% from its 1990 level.

The law is the nation’s most aggressive example of climate action and will serve as a model for other states to follow. The forum started with opening remarks from NYLCV President, Julie Tighe. She referred to the CLCPA as an enormous opportunity to not just reduce carbon emissions but to also address the inequity of our polluting past. All New Yorkers need to benefit from the transition to a green economy, and this law can ensure the communities that need resources can get them. The opportunity is enormous, but much work remains to ensure this law is implemented effectively. 

Event co-hostAssemblyman Daniel O’Donnell welcomed the panelists and audiences to the 69th Assembly District, which he represents.

The theme of the first panel was “Curbing Emissions by Sector,” moderated by the founder and director of Andrew Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School Professor, Michael B.Gerrard. Panelists included Natural Resource Defense Council’s Climate & Clean Energy Program Director, Jackson Morris, Ameresco’s Business Development Executive, Daniel Smith, The Nature Conservancy’s Policy and Strategy Director, Jessica Ottney,  Regional Plan Association’s Senior Vice President of State Program and Advocacy, Kate Slevin, and Professor of the Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP), Craig Schwitter.

During panel one, panelists talked about our current sources of greenhouse gas emissions by major sectors including energy, transportation, and buildings, as well as overcoming the challenges each sector will face when meeting the CLCPA’s new standards. All the panelists agreed that the new law is ambitious, but an exciting opportunity.

Professor Gerrard introduced the sources of New York State’s greenhouse gas emissions by sector, including 33% from transportation, 15% from residential, 13% from electricity generation, 10% from commercial use, and more. He then presented an overview of the greenhouse gas and energy reduction goals of the CLCPA. He pointed out the major challenges in meeting renewable energy goals, including the closing of the Indian Point nuclear energy plant and increased electricity demands that will result from the electrification of transportation, heating, and cooling. Currently, New York derives less than 30% of its electricity from renewable sources like hydropower, solar, and wind. The rest comes from fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Morris also discussed the challenges in the electric power sector. One major challenge includes building the infrastructure quickly and in an environmentally responsible way. Another challenge is how to replace existing energy storage infrastructure that was built for fossil fuels with a substantial amount of battery storage in an economically-efficient and environmentally-friendly way.  

Smith began by saying that renewable energy companies are looking forward to meeting the CLCPA’s requirements. He suggested that collaborations among industries, municipalities, universities, and decision-makers are critical to developing renewable energy plans.

Ottney discussed how communities, landowners, and local governments view clean energy, and said that we need to find a balance between renewable energy development, environmental protection, and community needs. She also talked about The Nature Conservancy’s effort to help the communities reduce emissions at a local scale.

Slevin underscored that transportation is the biggest contributor to climate change in both New York State and the country. She also talked about how the Transportation Climate Initiative will help reduce emissions from the transportation sector.

Schwitter stressed that buildings consume 40%-50% of the energy generated in the United States as well as in New York City, a majority of which is used for heating. Saving energy should be a top priority in designing new buildings. He also pointed out that our behaviors are as important as the building design, therefore we must take responsibility for saving energy.

The theme of the second panel was “Greening New York’s Economy,” moderated by professor of Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, director of the Urban Planning Ph.D. program, Malo Hutson. Panelists included WEACT for Environment Justice’s Deputy Director, Cecil Corbin-Mark, IUOE Local 94’s Assistant Training Director, David Hawkins, Green City Force’s Chief Development Officer, Tonya Gayle, and New York Green Bank’s President, Alfred Griffin.

During this section, panelists discussed how the new law will affect the communities they represent. The CLCPA may create opportunities for the workforce, for green investment, and for investments in historically disadvantaged communities.

Corbin-Mark addressed the importance of including environmental and economic justice groups most impacted by climate change in the planning of policies and programs so that these communities can get the resources they need. He pointed out the opportunities CLCPA will bring, from engaging communities about environmental issues through a public health perspective, to creating pathways to green careers.  

Hawkins talked about how the law affects engineers, a group that will be on the frontlines of making buildings more energy-efficient.

Gayle spoke about the experience of engaging young people living in public housing in the environmental movement, and how they can be leaders in their communities for reducing energy use and in taking advantage of educational opportunities in the green sector. 

Griffin discussed how critical investment from the private sector is in achieving the CLCPA’s goals, and the role of the New York Green Bank in this transition to a green economy. Currently, Griffin said that investors are willing and looking to invest in sustainable technologies and infrastructure. He discussed how New York Green Bank finances some green developers’ projects at an early stage, helping the developers demonstrate their products to larger-scale investors so that more investors will participate. He also believes the collaboration between private and public sectors, good policies and regulatory regimes  are critical to making the CLCPA financially successful 

The forum concluded with remarks from Tighe about how his event will be one of a series of forums about the new climate law. Stay tuned for more information in the future. You can watch a video of the forum here.

Thank you again to our panelists and co-hosts for working with us on this event.

Posted in Policy ForumsLeave a Comment on NYLCVEF Co-Hosts Forum on New York’s Climate Law

Our Report Shows Gaps in Lead Poisoning Prevention

Posted on by Shachar Sharon

Lead is a dangerous environmental toxin and exposure to it can cause irreparable neurological and behavioral health consequences, especially in children. Before New York City’s ban on lead paint in 1960, this type of paint was commonly used and it can still be found in old buildings. The City has continued to tackle this public health issue and enacted Local Law 1 of 2004 to hold landlords accountable for addressing lead hazards in their buildings, which helped bring about a decline in childhood lead exposure.

According to the NYC Department of Health, the most commonly identified source of lead poisoning for children in New York City is lead paint and its dust, which significant exposure to can cause elevated blood lead levels in children. The most common pathway is from peeling lead paint and by inhaling lead dust. Other potential exposures include eating or drinking lead-contaminated food or drinks, playing with toys that contain lead paint, or using dishes that contain lead.  

There has been a considerable amount of recent news regarding the enforcement of lead poisoning prevention laws in NYC. Over 900 classrooms for the City’s youngest students were recently found to have been contaminated with peeling lead paint, which the Department of Education worked to remediate and a recent report by Comptroller Scott Stringer found that the City did not conduct lead testing in thousands of old residential buildings, where they knew lead paint to be present in other units.

Since removing toxins from our environment is one of NYLCV/EF’s top priorities and was included in our 2019-2020 NYC Policy Agenda, we teamed up with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation, Cooper Square Committee, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice to publish a report on inadequate enforcement of the lead dust standards in LL1. This report follows our 2018 report showing inadequate enforcement of the primary prevention measures in Local Law 1, which are intended to ensure lead hazards are identified and abated before children are exposed. These primary prevention measures are mandates that every child occupied dwelling in buildings built before 1960, 1) landlords annually inspect the units for signs of peeling paint and 2) landlords fully abate the lead paint on friction surfaces when there is a turnover between tenants.

These two reports highlight how the under-enforcement of Local Law 1 continues to put New York children’s health at risk. 

The new report, titled Collecting Dust, shows that there are gaps in the enforcement of Local Law 1’s safe work practice regulations that protect against lead dust exposure. We found that the City is collecting penalties for lead-safe work practices violations at a significantly lower rate than other health areas it enforces. 

The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) is the primary agency that enforces Local Law 1 and is responsible for ensuring safe work practices during construction and renovation in buildings with the presumption of lead paint- buildings that were built before 1960. DOHMH is also responsible for investigating complaints and assessing penalties. 

The report looked at publicly available data from the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) for violations of safe work practices for construction in buildings with lead paint. If not properly controlled, construction in buildings with lead paint can leave residents and workers exposed to lead dust. 

In the 15 years since LL1 went into effect, just under $2 million penalties have been assessed for failure to use Safe Work Practices to protect tenants from lead dust. Of that $2 million, the City collected only 0.5% of the total amount of penalties assessed– a shockingly low rate of enforcement. Since Local Law 1 was enacted, just 12 penalties have been collected. 

In contrast, DOHMH imposed 21 times the amount of penalties for mobile food vending violations than it did for lead-related violations, collecting $5 million from street vendors for violations such as “cart touching or leaning against a building.” over the same time period.

At a recent City Council oversight hearing on lead poisoning prevention, the de Blasio Administration testified that there may be modestly more enforcement. We look forward to working with them to ensure improved enforcement of these laws.

The report provided detailed recommendations for improving accountability: fully enforce the existing law and vigorously seek and collect penalties; break down government silos; and increase transparency to create more public accountability. By implementing our recommendations, the City would be able to proactively eliminate lead poisoning.

We believe with meaningful enforcement of Local Law 1, the city will be able to protect the health and safety of all New Yorkers, especially children. We will keep advocating for policies that prevent lead poisoning and protect our children’s health. 

Posted in Publications, Our WorkLeave a Comment on Our Report Shows Gaps in Lead Poisoning Prevention

Our New Recommendations to Reform Article 10 & Site Renewable Energy

Posted on by Shachar Sharon

With Zero Major Wind and Solar Projects Breaking Ground Since 2011, Report Outlines Series of Recommendations to Improve Community Engagement and Expedite Siting

Today, we released Breaking Down the Barriers to Renewable Energy Siting: Recommendations Report identifying recommendations to reform Article 10 and site large-scale renewable energy projects in New York State. The report, released at the Alliance for Clean Energy New York’s Clean Energy Fall Reception, builds on our background paper about the barriers to siting renewable energy released earlier this year.

The report comes on the heels of the passage of the landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which mandates net-zero gas emissions across the economy by 2050. The only way to meet this ambitious standard is to expand and expedite the siting of renewable projects. With more than 40 projects initiating the Article 10 process and zero projects breaking ground under the law since its inception in 2011, the new report outlines a series of recommendations to streamline the siting of onshore wind and solar projects and help the state achieve its ambitious goals.  

The report includes a series of regulatory, budgetary and legislative recommendations to increase community engagement and participation, incentivize creative and flexible local funding arrangements, and expedite the permitting process. The recommendations build on the work of environmental and energy advocates in finding solutions that benefit all parties in the state’s transition to renewable energy.

Specific recommendations include:

  • Calling on DPS to audit Article 10 regulations and make updates that streamline and improve the process.
  • Excluding funds a municipality may receive from a renewable energy project from the state’s 2% property tax cap, so that communities have more freedom to negotiate successful and creative benefit agreements.
  • Ensuring local appointments are made to Siting Board by enabling the local executive or supervisor to make them if the Governor and the Legislature fail to act.
  • Establishing a fund or bank to mitigate or otherwise offset any impact a project might have on a threatened or endangered species or sensitive habitat.
  • Dedicating $1 million in funding for staff at the state’s nine regional planning boards to assist municipalities with planning.
  • Adding more staffing at the state Department of Public Service (DPS), the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the Department of Agriculture and Markets (DAM) to account for the increase in Article 10 applications, including adding a staff member dedicated to ensuring the agencies are communicating and coordinating efficiently.
  • Amending the regulations for wetland delineation range from 500 feet to 100 feet to align with regulations for other state wetland development projects.
  • Offering more incentives to local communities to host renewable energy projects. 

This report follows four stakeholder roundtables we convened this year in Albany, Buffalo, Long Island and Syracuse. These meetings brought together thought leaders, state decision-makers, local government representatives, renewable energy developers, environmental organizations, regional planning groups, and others with the goals of identifying ways to streamline the siting process and improving engagement with local communities. 

The also report stresses the importance of proactive and early engagement in the siting process to build relationships with local leaders, address community concerns, and get ahead of any misinformation that may develop.

Next, we will work with the State and partners to develop strategies for how to move forward with these recommendations.

Posted in Our Work, Publications, Our IssuesLeave a Comment on Our New Recommendations to Reform Article 10 & Site Renewable Energy

Our Environmental Candidate Forum for Niskayuna Supervisor

Posted on by Shachar Sharon

Every two years, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund and the NYLCV Capital Region Chapter develops its own policy agenda after receiving input from environmental partner organizations. This Blueprint for a Greener Capital Region provides specific actions government officials can take to fight climate change, conserve our lands and waters, and protect public health.

Often, voters do not have the opportunity to hear directly from candidates about their position on environmental issues. That’s why the NYLCVEF hosts candidate forums such as the one Monday, September 16, 2019 for Niskayuna Town Supervisor.

Scores of Niskayuna residents attended this forum to hear Supervisor Yasmine Syed (R) and her opponent Town Board Member Lisa Weber (D) as they answered questions posed by moderators and NYLCV Capital Region Chapter Board Members John Greenthal and Peter Trimarchi.

Among of topics discussed at this forum included sustainable and transit-oriented development priorities, clean energy strategies, and Climate Smart Community among other issues.

Watch the forum Part 1 and Part 2.

Posted in Nonpartisan Electoral Activities, Our WorkLeave a Comment on Our Environmental Candidate Forum for Niskayuna Supervisor

Get Involved

Donate

THANK YOU TO OUR PLATINUM CORPORATE PARTNERS

Website by Trillion.

© 2017 New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. All rights reserved.