[ad_1]
New York State has finalized the list of so-called “disadvantaged communities” to be targeted for extra funding and cleanup in the state’s ambitious multibillion-dollar climate plan.
The 1,736 census tracts identified by the state Climate Justice Working Group – a little over a third of all in the state – include swaths of New York City’s coastline, central Brooklyn, and large portions of northern Manhattan and the Bronx. The working group approved the designations in a vote Monday.
The chosen communities must be first in line for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and resulting hazardous pollutants, and receive at least 35% of state spending on clean-energy and energy-efficiency programs – under the state’s sweeping Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act passed in 2019.
The law’s ambitious emissions reductions goals – of creating a carbon-neutral economy by 2050 – will cost some $300 billion over the many decades, according to estimates by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority provided to THE CITY.
The years-in-the-making decision marks the state’s answer in the thorny national debate over how to define the neediest communities where government resources on fighting climate change should be targeted. It follows California’s so-called CalEnviroScreen and the federal Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool under President Biden’s Justice40 initiative.
“I know that this process wasn’t always easy, but we really have completed an extremely important step,” said Alanah Keddell-Tuckey, director of the Office of Environmental Justice at the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and chair of the working group.
“We now have a tangible way to address climate injustices of the past,” added Elizabeth Furth, an Empire State Fellow with the state Department of Labor.
The working group based the final definition on 45 different environmental and socioeconomic data points, like poverty rates, asthma emergency room visits, and projected flooding rates. Unlike the federal criteria for disadvantaged communities, New York’s also takes into account racial demographics, like the percent of Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American residents.
The group also created a separate, broader criteria specifically for state funding for energy programs. For that section of the climate law, the group also included low-income households making at or below 60% of the state’s median income, or those otherwise eligible for certain public benefits like food stamps.
A list and map of the final 1,736 census tracts is available on the state’s website for the state climate act, abbreviated as the CLCPA.
In a tweet posted Monday afternoon, New York Communities for Change criticized the plan, linking to their prior comments on the draft definition stating it favored white and rural or suburban communities over predominantly Black and Latino urban communities.
“It discriminates against low-income Black [and] brown communities,” the group wrote. “It’s outrageous.”
The CLCPA requires the working group to meet annually to review and potentially modify the criteria based on new data and scientific findings. In the voting process, several members acknowledged the necessity of such updates, and acknowledged the difficulties caused by lack of available data.
“I think that it’s important for all of us to remember that there was always gonna be a level of imprecision built into this,” said Eddie Bautista, executive director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance. “Not the least of which is if we don’t have all the data points that we need to capture all the vulnerabilities, by definition, it’s gonna mean that the reach will be imprecise.”
The CLCPA specifies that at least 35% – and a goal of 40% – of “overall benefits” from clean energy and energy efficiency programs must be directed toward disadvantaged communities.
That means funding for “place-based programs, or those where benefits are realized locally,” according to Haley Viccaro, a DEC spokesperson, though state agencies are still determining what constitutes those “local benefits.”
[ad_2]
Source link
