New York needs environmental bond law
When New Yorkers pass their ongoing early voting or vote on Election Day, they will be required to vote to authorize a new $4.2 billion environmental bond: the Clean Water, Clean Air and Green Jobs Environmental Bonds Act. (Remember to turn your ballot over, it’s on the back.) This is borrowing for capital projects to protect our homes and ecosystems in times of extreme weather and help reduce greenhouse gases.According to Jon Campbell Gothamiststhe bond will finance:
- “Climate Change Mitigation: Up to $1.5 billion, including at least $400 million for green building projects, $100 million for climate adaptation and mitigation projects, $200 million to clean air and water pollution in vulnerable communities, and $500 million to buy zero emissions school bus.
- Restoring and reducing flood risk: At least $1.1 billion, of which at least $100 million must go to “coastal restoration and shoreline restoration projects, as well as projects to address inland flooding.”
- Open Space Land Conservation and Recreation: Up to $650 million, of which at least $300 million goes to land conservation, $150 million to protect farmland, and up to $75 million to fish hatcheries.
- Water Quality Improvement and Disaster Prevention Infrastructure: At least $650 million, including at least $200 million for sewage infrastructure, $250 million for municipal stormwater improvements, and up to $200 million for various other water-related projects, such as replacing lead pipes. ”
New York State Conservative Party Chairman Gerard Kassar opposed the law, citing his aversion to debt and dislike of certain projects. The political reaction to the bond has ranged from apathy to ignorance, from moderate broad public support to warm cheers from the state’s environmental community. New Yorkers have a tradition of supporting environmental bonds.According to Michael Gormley news daily:
“According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government, voters have approved 10 environmental bond bills since the early 1900s. In total, previous bond bills have taken on nearly $5.7 billion, according to the Institute’s research. Obligations, approximately $30 billion is adjusted for 2020. The most recent environmental bond bill was approved in 1996. The administration at the time pushed for $1.75 billion in borrowing. Republican George Pataki… Eleven in the state in 1990, according to the Rockefeller Institute of Government Only one of the environmental bond bills was rejected by voters. The others passed by a comfortable margin.”
Environmental bonds are essentially a form of infrastructure borrowing; often the benefits of borrowing far outweigh the costs, so these bonds should really be considered an investment. For example, the bond will finance the purchase of electric school buses. These buses are expensive to purchase, but the cost of operating and maintaining them is much lower than the current buses with internal combustion engines. The money in the bond is nowhere near what is needed to electrify all of the state’s school buses, but will provide school districts with the equivalent of a pilot program to prepare for electrification. Flood protection measures will help prevent large-scale clean-up and rebuilding costs following extreme weather events.
The bond authorizes funding to decarbonize or improve energy efficiency in state-owned buildings, including SUNY and CUNY buildings, as well as public schools across the state. Likewise, the capital costs of these modernization projects will save on operating and maintenance costs for these buildings by reducing energy costs and replacing old heating and cooling systems with new ones. Most funded projects provide benefits that can easily be converted into monetary benefits. Some, like open space and farm conservation, cannot be justified by their short-term economic benefits or any monetary benefits.Teddy Roosevelt’s Wilderness Conservation in the Early 20th Centuryth The mid-20s of the century and Nelson Rockefellerth Centuries of protection in the Adirondacks have set aside land for future generations that would otherwise be lost to development.I’m not sure monetary value is the only thing we care about or should care.
in a conservative but nonpartisan blog Empire CenterJames E. Hanley noted that because of New York State’s growing debt, “fiscally conservative voters may wonder whether we can afford this new borrowing right now.” Although he questioned some provisions of the Bond Act, He also observed:
“Many of the projects required in the Clean Water, Clean Air and Green Jobs Environmental Bond Act are sound infrastructure investments. Investments in wetland and coastal restoration, stormwater control, flood protection and water quality may pay for themselves over time , thereby improving public health and reducing property damage. Some climate change mitigation funding will be incorporated into the state’s Clean Green Schools Initiative, Designed to improve air quality and energy use in public schools. Providing a healthy environment for school children is also a sensible use of taxpayer dollars and can pay off. In particular, improvements in air quality could lead to healthier students, allowing them to stay in school more and, for children with asthma, to stay away from emergency rooms. “
still, Hanley Still skeptical, noting:
“The value of other elements is less certain. Whether New York needs to spend more to protect more open space is not a question that can be definitively answered. As for the protection of agricultural land, if the land in question has a higher value use, then the ultimate cost of protecting it will outweigh its value. This is a policy based on the romance of family farms, not a clear analysis of the public interest.”
These are fair and reasonable comments, and Hanley also questions other provisions in bond law that make it less economical. I think it is difficult to predict the economic value of land conservation, even though we know that undeveloped land can provide ecological services that reduce flooding and absorb greenhouse gases. Furthermore, public policy and even public borrowing often have non-economic goals. The Bond Act seeks to directly benefit disadvantaged communities and requires the use of American-made goods. These are efforts to use environmental bonds to provide non-environmental benefits and may not directly benefit New York taxpayers. In my view, using one policy tool to achieve multiple policy objectives may not be excellent fiscal policy, but it is likely to be excellent public policy. In terms of the size of New York’s debt service, the amount borrowed is less important than the purpose for which it was borrowed. Since Reagan was president, our investment in infrastructure has diminished and public taxation and spending have become illegitimate. The result is that transportation and energy systems are in dire need of modernization, while water and waste treatment systems only operate in states like New York that are willing to spend money to improve it. While the Biden administration has successfully reversed this era of federal divestment, it is unclear whether the federal government can sustain the gains of the past two years.
That means New York may need to increase its infrastructure spending, and the Environmental Bonds Act is one of them. We are in the early stages of a generation transitioning to an environmentally sustainable economy. Achieving this transformation will require capital investment, technological innovation and ingenious creativity from both the public and private sectors. We need to take a long-term view and be patient—a rarity in our modern overheated policy dialogue. A mismanaged multi-billion dollar bond bill would be a folly that doesn’t help anyone. The only thing worse is leaving critical projects starved of the funding they need to achieve reality. I hope we will see a series of strategic and well-managed investments. The Environmental Bonds Act is a necessary step, but not enough.
