On Wednesday, May 18th, NYLCVEF and our partner, Sustainable Westchester held a virtual Lunch and Learn focused on the Scoping Plan for New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The CLCPA is among the most ambitious climate laws in the world and requires New York to transition to a zero-emission electricity sector by 2040, including 70 percent renewable energy generation by 2030, and to reach economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050.

On July 18, 2019, the CLCPA was signed into law. The law also created the Climate Action Council which is tasked with developing a Draft Scoping Plan that serves as an initial framework for how the State will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net-zero emissions, increase renewable energy usage, and ensure climate justice. 

The Lunch & Learn focused on several topics within the scoping plan. We heard from the below experts on each of these areas:

• Raya Salter, founder of the Energy Justice Law and Policy Center and member of the New York State Climate Action Council, spoke about A Just Transition & Achieving Climate Justice. 
• Nina Orville, Executive Director of Sustainable Westchester; and Leo Wiegman, Director of Solar Programs at Sustainable Westchester; spoke about Electricity. 
• Julie Tighe, President of the New York League of Conservation Voters, spoke about Transportation. 
• Jared Rodriguez, Principal at Emergent Urban Conceptt and Councilman of The Village of Sleepy Hollow; and Jennifer Metzger, former NY State Senator, and Energy Expert/Speaker; spoke about Buildings & Gas System Transition. 
• Resa Dimino, Principal at Resource Recycling Systems, spoke about Waste. 
• Finally, Karen E. Meara, Partner at Carter Ledyard & Milburn, LLP, spoke about Land Use. 

Read more about the speakers, here: CLCPA BIOS 5.18.22.pdf.

The comment period for the scoping plan is open now and attendees were encouraged to take the information they learned during the session and comment on the plan through NYSERDA’s website. Click here to check out NYLCVEF’s and Sustainable Westchester’s comment guide and to learn more about how to make a comment: CLCPA Scoping Plan Guide.pdf.

If you were unable to attend, watch the recording of the Lunch & Learn here: NYS Climate Act: Understanding the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Learn and Act Webinar. 

On October 20th, 2021, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF) held a forum with the candidates for Huntington Town Supervisor -- Ed Smyth, Rebecca Sanin, and Eugene Cook --  to discuss their stances on a range of environmental and sustainability issues. The Forum was moderated by NYLCVEF President Julie Tighe and environmental panelists included Adrienne Esposito from Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Eric Alexander from Vision Long Island, and Mariah Dignan from Climate Jobs NY.

Ed Smyth is a practicing lawyer in the Town of Huntington, a US Marine Staff Sergeant veteran, and serves as a Councilman on the Huntingtown Board following his election in 2017. Smyth is running on a platform of continued investment in green infrastructure, concerned primarily with insufficient sewer systems in the Town and poor water quality. He also holds deep concerns about solid waste management on Long Island and the closing of the Brookhaven Landfill in 2024, and the lack of economically or environmentally sound methods of transporting ash waste off of Long Island. In response to this, he intends to implement measures to reduce solid waste by tonnage, increase recycling, and implement organic recycling streams. 

When asked about the issue of affordable housing in his constituency, Smyth answered that he would shift from the current system of requiring 20% of new developments to be priced as affordable housing, to instead selling all units at market value and putting the difference in profit margins into an affordable housing trust fund in an effort to increase homeownership. He also intends to upgrade the sewage treatment plan and minimize new development that typically leads to an increase in the flow of wastewater.

Rebecca Sanin has spent her career fighting inequity in underserved communities and is deeply concerned with the intersection between climate justice and social and economic inequality. She believes education is fundamental in addressing climate change and should be utilized such as in the case of teaching people how to transition to and maintain modern IA septic systems that reduce pollutants in waterways. She also is concerned with poor housing being a social determinant of public health and intends to implement more affordable housing and building opportunities. 

If elected, Sanin intends to prioritize environmental design to promote safety in her community, such as changing traffic flow to reduce congestion or implementing more sidewalks to promote walkability.  She also supports the federal Build Back Better agenda and believes that economic development depends on good jobs, fair pay, and community benefits. She further intends to incentivize Town fleets to reduce emissions and introduce more electric vehicles into her community.  

Eugene Cook is a small business owner and has been a Councilman for the past 10 years in the Town of Huntington. As Councilman, he has fought overdevelopment in his municipality and takes issue with the drastic increase in housing costs that make homeownership much more difficult than in past decades. He greatly values communication with his constituents when making decisions for the Town, and especially prioritizes listening to the needs of small business owners, particularly during COVID times, as a small business owner himself. 

If elected, Cook intends to mandate all homes with over 50% reconstruction to install new IA septic systems and implement grants to have them installed throughout the Town. He also hopes to convert Town buildings to natural gas to increase renewable energy usage and convert the Town’s fleet to all-electric vehicles. 

Thank you to our partners and panelists: Adrienne Esposito from Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Eric Alexander from Vision Long Island, and Mariah Dignan from Climate Jobs NY. Early voting is held from October 23 to October 31, and election day takes place on November 2nd.

Submitted by Michaela Stones

On October 5th, 2021, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF) held a candidate forum for New York Council District 32, which is a coastal district and climate frontline community. It centers around Jamaica Bay, Ozone Park, and the western half of the Rockaways and is currently occupied by Council Member Eric Ulrich. This forum was held on zoom in preparation for the November 2nd general election. The forum featured Democratic nominee Felicia Singh and Republican nominee Joann Ariola, and was moderated by NYLCV NYC Chapter Board Member Karen Mintzer. 

Felicia Singh is a lifelong resident of Ozone Park, a teacher, and the daughter of two working-class immigrants. She holds experience as a former Peace Corps volunteer, Vice President of Our Neighbors Civic Association of Ozone Park, and as a member of both the Assembly District 23 Country Committee and South East Queens Complete Count Committee. Singh is running on a platform that centers environmental racism and intersectionality in fighting the climate crisis and believes in the importance of amplifying community voices and involving local residents in climate policy discussions and decisions. She also holds deep concerns about “The Hole”, a section of her district where few people have proper sewer systems and is a place that is chronically ignored by civic leaders and elected officials. 

When asked about the importance of education in combatting the climate crisis, Singh emphasized the need for a climate curriculum that is intersectional and built into classes from gym to science. She also values education as a whole in her community, which she believes to be necessary for increasing electric vehicle ownership and implementing a more universal composting system where people take personal responsibility in helping climate crisis mitigation. Singh further believes in the importance of taking care of the working class, such as protecting taxi drivers in the Central Business District Tolling Program proposal that would help to mitigate congestion but burden those made to pay congestion fees to fund the MTA. 

Joann Ariola is the president of the Howard Beach Lindenwood Civic Association and a member of Community Board 10, and holds experience working with two mayors and members of the NYC Council. She also has been involved in hundreds of cleanups throughout her district and is an appointed member of the NYS Rising Committee where she works on projects to develop climate resiliency in her community. She strongly supports increasing funding for public parks and green spaces and has worked to make parks more accessible and safe for all such as installing swings for children with disabilities. 

When asked about the sewage system in her district, Ariola spoke about how in her district, sewer lines are shared between stores and households, causing increased flooding particularly during storms such as the recent Hurricane Ida. She intends to increase sewer maintenance and alleviate any sewage backup to mitigate household flooding. She also is in favor of increasing beautification efforts in public parks, and the new Rails to Trails proposal that would ensure safer cycling throughout the district and easier access to forests and green space. When asked about accessibility to public transport, Ariola discussed how she worked to make two stations in her district accessible and intends to do so for all remaining public transport stations that are currently inaccessible. 

Thank you to our partners: the Waterfront Alliance, the Rise to Resilience Coalition, and the Regional Plan Association. Early voting is held from October 23 to October 31, and election day takes place on November 2nd.

_____________________

Submitted by Michaela Stones

On June 29th, 2021 NYLCVEF hosted a virtual public forum along with Suez, a New York water service company to discuss per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). NYLCVEF President Julie Tighe began by introducing the topic of water contamination, specifically regarding PFAS. To combat contamination in NY, the Drinking Water Advisory Council lowered advisory levels to 10 parts per trillion, a limit below the EPA standards. The panel discussed the properties of PFAS, sources of PFAS, research and regulations, and remediation efforts.

If you would like to watch the webinar recording, please click here.

Dr. Peter Grevatt, the CEO of The Water Research Foundation, explained that there are around 5,000 PFAS chemicals, which are man-made compounds that have been around for many decades and are difficult to break down because of their strong carbon-bonded chains. Invented in the 1930s, PFAS uses have grown from non-stick coatings to shampoos, paints, floor polishes, stain-resistant products, and firefighting foam. Further research projects related to PFAS and contamination conducted by The Water Research Foundation include how PFAS behaves in the environment, how long they last, where they go, and how to remove them. 

Tracy Mehan, Executive Director of Government Affairs at the American Water Works Association (AWWA) introduced “legacy compounds” of which there are two, PFOA and PFOS. These compounds cause health risks when ingested and have been increasingly found in drinking water. Mehan stressed that agencies and water utilities need to know where to focus their monitoring resources to understand the risk in their source waters and where these PFAS substances have been produced and at what volumes. Additionally, he underlined the importance of the EPA to use existing tools to moderate and address PFAS. AWWA wants to see greater reliance and focus on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which gives data gathering authority for agencies to garner more information from the manufacturing sector about the number of PFAS compounds that have been developed and at what quantities they’re produced, as well as where they’re produced. The Clean Water Act would also help strategically and proactively achieve source water protection, and AWWA has been urging EPA to deploy regulations under the Act. AWWA also suggests the EPA release a report on the location of PFAS production, import, processing, and use, and update it every two years based on data collected through the TSCA.

Sean Mahar, Chief of Staff for the State Department of Environmental Conservation, focused on Rockland County water quality and New York’s emerging contaminants response. Recent actions taken to curb contaminant levels in NYS include introducing MCLs, or maximum contaminant levels, and DEC’s launch of an investigation into potential, existing, and legacy Superfund sites and inactive landfills for PFAS chemicals. NYSDEC conducted this by researching places that PFAS compounds have been found, which include airports, military bases, fire training centers, major oil facilities, manufacturers, and landfills. They’ve been sampling groundwater to address any public exposure to contamination. So far, landfill sites tested for PFAS have not been identified as the source of drinking water contamination. Moving forward, Maher outlined additional steps of investigating other potential PFAS sites and continuing efforts to understand PFAS behavior and contamination.

Dan Shapley, co-director of Riverkeeper’s Science and Patrol Program, outlined the programs, highlighting its goal of protecting water sources, regulating other contaminants that aren’t PFAS, and utilizing varying levels of government to come about change. Shapley lamented the slow regulation rates and unregulated contaminant levels on a nationwide and statewide scale, citing a global increase in chemical use in recent years as the reason for the spike. Correlated health risks include fertility decline, auto-immune and thyroid diseases, cancer, and more. The “chemical iceberg” breaks down as follows: PFAS are only 2.5% of chemicals, only 0.3% of PFAS are testable, and only 6.5% of those are regulated. He concluded that because of PFAS persistence, toxicity, an affinity for water, and ubiquity, they should be banned from non-essential purposes and regulated strongly. The Rockland Water Coalition encourages Suez to publish their plan to treat water sources exceeding NYS standards and treat the affected water bodies and urges the Department of Health and EPA to regulate PFAS as a class of chemicals and to enforce other government and non-government measures to ban non-essential uses and provide testing services. 

Carol Walczyk, Vice President of Water Quality and Compliance for the Regulated Utility Division of Suez, explained that Suez collects water samples quarterly to test for PFAS chemicals. When they are detected, more samples are tested to determine whether there were contamination issues. Walczyk echoes that they are difficult to get rid of because of their strong carbon bonds and because PFAS is found in a multitude of everyday products. There are technologies that exist to remediate PFAS, some of which are preferred by NYS, however, Suez needs to do a pilot study to make sure the technology would be effective. Walczyk mentioned that Suez services multiple states with varying maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which makes standardizing an action plan difficult. Finally, it was emphasized that Suez works collaboratively to continue research and mitigation efforts as well as testing for and removing PFAS from currently contaminated areas. 

In the concluding Q&A session, accountability and compensation were discussed. Mahar spoke about suing production companies of firefighting foam in order to financially gain back what has been spent on PFAS testing and removal processes. Walczyk spoke about the conflicts that come about between national, state, and local governments trying to regulate contamination and alert the public of the current risk level. Additionally, she explained that the United States is a few years ahead of regulation around the world (maybe because the US has used more, but the EU recently implemented an advisory level.) Mehan also reaffirmed the concerns that regulation will be challenging because of the many different types of PFAS. Finally, panelists discussed the urgent needs of PFAS testing and research. 

Primary Election Day is June 22nd. The best way to advocate for the environment is to make sure you cast your ballot. Check here for information on deadlines and locations.

This year, voters in NYC will have the opportunity to participate in ranked-choice voting. That means instead of just picking one candidate for any given position, you will rank up to your top five choices.

On Thursday, June 3rd, along with Good Old Lower East Side, the League of Women Voters of New York City, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice, we hosted a virtual event on Ranked Choice Voting. This year, numerous elected offices are on the ballot. Furthermore, New York City recently adopted a Ranked Choice Voting system, which will be used for the first time in a major election this primary day. The event discussed how to fill in your ballot, how your responses are used to elect the winners, how candidates are using the systems while campaigning, and why the system was enacted in the first place.

If you would like to view the webinar recording, please click here.

Christopher Casey is the Director of Voter Engagement at WE ACT for Environmental Justice. He leads the organization’s political and electoral programming. He began by introducing WE ACT, which was founded in 1988 to build healthy communities by ensuring that historically marginalized groups meaningfully participate in the creation of equitable environmental policies and practices. He then provided some examples of environmental racism, the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on people of color, and environmental justice, the movement to address environmental racism and prevent inequitable exposure to environmental hazards.

He also introduced the term climate justice, the movement to address the climate crisis in an equitable manner. “A just transition” is a term used to refer to a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy that does not leave communities of color behind. He said that ranked choice voting was, in a word, “power,” describing how the previous system often forced voters to choose the lesser of two evils. Ranked choice voting will increase the power of marginalized communities by broadening the number and diversity of candidates, causing more candidates to discuss issues often ignored on the debate stage (i.e. not education, jobs, and crime), and effectuating strategic voting (allowing groups who support different top candidates but have similar views on other candidates to work together).

Click here to start the webinar recording at Christopher’s remarks.

Gianni Rodriguez is the Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Organizer at Good Old Lower East Side, which has fought to keep the people of the Lower East Side in their homes and community since 1977. They are a people-powered housing, environmental, and racial justice organization reaching over 80,000 people during the COVID-19 pandemic. She then cited the importance of flood protection and stormwater management to her community, citing the community’s suffering during and after Superstorm Sandy. She also mentioned extreme heat, air pollution, and waste mismanagement as other important environmental issues. Rodriguez stressed the importance of electing officials who will address these problems and mentioned the lack of confidence in the electoral process among members of her community. She’s hopeful that the new ranked choice voting system will encourage more New Yorkers to vote.

Click here to start the webinar recording at Gianni’s remarks.

Dianne Burrows is a former public school teacher who currently serves as Co-President of the League of Women Voters of New York City. The LWV educates and engages New Yorkers to be informed voters, and advocates and lobbies for legislation to improve the quality of life and ensure an open and democratic process in NYC. Burrows gave a presentation based on Adrienne Kivelson’s book What Makes New York City Run? which she titled “Who Makes NYC Run?” Her presentation discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor, Comptroller, Public Advocate, Borough President, City Council, and District Attorney. The first three of these officials are elected citywide, while the remaining three are held in boroughwide elections. 

The mayor appoints the heads of most agencies without needing city council approval, signs or vetoes any bill passed by the city council, creates and proposes the city budget to the council, and develops a long-term strategic plan for the city. The mayor can also create or abolish city agencies. The comptroller is elected to be independent of the mayor and public advocate. The comptroller also recommends fiscal policies and financial transactions for the city, conducts audits, and submits advice to the mayor and city council on the financial condition of the city. The audit process is required annually and must be transparent. It is accessible at www.checkbooknyc.com. The Public Advocate (PA) is first in the mayoral line of succession. The PA advocates for the public by monitoring, investigating, and responding to all citizen complaints. Public hearings on the performance and legality of city agencies may be held by the public advocate, who also appoints one member to the City Planning Commission. The Landlord Watchlist is an example of something the PA has done.

Borough-wide elected officials consist of 5 borough presidents, 51 city council members, and 5 district attorneys. They are only elected by the constituents in their borough. The city council proposes and votes on all local laws, and has sole jurisdiction over the passage of the city budget. They also review land use matters, oversee all city programs and agencies, and set the real estate tax rate. The council can also levy other taxes with the approval of the state legislature. An important function of the city council is to implement “participatory budgeting,” which encourages citizens to participate in the budget-making process. Borough presidents are the chief executive officers for their borough. They must be consulted by the mayor and city council on any budget expenditures for their borough, are allowed to propose legislation and budgetary expenditures to the city council and mayor, and allocate discretionary spending for their borough. Borough presidents also review all land-use decisions affecting their borough, coordinate citizen complaints, and chair a board of council members and community board members in their borough.

Burrows then discussed the city’s community boards, which are advisory only but hold a lot of power. People can serve by filling out an application on their borough president’s website. She also discussed the LWV’s Vote411 tool, which allows voters to check where candidates stand on various issues. Burrows also discussed the limits to elected officials’ power. Offices are subject to term limits, with two four-year terms being the maximum allowed. The federal government also limits what the city can do, through federal funds which are allocated for specific purposes, as well as through federal laws and mandates. The state of New York restricts the city government by needing to approve all taxes (except the real estate tax). The State also controls transit and rent control, implements laws, and helps fund the city’s schools. Additionally, the city will often borrow money from the state. Finally, quasi-independent agencies such as NYC Health and Hospitals, NYCHA, and the Housing Development Corp make decisions without the direct approval of the city government.

Click here to start the webinar recording at “Who Makes NYC Run?”

Ranked choice voting increases power for voters. Burrows says that we constantly rank our choices in our lives, giving the example of ranking toppings when going out for pizza with friends. Burrows then delved into the process of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). In most elections, voters can only choose one candidate, while RCV allows you to rank up to five candidates in order of preference. RCV was approved for NYC in a 2019 election and will be implemented by the city for primary and special local elections in 2021. These include city-wide elections (for the mayor, PA, and comptroller), and borough-wide elections (for the borough president and city council). RCV will not be implemented for the elections of the DA and judges. To use RCV, rank up to five candidates in order of your preference. Rank your favorite candidate first, your second favorite candidate second, and so on. Only rank candidates who you feel can do the job and you can live with as your elected official, as you do not have to rank five candidates. You cannot rank any candidate more than once, and cannot give multiple candidates the same ranking. If you don’t rank anyone for your 1st-4th choices but rank someone 5th, that person will be your first choice candidate. Additionally, if you rank candidates with choices 1-3 and 5, but do not rank anyone fourth (miss a rank), then your fifth choice candidate will become your fourth choice.

Ranked choice ballots have a different counting process as well. If any candidate receives more than 50% of first-place votes, they win the election. If no candidate earns more than 50% of the first-choice votes, counting will continue in rounds. The candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes will be eliminated, and each of their voter’s votes will be allocated to their second-choice candidate. Once those votes are allocated, the remaining candidate with the lowest percentage of votes will be eliminated, and their votes will be redistributed according to their voters’ next highest-ranked candidates. The process will repeat until there are only two candidates left. Vote counting may take longer than traditional elections since there may be multiple rounds. The results for every election will be posted on vote.nyc.

In November, voters will vote on no-excuse absentee voting and same-day voter registration. 

Click here to start the recording at the presentation on RCV.

A Q&A session followed the presentations. Regarding what happens if a voter makes a mistake on their ballot (i.e. filling the same candidate in twice, filling in two candidates for the same choice), Burrows said that the machine would flag the submission and prompt the voter with a choice of filling out a new ballot or submitting anyway. If the second ballot also has an issue, the voter will get one final chance on a third ballot. Poll workers will distribute cards to voters on how to correctly fill in their ballot. Regarding incorrect absentee ballots, Burrows replied that only the oath envelope can be ‘cured’ in absentee voting since the ballot does not have a name on it. Therefore, incorrect votes will not be corrected when voting absentee. Each vote can only count towards one candidate at a time. You can still write in a candidate in ranked choice voting (for any choice). RCV was adopted because it gives people more of a voice in who their elected officials are. RCV elections are audited, and results after every round are displayed at the end of the election. Results of the election may take a couple of weeks. RCV will save the city money by allowing the city to avoid spending on runoff elections. Rodriguez said it is paramount that we vote for candidates that can represent us, and that climate and environmental justice are life-saving policies for her community. She also said she feels that RCV will encourage more people who care about environmental justice issues to vote, citing the appeal of having your vote count even after your first-choice candidate is eliminated. Later, Rodriguez said that advocacy and outreach have helped us reach more people than ever before, but added that a lot more on-the-ground outreach is needed. Burrows said that several municipalities around the Bay Area, as well as the state of Maine, have adopted RCV. Rodriguez said that a lot of education and trust-building must be done to quell voters’ cynicism. Burrows said that if you do not like a candidate, do not rank that candidate.

Click here to start the webinar at the audience Q&A.

We thank our event partners North Brooklyn Neighbors and South Bronx Unite.

On May 25th, together with Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, we held a webinar on the opportunities and challenges of decarbonizing the manufacturing sector, which is the third-largest contributor to emissions nationally. This webinar was the fifth in our series on Implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. View the recording here.

Our President Julie Tighe kicked off the forum by discussing the CLCPA and the state’s clean energy goals. She then talked specifically about the manufacturing sector, which is the third largest contributor to emissions nationally. Tighe stressed the need for clean energy technologies in the sector. 

A panel of experts was moderated by Dr. Julio Friedmann, a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for Global Clean Energy Policy at Columbia University. Friedmann started by underscoring the urgency of climate change. He said that we need to take action, but that there are substantial challenges in the manufacturing sector, including technology, cost, and equity limitations. Friedmann later added that decarbonization efforts are going on throughout the country and world, such as incentives and tariffs. Later in the forum, he spoke to specific technologies (e.g., biofuels) that are being discussed to help decarbonize the manufacturing sector. Central and Upstate New York have an incredible density of skilled labor, added Friedmann.

Heather Briccetti is the President and CEO of the Business Council of New York State. She said that we should care about manufacturing because it is critical to the economy and a provider of quality jobs. She said one challenge the sector faces is that not every process can be made electric, such as the making of glass (which requires heat). She also cited the cost of replacing long-term equipment. Briccetti says that one of the big challenges of the CLCPA is the uncertainty of the costs of decarbonizing. Uncertainty, she says, may cause companies to relocate. New York needs the rest of the country and world to decarbonize with it, to keep the state competitive.

She wants the state to buy its paper exclusively from New York paper manufacturers. Briccetti also said that we need to have clear market signals and certainty on the cost front. She said that reducing emissions will have an impact on public health, especially in disadvantaged communities. Green jobs, economic development, and increased local tax revenue will all be effects of a green economy. However, she also mentioned that manufacturers leaving the state would create more disadvantaged communities. She feels that innovation and infrastructure are critical, and that we need to use our assets to develop innovative energy solutions. Briccetti also feels that we should encourage those who develop new technologies to stay in New York.

Luke Clemente is the Managing Director at Clemente Materials and Clemente Group, which supplies a variety of products including concrete, asphalt, sand, gravel, and topsoil. He said that getting the human capital to support carbon neutral infrastructure is a challenge, but said that they look at things like replacing diesel with natural gas as a fuel source. They also recently replaced a diesel excavator with an electric dredge. He says that in his industry, recycling can be advantageous, citing glass and asphalt. Clemente said that all businesses need to be focused on adaptation, adding that manufacturing is what brings wealth to the state. He also mentioned that there should be a partnership between companies, utilities, and governments. 

Clemente later said that he sees the potential for green jobs, since electrification will require a lot of people with technical skills. However, he says that finding people with these skills is challenging. Clemente says that his company, which is not a technology company, relies on others for innovation but is motivated by the goal of becoming less carbon intensive.

Matt Roberts is the Founder and Co-owner of Sherrill Manufacturing, the only stainless-steel flatware manufacturer left in the US. He said that manufacturing provides an opportunity for people who do not wish to attend college to become a part of the economy. He cited the cost of electric heating as a challenge, but said that his company makes a conscious effort to buy local. Roberts said that they do a lot of recycling, and that 85% of their stainless steel they purchase is already recycled. His company’s location allows it to get electricity from Niagara Falls. They also employ an energy-saving infrared heating system.

His company’s largest competition is manufacturing companies in China, Indonesia, India, and Vietnam. His biggest fear is that if the rest of the world does not decarbonize with New York, companies will either need to move to other states to compete or will be unable to compete. Companies will move to places which do not care about the environment, and emissions will increase. Roberts feels that the state needs to recognize that manufacturers are very important, and that we need a diverse supply of products from a global standpoint. He also mentioned the European Union’s tariff to incentivize low carbon products. He suggested that New York not only implement new green technologies, but become the world epicenter for these technologies, drawing people to the state.

Randy Wolken is the President and CEO of the Manufacturers Association of New York. He said that manufacturing is critical in New York State, and that decarbonizing the sector while remaining competitive with manufacturers in India and China is a challenge. However, based on past experience, he believes that the sector is up to the challenge. He says that a clean energy transition in the manufacturing sector will look like previous clean energy transitions, and that the manufacturing sector has great abilities to confront challenges and use state of the art manufacturing techniques. He also said that there are a lot of great technologies in the pipeline. 

Wolken added that many companies are concerned about the environment, but do not want to lose their competitive opportunities. Wolken emphasized that there are going to be significant opportunities for green jobs in the state, and that New York can be a leader in decarbonizing the manufacturing sector. NYSERDA, he said, is a wonderful resource which other states do not have. Wolken stated that we should focus on the process of decarbonization instead of just the technology involved. He later said that we need to tap into our education system to prepare people to work with new green technologies, and mentioned the challenge of installing infrastructure.

John Williams is the Vice President for Policy and Regulatory Affairs at NYSERDA. Williams said that because the manufacturing sector is so varied, developing clean technology for the sector will be a challenge. He also stressed the need for advancements at the national and international level. He added that we need to be thinking about the entire timescale between now and 2050, but that between 2020 and 2030, manufacturers should focus on energy efficiency. Between 2030 and 2050, we need advanced technology options (such as carbon capture) to come into play, says Williams. He also mentioned that there will be emergent technologies and alternative sources of energy which can be used to help decarbonize the manufacturing sector in the future.

According to Williams, we can prevent “leakage,” or companies leaving NY State, by focusing on near-term decarbonization solutions, such as energy-efficiency. He also mentioned NYSERDA’s TechFlex program, an audit that attempts to identify potential opportunities for energy efficiency in a facility. The goal of the program is to help companies make advantageous decisions in the short and long term future. He also said that New York is investigating how it can work with other states to develop a low-carbon product environment. The state is also planning on tracking the carbon footprint of its own procurements. NYSERDA has recently completed a study on what the power grid can look like to meet the 70% renewable electricity goal. Williams says that the goal is to decarbonize facilities in low-income communities without those communities losing jobs. Part of this work will be creating career pathways which allow individuals to take part in apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs. While NYSERDA focuses on energy, Williams stressed that New York should also look far beyond that.

An audience Q&A session followed the forum. Dr. Friedmann started by mentioning that the reliability of the grid is being called into question with the retirement of nuclear and peaker plants. He also mentioned that while the price of renewables is decreasing, power prices are on the rise. Williams said that we need to make sure we heed the environmental outcomes we know are necessary. He added that we need to be managing costs to ratepayers while we are looking for economies of scale. Wolken said that there is no “silver bullet,” but that the goal is to pilot technology before scaling it to reduce costs. The approach should be a combination of public, private, and nonprofit.

In closing, Briccetti said that we need to value the contributions made by manufacturers, leverage the education and energy assets we have, and rethink policies which add costs to electricity unrelated to reliability. Matt said that over the last 15 months, US citizens have understood the importance of manufacturing. He said that if we transition the right way, we will become a magnet which benefits manufacturers and functions as a showcase for the rest of the world. Luke said he was encouraged by the discussion and talked about the need to stay focused on the right balance between a decarbonized and competitive future.

On April 21, together with Citizens Campaign for the Environment, we held an event on Advancing Wind and Protecting Wildlife. The event focused on how offshore wind energy projects can be built without causing any adverse effects on the neighboring wildlife. It was held in response to frequently asked questions from the public and featured several expert speakers. View the slideshows here and here.

Adrienne Esposito, the Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, kicked off the session by saying that she thinks wildlife is critical when talking about offshore wind. NYLCV President Julie Tighe then spoke to the state’s commitment to bring 9 gigawatts of offshore wind energy to shore by 2035. Ongoing and planned projects include the Southfork Wind Farm (132 megawatts), Sunrise Wind Farm (880 MW), Empire Wind 1 (816 MW), Empire Wind 2 (1260 MW), and Beacon Wind (1230 MW). At the federal level, President Biden released a comprehensive plan to jumpstart offshore wind, including a nationwide goal of 30 gigawatts by 2030, creating 80,000 jobs. Tighe added that we want to make sure we are getting these wind projects done in a way that does not negatively impact wildlife.

Howard Rosenbaum is the Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Ocean Giants Program. At the event, he talked about the prevalence of the different species of whales present in the State’s waters, including Humpback, Fin, Blue, Sei, and Minke Whales. Of particular note is the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. He also mentioned that there are large concentrations of acoustically-sensitive small cetaceans such as beaked whales. He then talked about the threat of ocean noise pollution to whale species that rely on sound. According to Rosenbaum, elevated noise levels can negatively impact whales by leading to behavioral disturbance, masking vital communication, and even causing physiological damage. As a result, it is important to consider the cumulative impacts of the noise before installing any offshore wind projects. Rosenbaum then played a video showing whales in the city and illustrating how genetic information is collected from them. Whales, he said, migrate through New York waters during the spring and fall. He then gave an example of how we can protect whales: there were recently real-time acoustic detections of the North Atlantic Right Whale in the New York Bight. This triggered a “Right Whale Slow Zone” Southeast of the New York City area to protect those whales.

Drew Carey, CEO of INSPIRE Environmental, is a marine scientist with over 30 years of experience in the assessment of the seafloor. He talked about his experience from working with the Block Island Wind Farm, a Rhode Island offshore wind project. His presentation focused on the effects of offshore wind projects on local fish populations. He began by talking about a phenomenon known as the artificial reef effect. An introduction of a hard surface on the ocean floor allows the growth of organisms, almost immediately attracting fish seeking food and refuge to the structure. This creates a small “island of biodiversity.” Carey then talked specifically about several studies conducted at the Block Island Wind Farm. Overall, the studies found that artificial reef effects are local and may take 10 years to fully develop. Additionally, there was no significant change in fish populations between the turbine and no turbine periods, while changes in abundance across the survey areas were consistent with regional trends. The first study he mentioned was a Demersal Trawl Survey, conducted on a commercial trawler using ordinary fishing gear and calibrated to be consistent with other studies in the area. Samples were collected every month for seven years (two years before construction, two during construction, and three after construction). In total, 750,000 fish and invertebrates were collected. The findings showed a temporal change consistent with the region in populations of Northern Sea Robin and Atlantic Herring. However, Black Sea Bass were attracted to the structure and their population increased enormously. Additionally, the population of Blue Mussels increased because of the introduction of an intertidal region. As a result, blue mussels became included in fish diets. The Atlantic Cod population also exhibited a large increase. A Lobster Trap Survey was also conducted over the same time period, but only during the months of May through October each year. Over seven years, 12,037 traps were sampled with 44,932 lobsters collected. The lobster population increased during construction and then declined afterward. Other main takeaways were that study designs should balance the interests of scientists and the fishing community and that they should be site-specific. Additionally, it is important to know what is and what is not an ecologically meaningful difference. Regional data is necessary to properly interpret site-specific data, and regional funding and cooperation would help leverage efforts.

Catherine Bowes, Program Director of Offshore Wind Energy at the National Wildlife Federation, gave a presentation focused on the policy aspects of protecting wildlife while advancing offshore wind. She started her presentation by mentioning how on March 21, the US Secretaries of the Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Transportation announced a sweeping national commitment to offshore wind power which includes achieving a 30-gigawatt national goal by 2030 while protecting biodiversity. The commitment also includes federal funding for port infrastructure, loan guarantees, and research, as well as a plan to advance the stalled offshore wind leasing and permitting process in the Atlantic. For any offshore wind project, the plan should be guided by the best available scientific data, expert and stakeholder engagement, current ocean planning efforts, and comprehensive monitoring. Environmental protection must be in place at all stages of development: during siting (avoid locating projects in sensitive, critical wildlife habitat areas), construction (adjust timing and method of survey and construction activities to protect wildlife), operations and maintenance (employ proven wildlife impact reduction strategies), and decommissioning (make sure infrastructure is removed correctly). Bowes emphasized how it is everybody’s job to make sure offshore wind projects are done responsibly. The federal government should conduct science-based reviews of all leasing and project permitting decisions, state governments should offer a procurement process that requires or incentivizes responsible development, and industry should commit to responsible development practices. Additionally, federal governments, state governments, and industry should provide ongoing, robust stakeholder outreach and engagement, and advance research, while NGOs and other stakeholders should engage early and often. Bowes also said that there are signs of hope: new federal leadership, state leadership, collaboration, industry leadership (Right Whale agreements, not building turbines within 15 miles of the New Jersey shore), and unity (an April statement being signed by over 100 leaders).

The event concluded with a question-and-answer session. In response to a question about why we should pursue offshore wind projects if there are whales in New York, Julie Tighe explained that whales can co-exist with wind turbines and that offshore wind is one of our few options for clean energy. Rosenbaum added that we have to put the best practices in place and use the best available science to protect these animals while we still have them, while Esposito said that we will be using floating turbines, especially in deep water areas. In response to a question about whether complex bases for wind turbines would act better as artificial reefs, Drew said that the Block Island Wind Farm is doing a study with the Nature Conservancy considering how to improve the nature of the base of turbines. Responding to an inquiry about whether benefits extended across socio-economic divides, Bowes said that it is a really important question that a lot of people are thinking about, and Rosenbaum said that they will make sure that job and engagement opportunities for various socio-economic backgrounds are available.

On January 14, together with Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, we held an event focused on implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act as it pertains to New York’s natural resources. We convened two panels of experts to discuss how protecting nature can help with climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as the various techniques farms can employ to fight climate change. A recording of the event can be watched here. 

During the forum, the audience had an opportunity to ask questions, although we weren’t able to answer all of them during our Q&A session. Event panelists Samantha Levy, New York Policy Manager for the American Farmland Trust; Jenifer Wightman, a research specialist at the Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; and John Macauley of Macauley Farms in Livingston County, NY have responded to some unanswered questions from the forum.

Lynda asked: “Do we have simultaneous data re biodiversity value alongside carbon?”

Jenifer responded that “One very direct way of looking at biodiversity is preventing lands from being developed. This reduces road development and travel, it maintains corridors for wildlife, and increases diversity. Yes, we should always be looking at biodiversity, but the issue of climate is so large, that it will radically change the landscape (and its inhabitants). So it is a yes/and agenda – in general we need more funding for research to ensure multiple ecosystem services are maintained and/or improved, carbon and diversity being but 2.”

Sheree asked: How does payment to landowners for carbon sequestration tie into the market?

Samantha responded that “Currently all we have are voluntary markets, so any widespread public payments would be additive and likely help to unlock potential.”

Sheree also said: “Can the small role of Carbon sequestration in agriculture be reconsidered? Regenerative Ag has the potential to sequester huge amounts of CO2. It also reduces the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. And can increase the amount of local meat and dairy, reducing transportation and GHG emissions from nonlocal meat and dairy, and potentially eliminate CFOs.”

Samantha replied: “Agreed, and we are working hard to ensure this is considered in the state's climate plan through the panels and working groups”

Ellen asked: “How do you balance/evaluate a proposed solar array that would be located in forest and require cutting down trees.” (sic)

Jenifer responded: “In principle, we want to keep forest as forest to maintain and improve their carbon pool (and for some land owners, product) capacity. Therefore, we should look to site solar on idle or underutilized lands and we should consider improving the grid to connect these idle (unforested) lands to grid. In general, we should aspire to keep forest as forest, ag as ag, and activate underutilized lands for solar. We estimate ~1.7 million acres of idle land in NYS.”

Bill asked: “If I owned a failing agricultural operation in the Hudson Valley, would the GHG value be greater if I reforested it or if I built a solar farm?”

Jenifer replied: “Great question. First, why is the ag operation failing? What does this mean about your underlying soils/topography or types of crops/animals or business model? How much area is it? Are you looking to find a profitable alternative? Or are you looking at maximizing GHG mitigation? Are you close to 3-phase power lines (necessary for solar, can be expensive to connect if not nearby)? What kind of trees would you like to grow (for bioenergy or long lived wood products)? Do you have lots of deer (afforestation can be difficult to get started and it will take decades to see the result – which is part of why it is such a great endeavor for climate, but difficult financially in the near term with current policies – which may change quickly to support afforestation but that is not yet clear)? Both solar and afforestation take effort and I would start by trying to keep the ag-land as ag land, and then start accumulating details about whether or not solar or woodlands are well suited. Every location has unique characteristics – but agriculture, solar and forest are all fantastic land uses. Just don’t forget how much time it took your forefathers to remove tree stumps from that ag soil before you start planting more! That is an embodied gift of ag land (rock and root clearing – don’t underestimate its value!).”

Kyle asked a series of questions about solar and agriculture, which were answered by Samantha:

“Can you comment on agri-voltaics?”

“This is a newer, yet interesting approach that the current renewable market in NY doesn't support the growth of. We need research in NYS and proof of concept, and then perhaps we might be able to better incentivize agri-voltaics more diverse than just sheep grazing or pollinators habitat.”

“Can you comment on the use of regenerative solar and any benifits on agriculture?”

“I'm not sure what regenerative solar is”

“Do you have any comments on the use of renewables in New York to offset GHG emissions? In particular, utility scale solar projects on areas that are already open fields/deforested?”

“Renewables are not exactly being used to offset emissions, but rather to reduce GHG emissions out of the gate. Developers need to site these projects near transmission, and so that and willing landowners are main drivers for siting decisions, not the value of the land they are placed on. We would like to see the value of the land considered more readily in siting decisions so that in our quest for energy security, we do not let market forces compromise our food security or farm viability”

“Could you please comment on the conflict between utility scale solar facilities and agricultural land with the environment? What are some major issues and what can be done to allow the deployment of solar in a sustainable manner with respect to farming?”

“The answer is smart solar siting. I recommend referring to a blog I wrote last year for more information: https://farmland.org/working-together-to-address-climate-change-while-keeping-land-in-farming/”

Caroline asked: “What will the Best Farmlands map look like in 2050 assuming not catastrophic warming, but not really meeting the stated goals....??”

Samantha answered: “AFT's next iteration of the Farms Under Threat report will seek to answer these questions. Look out for it!”

Caroline added: “That is, will there be any increase in very farmable land in the northern part of the state, esp the northeastern part of the state, where we could a little more easily start some of these best practices, conservation easements, and so on?”

Samantha replied: “In theory yes, but the impacts of climate change on soils are complex. This may be a better question for researchers at Cornell, or refer to the state's Clime-Aid (not spelled right) report”

Bernie asked: “I am wondering whether, in general, farmer are open to adopting no-till farming or do they need persuasion. For example, are John Macauley's neighbor farmers doing no-till?”

John responded: “In general farmer are always looking to save time and money, but as of adopting no-till some struggle to fully adopt the practice. With no-till you have to think more than just going out and doning conventional. For example what to do with weeds, conventional farmer would just go out and do tillage to fix the problem and chemical termination, but a no-till/ cover crop farmer would say what can I grow for a cover crop suppress the weeds and grow plants that either winter kill or one thats grow in spring that need crimping or chemical termination.”

Bernie also said: “Maybe John can opine on whether no-till farming is more profitable?”

John replied: “No-till farming is still profitable and for me is more profitable than conventional farming we were doing before.”

Mary asked: “A question for John Macauley -- thanks for a great presentation. I remain unclear about whether increased pesticide/herbicide use is needed with no-till. I have heard both yes and no. Can you talk about that?”

John responded: “When it comes to more herbicide use, we are using the same abount as i would if I was conventionaling tilling. With the use of cover crops our herbicide use has been a little reduced in those fields. As for pesticide I look and think before appling, I dont like to handle them if I dont need to. I also look to see if ther is truly a need, past the thresholds level, is there beneficials inscect that are moving in that are taking on the pests (pesticides terminate benificials along with pests), and are the in just part of the field than I will just spray that part.”

Samantha added: “The programs John described are great Federal programs. The state also has a number of programs funded in the Environmental Protection Fund, such as the Agricultural non-point source pollution and abatement program and the Climate resilient farming grants program that assist farmers in adopting soil health practices”

Sheree asked: “How do the ag folks see grazing as part of carbon sequestration, and conversion of confined feeding operations as central to CH4 and nitrous oxide emissions,”

Jenifer replied: “I like to think of cows as a kind of food battery. They eat stored winter cellulose (with the help of their microbe collaborators in their gut) to provide milk and meat during or dormant growing season (winter). We can’t eat cellulose – so that symbiotic duo of cow and microbe – makes a valuable transformation of stored cellulose of hay/grains into delicious edibles. However, the composition of food and microbes in the gut is what makes that transformation more or less efficient. If it is less efficient, the system makes more enteric methane and less milk. If the system is more efficient, it produces more milk and less methane. In general, the US dairy and beef industry is quite efficient compared to rural grazing in developing countries where there isn’t supplemental feed to make the ideal gut composition. To be honest, I’m not convinced grazing is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than confined feeding operations where the diet is very closely monitored to maximize feedstuff. In general however, to answer your question most directly, given the potency of methane (in NYS its Global Warming Potential GWP, is 84x more potent than CO2), it is quite difficult to sequester carbon at a rate equivalent to the methane emitted from the cows gut. Additionally, soil and crop carbon is short-lived and fast cycling (compared to long-term carbon sequestered in a 100-yr tree that then builds a 100-yr house), in part bc that soil/crop carbon is like a checking account running the whole biological cycle. That is, existing grasslands are probably at a steady state of carbon (so unlikely any new sequestration there). Therefore, if I were a grazing farm, I would look to giving my herd daily well-designed supplemental rations to minimize the methane and maximize productivity.”

On Friday, February 26th, we hosted a webinar on extended producer responsibility (EPR). The forum focused on how extended producer responsibility legislation for packaging can help us achieve our waste reduction goals. The webinar featured presentations by several experts in waste and policy, followed by a Q&A session.

A recording of the forum can be accessed here.

NYLCV President Julie Tighe kicked off the webinar and made clear that although waste is often overlooked, it is New York’s fourth largest contributor to climate change. Annually, the state landfills six million tons of waste, while shipping another six million tons off to other states. She added that foreign countries are accepting less and less of our waste for recycling, while municipalities are cutting their recycling programs. However, Tighe said, it does not have to be this way, as we can pass legislation to ease the recycling burden on municipalities while encouraging manufacturers to adopt more sustainable practices.

The session then featured State Senator Todd Kaminsky, Chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee and sponsor of the Extended Producer Responsibility bill. Kaminsky started by saying that EPR is used throughout the world, and pointed out some problems with the current system. He said that many items we place in recycling bins end up in landfills, while municipalities struggle to gather the funds necessary for recycling and upgrading outdated systems. Kaminsky then talked about how EPR legislation can help remedy the situation. Under EPR, producers would have to fund the recycling of their paper goods and packaging. The amount of money charged to the producer would depend on the quantity and sustainability of their products. These funds would go to municipalities, who could use them to fund and improve their recycling systems. Thus, the creation of a circular economy and an explosion of green jobs.

The first presentation was by Scott Cassel, who has been a key leader in the US product stewardship movement for the past twenty years. He is the founder and CEO of the Product Stewardship Institute. In 2019, the institute facilitated the development of a packaging EPR framework for the state, which formed the basis of Senator Kaminsky’s bill. Cassel began by explaining how our recycling system currently works. He said that the system is currently fragmented, with consumers paying producers for the product, and taxpayers paying the municipality, who in turn pays for the recycling. Under EPR legislation, the consumer pays the producer, who in turn pays municipalities and/or recyclers for recycling. EPR extends the responsibility of the producer past product design into end-of-life product management. The benefits of EPR include reduced taxpayer and ratepayer burden, increased recycling statewide, the creation of a network of accountability, and promoting sustainable product design. It also increases the likelihood that the things we place in the recycling bin end up actually being recycled instead of in a landfill.

Cassel said that although there are no EPR laws in place for packaging yet, there are 119 EPR laws and 10 state bottle bills across the country that have been passed. New York currently has EPR laws for paint, batteries, thermostats, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. New York is among nearly a dozen states introducing EPR laws for packaging and paper products. Packaging EPR laws have spread across the world, and have been in place across Europe for decades. The programs in British Columbia and Belgium have been especially successful. Cassel also mentioned the benefits we have observed nationwide from paint collection, including the recycling of 38 million gallons of paint, the creation of over 200 jobs, and savings of $200 million by taxpayers and local governments.

Adrienne Esposito is the co-founder and Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment. She has served on numerous boards and advisory committees across the local, state, and federal levels, and is widely considered an expert on environmental issues. She emphasized how we have a solid waste management crisis and talked about where our garbage actually ends up. She presented Long Island as an example, where most waste goes to either incinerators on the island and a landfill in Brookhaven, or to upstate and out-of-state landfills. The Brookhaven landfill will close in 2024, while the upstate and out-of-state landfills are quickly filling up. We do not have a plan for where to put waste when these landfills fill up. She said that the most effective option is to reduce our waste in the first place. She also said that there are a multitude of environmental benefits from EPR legislation, including the reduction of trucking, greenhouse gases, and space used in landfills.

Andrew Radin is Director of Recycling and Waste Reduction for the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency, and has thirty years of experience in recycling and solid waste. He is also the Chair of the New York Product Stewardship Council. He began his presentation by talking about the aforementioned EPR legislation already implemented in the state. He spoke about the impact of these EPR bills, including the collection of 600 million pounds of e-waste since 2011, and New York City observing a 60% reduction in e-waste. He talked about the current challenges our country faces in recycling, including depressed markets, low material recovery rates, confusion among residents, and outdated technology. Statewide, 1.5 million tons are recycled annually, but at an $80 million cost. Additionally, 860,000 tons of recyclables end up in the trash annually. Inadequate funding has prevented municipalities from stepping up public education efforts and modernizing their recycling technology. The goal of EPR legislation is to both modernize the material recovery system and place the costs on the manufacturers who benefit from selling products. EPR legislation will lead to increased material recovery rates, green sector jobs, and infrastructure investment, while decreasing packaging waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs for municipalities.

Tom Outerbridge has worked in recycling and composting since the 1980s. He has worked as General Manager for SIMS, which processes all curbside recycling collected by the DSNY, for the last 18 years. Additionally, he is on the New York Produce Stewardship Council. He emphasized the importance of EPR legislation, which has the potential to address over 40% of the residential waste stream. He also said that EPR laws in Canada are flexible and can be adjusted. He also mentioned how we have developed innovative ways to reduce waste, such as using ground up glass in cement. Outerbridge said that EPR can help with the recycling of polypropylene, which is currently expensive and fragmented. He also talked about how the paper recycling markets have collapsed, to the point where processors are charging municipalities for the paper waste they traditionally paid for. He then talked about how EPR is encouraging producers to develop more sustainable products, bringing up a French law requiring producers who use nonrecyclable plastic to pay more.

The presentations were followed by a Q&A session. During the session, Cassel said that EPR legislation will reduce the cost of recycling for tax- and ratepayers, as well as increasing the prevalence of sustainable packaging. He also said that municipalities will spend a set amount on recycling, rather than being uncertain of how much they need to allocate. Outerbridge said that the EPR bill will not change what consumers have to do for recycling, who can still use curbside collection. Esposito added that the current numbers system for plastics is not ideal. Cassel said that fees under the EPR will be based on the weight and the type of packaging material, which will encourage companies to use less and sustainable packaging. He said that reuse and source reduction are most important, but also mentioned that “pay as you throw” consumer responsibility legislation can be passed in conjunction with EPR bills.

Esposito said that producers will always put up a fight against producer responsibility legislation, but ultimately go along with, and sometimes benefit from, the new policies. Outerbridge added that packaging decisions are made from both cost and marketing standpoints. Cassel added that it is unfair to companies which use sustainable packaging to make them pay the same as every other company. He also said that producers know that EPR laws are coming, but have only wanted to engage recently due to political pressure. Esposito said that EPR benefits the climate through decreasing the amount of waste transported and the amount of fuel used. Outerbridge added that we can calculate the energy and water savings from recycled materials. Radin said that the EPA estimates that for every ton recycled, there is a 2.4 metric ton reduction in CO2 emissions. He said that this can become a 1 to 2 million metric ton reduction through the EPR bill’s public education efforts. Cassel stressed that the EPR is a key climate change strategy, saying that 29% of greenhouse gas emissions come from product manufacturing. If we recycle, we do not need to use the energy needed to mine as many materials. Kaminsky said that the newspaper industry is heavily opposing the bill, but said that the EPR bill has the most co-sponsors of any bill he has ever had except for the CLCPA. Kaminsky added that he is very optimistic of the bill’s passage if people work to increase public support for it. According to Radin, there are over 60,000 tons of newspapers and 40,000 tons of magazines recycled by municipalities annually, and the costs associated with the recycling process as it is now are not sustainable. Kaminsky added that the challenges in passing the bill are associated with its technical nature and the fact that most people do not think about recycling.