{"id":338586,"date":"2024-08-06T07:52:32","date_gmt":"2024-08-06T05:52:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=338586"},"modified":"2024-08-06T07:52:34","modified_gmt":"2024-08-06T05:52:34","slug":"weighing-n-y-s-climate-statute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=338586","title":{"rendered":"Weighing N.Y.’s Climate Statute"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The headline of this post is the same headline as appears in today\u2019s New York Daily News as a big banner spanning pages 26 and 27 of the print edition, which are the main op-ed pages. Those two pages then contain two op-eds taking opposite positions on the future of New York\u2019s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, which the Daily News refers to as the \u201cClimate Statute.\u201d The column on page 26 is by Emily Gallagher and Kim Fraczek, with the headline \u201cGetting to affordable, clean energy solutions.\u201d<\/a> On page 27 the headline is \u201cWe have to rethink the state\u2019s climate act\u201d<\/a>; the by-line is Jane Menton. Both pieces are behind the Daily News\u2019s paywall, although it appears that you can get through it by paying them $1 for an introductory subscription. In my case, when I found out that Jane\u2019s piece was running I went out and splurged $3.50 for the print version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparison of the two pieces will provide a look into the quality of the debate going on in New York over the supposed energy transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both op-eds start by noting the recent news in New York that State officials have publicly recognized that the upcoming 2030 deadlines set out in the Climate Act are not going to be met. The two articles then take opposite views as to what should happen next. As indicated by the headline, Jane\u2019s piece argues that \u201cwe have to rethink\u201d the Climate Act. The view of Gallagher and Fraczek is that we need to double down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll start by describing Jane\u2019s piece. The arguments in the piece will be familiar to regular readers here. But first I should mention that although Jane had the by-line she also had a notable contributor, Roger Caiazza, the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York<\/a>, who had written the first draft of the piece. Roger and I (along with Richard Ellenbogen) have recently collaborated on a Report on the unworkability of the Climate Act, described in my post here<\/a>, and we have also been working partly together and partly on our own, and partly with Jane, to get op-eds published discussing these ideas. Roger initially drafted and submitted a piece similar to this one as an op-ed to the Daily News, but at first they declined to run it on the ground that they had recently published another piece by Roger. Jane volunteered to revise and re-submit the piece, and Roger graciously agreed to forego any credit. (It\u2019s a good thing that I did not volunteer. So far I have a 100% rejection rate for various op-eds that I have submitted to our local papers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and New York Post.). So the piece ultimately ran as submitted by Jane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The basic point of the Jane\/Roger piece is that New York is not meeting the mandates of the Climate Act because providing the required electricity from renewable sources simply cannot be done. The piece cites three recent Reports from the Public Service Commission, from the New York Independent System Operator, and from the New York State Comptroller, all setting forth the insurmountable obstacles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n