[ad_1]
Gloria Boyce-Charles’ home in southeast Queens didn’t make the state’s newly released list of “disadvantaged communities,” which would make it first in line for money and attention as New York fights pollution and climate change in the next decades.
The resident of predominantly Black Springfield Gardens imagined her community would have a leg up, given its proximity to John F. Kennedy Airport, and exposure to all the noise and air pollution that goes with it – in a selection process that considers the toll of environmental racism on communities of color, which often bear the brunt of highways, congestion and pollution.
“People who don’t live here, who don’t know what life is like here, are pulling data from sources that aren’t reflective of your community, are making decisions about what you’re eligible for,” said Boyce-Charles, who testified to a state environmental working group last year about her concerns. “It doesn’t sit well.”
She added: “It’s not a project to the people here. It’s survival.”
Last week, a state working group finalized the list of “disadvantaged communities,” more than 1,700 census tracts comprising some 35% of the state, that will receive priority for pollution cleanup and funding for clean energy programs under the state’s sweeping Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act passed in 2019.
New York is among the earliest in a growing list of localities across the country – many spurred in part by President Joe Biden’s Justice40 initiative – aiming to identify and prioritize so-called marginalized or disadvantaged communities. The goal is to right historical wrongs, particularly in low-income communities of color, which for decades were the path of least resistance for new roads and freeways, industrial hubs and plants, creating enduring stressors on the people who live there, according to policy analysts and, increasingly, government decision makers.
But with billions at stake, defining the neediest communities has stirred a national debate – including in New York. The main concern among environmental justice advocates is that the formulas used to decide which communities get priority fail to capture on-the-ground realities. For example, the newly set list for New York includes wealthy waterfront communities, in part due to certain high environmental risks, while excluding some less wealthy neighborhoods where residents say they lack sufficient resources to fight high-polluting industries and ongoing flooding.
Even some members of the Climate Justice Working Group that finalized the list for New York – a contingent of state agency officials and environmentalists from across the state – acknowledge flaws in the final list. Recurring phrases in group meetings in the years-long process: “perfectly imperfect” and not wanting the “perfect to be the enemy of the good.”
“I think it’s not a perfect map. I think moments will come where it’ll make sense to make improvements as we get more information, as things change in our neighborhoods, ” said Sonal Jessel, a working group member and policy director at the Northern Manhattan-based WE ACT for Environmental Justice. She added: “But I think it’s a really great definition that we can have a lot of impact by using.”
Rahwa Ghirmatzion, another working group member and executive director of PUSH Buffalo, said if the decision of who to award funding was solely in the hands of the working group, they would’ve awarded it to the 60% of New Yorkers who experience some kind of energy burden.
“We wanted to capture the people that if there weren’t investments like these happening, are going to be left behind in the transition to an electric and renewable economy,” she said.
During the final vote on Monday, multiple members pointed to a lack of available and quality data, including about public health concerns like diabetes. The state law requiring the “disadvantaged communities” designations also requires the working group to meet annually to review and potentially modify the criteria used in forming those judgments based on new data and scientific findings.
Here’s more to know about what’s in store:
What’s at stake?
Under the state climate law, abbreviated as the CLCPA, so-called “disadvantaged communities” must receive priority in the state’s plan to transition to a carbon-neutral economy by 2050 – specifically for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and resulting hazardous pollutants.
Under the law, they must receive at least 35%, and a goal of 40%, of any state spending on clean energy and energy efficiency programs. (The CLCPA uses the word “benefits,” but members of the working group pushed for that to mean “investments,” including literal dollars. State agencies will also track other “co-benefits” from green energy programs besides money, which could include jobs created, home and transportation energy cost savings, and health impacts due to switching away from burning fossil fuels.)
Much of the funding is expected to come from the state’s ambitious multibillion-dollar climate plan, which could include more electric bus depots and geothermal heat pumps, among many possibilities outlined in the state’s scoping plan for how to meet their emissions targets.
But it also applies to existing state tax credits for electric cars and solar panels and applicable federal funding, including from the infrastructure bill and Inflation Reduction Act. State voters also agreed to borrow $4.2 billion for projects to improve land, air, and water quality under the state environmental bond act approved via ballot measure last year.
What else is to know about these “disadvantaged communities”?
They’re represented in 1,736 census tracts comprising 35% of the state – with a full list and maps on the website showcasing the state’s climate plan.
For funding requirements under the climate law, the deciding working 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 in an effort to be as inclusive as possible and incorporate needy residents regardless of where they live. Though the state hasn’t released final figures on how much of the state that would represent, the draft version included about half the state – a statistic that’s drawn criticism from New York Communities for Change. The group’s leaders say the definition would ironically dilute the required money for the selected communities, especially the neediest low-income Black and Latino residents.
The CLCPA requires the Climate Justice Working Group choose the list based on geographic, public health, environmental hazard, and socioeconomic criteria. The final list relies on a formula based on 45 different data points from poverty rates to asthma emergency department visits to projected flooding rates.
Is New York’s definition different from the federal government’s?
The federal government’s criteria uses 36 data points, some of which resemble New York’s, but further restrict the eligibility based on income. So the two maps don’t perfectly match, with some areas included in the federal government’s and not New York’s, and vice versa.
Among the most lauded data points in New York’s definition is the percent of Asian, Latino, Black, and Native American residents in a community. The prior federal and California tools ultimately didn’t include racial data in part due to possible legal challenges, though several experts point to race as the most powerful predictor of risk to environmental justice hazards.The New York analysis also takes into account historical redlining, and incorporates some local state data, which some experts argue may be more reliable than federal data..
What’s the public reaction been?
Abby Kleiman, the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest special program assistant who’s been following the process, applauded the working group’s decision as “a strong definition to start,” acknowledging the challenge of translating “a subjective label” to a “functional definition.” But she and NYLPI’s Director of Environmental Justice Anthony Rogers-Wright said the true test will be implementation.
“This is really just the end of the beginning,” said Rogers-Wright. “There’s a whole galaxy of stuff that we have to do to make sure that this is done equitably and that these neighborhoods actually get the justice they’ve been denied for decades.”
A major point of criticism has been the inclusion of several more affluent areas, like the luxury high-rise Hudson Yards and large swaths of the highline and gentrifying areas in Williamsburg and Greenpoint. Meanwhile, some environmental justice advocates criticize the exclusion of certain low-income communities of color facing ongoing environmental hazards.
The climate justice working group altered the formula from the draft version, leading to the inclusion of certain areas – like the block where an Indo-Trinidadian mother and her son died in a basement apartment in Hollis, Queens, due to flooding during Hurricane Ida.
However, southeast Queens residents and other advocates point to several census tracts in the area having been left off the final list. That includes neighborhoods like Boyce-Charles’ near the JFK airport, and those with persistent flooding – among them a census tract that scored “0” for inland flooding under the final formula, and where a Nepalese family of three died in another basement apartment during flooding caused by Hurricane Ida. Others not included face ongoing problems like illegal dumping, sewage backups, and structural fires.
When asked about concerns around the exclusion of certain areas, Department of Environmental Conservation leaders repeatedly pointed to the 35% funding threshold as a “floor,” rather than a “ceiling,” saying that the law wasn’t intended to exclude communities but rather ensure minimum benefits.
Were there other concerns about the process?
While state agencies exceeded CLCPA requirements for public engagement– holding five extra public hearings and extending the comment period by 30 days – some environmental advocates and residents say not enough was done to engage members of the public.
Natalie Bump Vena, an urban studies professor at Queens College who’s been following the process, said the technical details about the work needed to be more accessible to the public, and especially to those communities not represented in the working group.
“I am a professor and I have gone to graduate school, and this process has been difficult for me to navigate and to comment on,” she said. “So what is that like for people who are living in under-resourced communities, working multiple jobs, and don’t have the time to spend on trying to decipher what is really going on here?”
Ahead of the deadline for public comments, Vena, Boyce-Charles, and several other residents and CUNY professors submitted public testimony about areas left off the list in Southeast Queens — as did Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, who wrote, “The people closest to the pain should be closest to the power and the possibility that the Climate Act brings, but it is clear more work needs to be done to ensure that happens.”
The governor and legislature also still haven’t appointed members to an environmental justice advisory group, required under the CLCPA to be “in consultation with” the working group about the list.
Katy Zielinski, a spokesperson for Gov. Kathy Hochul, said the administration is working to finalize the appointees and plans to announce them in the “near future.”
[ad_2]
Source link
