Environmental justice must be a factor in state emissions program

The climate crisis is growing in intensity, threatening our communities and is affecting the lives of all New Yorkers. Just this summer New Yorkers have been confronted with new, more deadly and debilitating climate emergencies, from the severe flooding in the Hudson Valley to the thick, choking wildfire smoke from Canada causing an increase in respiratory issues and asthma-related ER visits, disproportionately in low-income, predominantly Black and Hispanic communities.

In the coming months, Gov. Hochul will roll out her administration’s proposal for a “cap-trade-and-invest” (CT&I) program, an economy-wide, sector-based program intended to help New York lower its emissions and meet the targets in New York’s ambitious climate law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). This new program would set an annual limit, or a cap, on New York’s greenhouse gas emissions and create permits that businesses could purchase, allowing them to pay to emit an amount of emissions up to the cap.

We urge the Hochul administration to adopt guardrails to minimize costs, maximize benefits, encourage early action, undo legacy pollution, and protect frontline communities disproportionately impacted by climate injustice from increased emissions and pollution hotspots.

It is crucial that state regulators build a just system prioritizing low-income communities and communities of color over polluters. Any program must comply with the CLCPA’s mandate to prioritize the reduction of emissions and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities. We can’t let CT&I be a distraction from direct emission reductions and climate investments, such as ending our reliance on fossil fuels and decarbonizing our homes and buildings. Cap-and-trade systems do not guarantee emissions reduction, and CT&I alone will not undo the legacy air pollution that has sickened environmental justice communities across the state.

Much to the alarm of environmental justice advocates, the Hochul administration has proposed using a form of emissions trading. The ability to trade means that polluters that do not use all their emissions allowances under their cap can sell the remainder to other polluters who want to emit more than their cap. Done wrong, New York’s cap program could risk making mistakes similar to those California made with its version of the program, where emissions have actually increased in certain sectors.

Recent research on cap-and-trade programs shows a general pattern in which low-income communities and communities of color received improvements and emissions reductions at a lower and slower rate for all pollutants when compared to wealthier, white communities. To avoid this outcome in New York, it’s imperative that a just cap-and-invest program refrain from the use of trading, offsets, and unlimited banking, which are key components of the California program.

“Cap and invest” regulations must prohibit allowance trading that could potentially exacerbate pollution in already overburdened communities and impose facility-specific and sector-based caps. Specific caps can be designated for facilities or sectors to ensure the state meets its CLCPA targets. For example, each power plant could have a cap on how much it can emit, with the cap amount decreasing to zero over time to meet the zero-emissions by 2040 mandate for the power sector. These specific caps would help prevent the inequitable distribution of air quality benefits from emissions reductions and ensure all facilities in disadvantaged communities decrease emissions as fast as the statewide average amount.

Done right, an emissions cap program would make corporate polluters pay for their toxic pollution, raising billions of dollars to create good, green union jobs, and directing money to Black, Brown, Indigenous, and working-class communities. The program could also lower energy costs across the board for all New Yorkers. Reducing emissions and subsequent pollution would lower rates of asthma, heart disease, and stroke and increase New Yorkers’ life expectancy. This means New Yorkers could lead longer, healthier lives with lower prescription drug costs and medical bills.

A CT&I program alone will not position New York to meet its CLCPA targets and, if done in isolation without guardrails, could deepen the impacts of environmental racism. It’s incumbent on the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to listen to the voices of all New Yorkers in order to equitably design and implement New York’s ambitious climate legislation.

A program that includes trading, but doesn’t prioritize the health and well being of those who have faced the brunt of the climate crisis, isn’t the kind of program New York needs or deserves. We call on decision makers in Albany to ensure that in implementing New York’s landmark climate law, they center environmental justice and equity at every stage of the planning process.

González-Rojas represents parts of Queens in the state Assembly. Ko is the deputy director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance, where Perez is a policy organizer.