[music]

Nancy Solomon: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Nancy Solomon from the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, and the host of the podcast Dead End, filling in for Brian today. When Cuomo was still in office, he had an environmental plan he called the Restore Mother Nature Bond Act, great title, right? Like so many things in early COVID, those plans for using $3 billion with a b in state bonds to invest in environmental infrastructure were shelved due to fiscal concerns. That idea was rebranded, revamped to allocate $4.2 billion and put on the ballot in New York State, and it passed.

On the West coast, Californians voted against Proposition 30, which would've taxed wealthier Californians in order to fund electric vehicle infrastructure and help fight wildfires. With me now is Blanca Begert, reporting fellow at Grist, a nonprofit independent media organization that focuses on climate solutions journalism. Blanca, welcome to WNYC.

Blanca Begert: [inaudible 00:01:31]

Nancy Solomon: We'll talk a little more about the two ballot initiatives in New York and California, and we can take listener calls too. First, in your recent article in Grist, you make the point that there were a lot of environmentally focused ballot initiatives in 2020 because it was a way to take things out of a stalled Congress's hands. Can you tell us more about that history and why was it so important to watch what's happening in New York and California, two powerhouse states?

Blanca Begert: Yes, in 2018 and in 2020, there were a lot more climate initiatives at state levels. I think both in 2018 and in 2020, there was one in Nevada to transition to clean energy, and there were several to regulate the oil and gas industry that failed against massive industry spending. This year, there were fewer. People from the League of Conservation Voters said one of the reasons that could be, is because these types of deals get worked out in the legislature and then don't have to get put on ballots. This year, there were two big ones in New York and in California. As you mentioned, the New York one passed and the California one didn't. Both would've marshaled billions of dollars for climate action in both states.

They were important to watch even for people who don't live in those states because these are big states with big populations and big economies, and have already set ambitious climate targets, and were with these measures, showing that wasn't enough. People were trying to do more and set a model for other parts of the country to follow.

Nancy Solomon: Yes, I've heard it said about California. I don't know that I've ever read anything about New York about this, but that the economy of California is so big that when the state regulates something, like mandates a particular emission standard, let's say, for cars, that the auto industry basically has to make cars that way for everybody. It really gives California voters a lot of power. We'll talk about exactly what that vote meant and where it went. First, let's go to New York, the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Clean Jobs Environmental Bond Act of 2022, which the majority of New York voters voted yes on. I believe the latest numbers are 68% yes. What exactly did New Yorkers just vote to fund?

Blanca Begert: Yes, New Yorkers just voted to allow the state controller to sell bonds up to $4.2 billion. That is to pay for major projects to protect and restore New York's natural resources, reduce water and air pollution, and strengthen the state's response to climate change. This Act will be able to fund a huge variety of different types of projects across the state. There's anything from climate change mitigation, like energy efficiency upgrades for buildings, and zero emission school buses, and renewable energy projects, to there's a big amount set aside for flood risk reduction, coastal rehabilitation, wetland restoration, and money for voluntary buyout programs for people in flood zones.

There's money set aside for water quality infrastructure, waste water treatment upgrades, stormwater management, and then also land conservation, farm preservation. It's a lot of different types of projects, and there was a big coalition behind getting this passed.

Nancy Solomon: Listeners, if you're in New York where the Environmental Bond Act passed, do you have questions now about what you actually voted for or what the funding will do for New York State and Californians? We know you're listening out there. What side were you on when it came to Prop 30? Did you vote for or against it and why? Are there any EV driving Californians listening? What do you think the state still needs to do to build out the electric vehicle infrastructure? Give us a call at 212-433-9692. That's 212-433-WNYC. Blanca, according to your reporting, there was no organized opposition to New York's Environmental Bond Act. Do you think that's because the interest of so many people living in the state was so broad, from farmers to people living in coastal areas and flood zones? Was there just so much support for it that there was no point in mounting an opposition or what was going on there?

Blanca Begert: Yes, I think that's definitely a big part of it. This is going to benefit hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers and there's projects right in people's backyard, and there was a study that came out showing that this could create 84,000 jobs across the state. There was quite a broad and diverse coalition. There was electrical workers unions, business groups behind this, environmental organizations, farmers, land trusts. Also, 35% of the funding from this Act will go to disadvantaged communities as defined by the state process.

Yes, there was just a huge variety of benefits and groups and people that would benefit from this. Then I think part of it also is that as compared to Prop 30 in California, where there was a large opposition of the wealthy individuals that would've been impacted by that tax, paying and funding a strong no campaign, in this case, the money was being raised through selling state bonds, which doesn't have the same targeted group of people that would be impacted by it. I think that's probably part of also why there wasn't an organized group of high income taxpayers getting together to fight this proposition.

Nancy Solomon: Yes, that's a really interesting distinction. Well, the New York State Conservative Party did oppose the measure. I assume that has to do with the price tag and how a bond then eventually trickles down to taxpayers. How does that work exactly? What is it going to cost your average person in New York State?

Blanca Begert: While there was no organized opposition, the New York State Conservative Party and certain fiscal conservatives in the state spoke out against it mainly on the point of not wanting the state to go into more debt. The governor's office has said repeatedly that the debt payments will come from the state's general fund and were legislated in the state's long-term financial plans in 2019. Taxpayers, again, according to the governor's office, shouldn't expect to see any increase in state taxes as a result of this bond Act.

Nancy Solomon: It's interesting that New York, it sounds to me from what you're saying, that New York had a successful strategy for getting this done. California's reliance on a tax increase on the wealthy might have doomed it. Let's address that, but let's back up for a moment. Tell us more about California's Proposition 30. 59.1% of voters voted against it on Tuesday. What would have happened? What was it about? What would it have done for California?

Blanca Begert: This one, similar to the Bond Act, but even more so, would have raised billions of dollars for climate action. The idea behind Prop 30 was it was a climate bill to tax people in California who make over $2 million an increase of 1.75% income tax. The money, which was estimated to be between 3 billion to 5 billion a year, or 3.5 billion to 5 billion a year, would have gone to 80% to fund electric vehicle subsidy programs and build charging stations, and then 20% to wildfire prevention.

Nancy Solomon: What was the opposition to it?

Blanca Begert: The biggest donors to the opposition to Prop 30 were wealthy individuals, billionaires, millionaires in the state, who contributed 30 million. I think the star of the opposition and the major opponent that really made an impact in the way that this measure was received was Governor Gavin Newsom, the state's Democratic governor who came out really hard against this measure. That was a surprise because the Bond Act had a huge coalition, hundreds of environmental and public health groups behind this as a way to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution.

Again, also labor groups, firefighters, Electric Workers Unions. It was endorsed almost unanimously by the California Democratic Party. Governor Gavin Newsom had reasons for coming out against this. A big target of his was the involvement of the rideshare company, Lyft, and also concerns about taxing, increasing income tax on the wealthy. He's a trusted voice on climate in the state and I think really was a decisive factor in why this bill failed.

Nancy Solomon: Let's go to the phones. We have a question for you from Chuck in Riverdale. Hi, Chuck.

Chuck: Hi, how are you doing? Thank you so much for having this conversation. I was so proud to vote on this measure. My question is, I don't understand why New York State cannot create partnerships with existing companies like Tesla who have tons of charging stations in the area. Then also, is it possible to bring back the rebate back into the office for customers like myself who want to buy electric car very soon of their $7,500? Third, since New York congesting pricing is coming to Manhattan, all that money being charged to cars below 96th Street, can that money go to electric charging stations, hence these tax rebates for [unintelligible 00:13:18] electric cars.

Nancy Solomon: Okay, three questions. Blanca?

Blanca Begert: I am really not sure that I'm the person to answer those questions. I think you were referring to the 7,500 incentives to buy electric vehicles that's coming from the Inflation Reduction Act. I think that's still in the works and rolling out, but in terms of your other questions, I think I'd have to do a little bit more research before I can give you a good answer on that.

Nancy Solomon: Sorry, Chuck, that we're not going to be able to answer those questions. We'll try with another caller. Joy from Avila Beach in California. Where is Avila Beach, Joy?

Joy: Actually it's Avila Beach, and it's in San Luis Obispo County, so halfway between San Francisco and LA on the coast.

Nancy Solomon: Lucky you. What's your question for us?

Joy: It's not a question. You were wondering what the Californians did about voting for it, Prop 30, and yes, I did vote for it, primarily because the more user-friendly you make electric vehicles, the more likely people are to take it up. Why not tax the wealthy to make it happen?

Nancy Solomon: You must be pretty disappointed that it didn't pass.

Joy: Yes, quite. [chuckles]

Nancy Solomon: Did you feel like it was a [crosstalk]

Joy: [unintelligible 00:15:00]

Nancy Solomon: Did you feel like it was a fair fight that there were actual policy decisions people were deciding on or was it more the power of wealthy interests who did not want to be taxed and were able to outspend?

Joy: The latter? Very much so, yes. The more money you throw at a proposition, I think the more likely it is to happen. Money talks, that's just the way it is.

Nancy Solomon: What were they advertising and saying that swayed voters so much?

Joy: Y'all have it very well covered. There's really not a whole lot I can add to it in that respect. Your guest has very well researched exactly the dynamic out here. When Gavin Newsom gets behind things, and don't even get me going on Gavin Newsom. I was born a Republican but when I grew up and came to my senses, I've been a Democrat ever since, but Gavin Newsom is not my favorite governor. When he got against it, then I'm basically speechless. Yes, you're right. I'm really disappointed it didn't pass.

Nancy Solomon: Thanks so much for calling in from California and sharing your views with us. We appreciate it. If you're just joining us, I'm Nancy Solomon from the WNYC newsroom, filling in for Brian today. My guest is Blanca Begert from Grist, a nonprofit independent media organization that focuses on climate solutions journalism. We're talking about two climate related ballot measures that New Yorkers and Californians voted on this week. In New York it passed, and as we've just been listening to, in California it did not.

Listeners, give us a call if you'd like to weigh in on this issue, 212-433-9692 or 212-433-WNYC. Blanca, while New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, was fully behind New York's Environmental Bond Act, and we were just hearing from Joy that Governor Gavin Newsom campaigned against Prop 30 saying that it was a cash grab from Lyft. Tell us a little bit more about that. What was Newsom saying and how was it that that swayed people in California?

Blanca Begert: Sure. Before answering that, I just want to say, the people I've been talking to as I follow up on this, are really emphasizing that this vote shouldn't necessarily be read as a rejection of climate action on behalf of California voters or even a rejection on progressive taxes on the wealthy. A lot of the argument that was being made by Newsom was around the involvement of Lyft. I think that was in the proposition's development and funding. I think that's the message that came across to a lot of voters. Lyft, yes, the rideshare company was very involved in funding the campaign for this proposition and came on later but was involved in part of drafting it as well.

Lyft stands to benefit because there's a law in California that by 2030, all rideshare companies have to log 90% of their miles in electric vehicles. Newsom was saying that this was a corporate tax grab because Lyft would be relying on taxpayer money to make this transition instead of paying for it itself. While there are reasons to be wary of corporations being involved in drafting legislation and we saw that last election cycle with another proposition that rideshare companies were very involved in in California, this wasn't exactly a carve out for Lyft.

The money wouldn't have gone to Lyft. It would have gone to the agencies that Newsom funds with his very own budget to subsidize and incentivize electric vehicles and build charging stations and fight wildfires. The incentives would have gone to Lyft drivers to transition to electric vehicles just like it would have gone to any California drivers. It's a lot easier to get a no vote on a new proposition than it is to get a yes. I think the governor and the no campaign was able to sow enough seeds of doubt around the involvement of Lyft to get the no vote on this one.

Nancy Solomon: Let's take another caller question. We have Michael, calling in from Staten Island. Michael, you're on the air.

Michael: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I'm calling just to comment on the New York Environmental Bond Act, which I voted in favor of. It's really important that we secure alternative sources of conservation funding because on Staten Island, I'm exposed to a lot of right-wing opinions, and there's a push on the right to repeal the Pittman-Robertson Act, which right now is a primary funding source for conservation using taxes from firearm sales.

Nancy Solomon: Interesting.

Michael: No, that's it. Oh, I guess I'm wondering if that were to go through, could New York's Act potentially be a model for other states to ensure conservation funding?

Blanca Begert: Sorry, I missed what you said. If the Bond Act goes through?

Michael: [crosstalk] The Bond Act secures funding for conservation projects, a variety of sources. Right now, one of the primary funding sources for all states is taxes on firearm sales at the federal level from the Pittman-Robertson Act. There's this push on the right wing to repeal or constitutionally challenge that tax because it's a tax on firearm sales. They say, "Oh, well, you can't tax an amendment guaranteed right," kind of thing. We may see that Act challenged in court or the tax repealed depending on the courts and the makeup of Congress. States having an alternative way to raise funds for those projects is very important looking at the future.

Blanca Begert: Yes. The Bond Act does have 650 million for recreation and land conservation. Also, in other parts of it, money for restoration, especially along coastlines and rivers and wetlands. I think an important thing too is that the passing of New York's Environmental Bond Act will be a way to leverage more money from matching funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, which also has funding set aside for this at the federal level for conservation. Then also, they're saying private investment as well. I think the expectation and the hope is that this will be a huge benefit in amount of money for conservation, dedicated, set aside for that, that can't be taken away and then also a way to leverage more.

Nancy Solomon: Thanks so much for your call, Michael. Blanca, what would you say lies ahead, bouncing back to California for the electric vehicle's infrastructure plans since Prop 30 didn't get approved?

Blanca Begert: That's the million-dollar question. There is money for electric vehicle transition in California. The state just passed a $54 billion climate initiative and 10 billion of that is going to electric vehicle transition over five years. There's also money coming for incentives through the Inflation Reduction Act and through the infrastructure bill for charging stations. This year, the state has a $100 billion budget surplus.

There is money and commitments, and also to ban the sale of all gas cars by 2035, but the transition to 100% electric vehicles is going to be hugely expensive. Anyone who's been following this in California also knows that charging infrastructure is a major need and limitation at the moment. There are studies saying that the money that we have for this now is just not enough. Currently, the money that's always put aside for EV incentive programs runs out. We know that we need more and that 10 billion in the climate initiative is a promise, it's not a law. I think the Prop 30 would've been a more certain source of funding.

The good news is that we do have a governor who's made successful commitments for moving in the right direction on transitioning transportation and a legislature with leaders who've put climate at the top of their lists. We're still seeing how that all will shake out in the elections, but hopefully, California's still able to move forward with its clinicals.

Nancy Solomon: In terms of New York's bond measure that did pass, often when we talk about investments in things to ameliorate climate change, we talk about the Green Economy, we talk about jobs, so it's not just addressing climate change, but also that these are economic propositions that are going to boost the economy, is the argument that's made. Any ideas on what this bond measure will do for New York's economy? Has there been an analysis on the amount of jobs that could be created out of this spending?

Blanca Begert: Yes, I think as I mentioned earlier in the interview, there was an analysis that showed 84,000 jobs could be created across New York. That's part of the reason why we saw so many unions backing this, including electrical workers unions that'll be involved in transitioning to renewable energies. Then in terms of the economy, I would also just say, this is an investment to avoid what would be potentially saving billions and billions of dollars in what would be the cost of not adapting and making plans to upgrade our infrastructure to be more climate resilient and also the cost of not taking steps to mitigate climate change.

Nancy Solomon: Before we go, do you want to tell listeners a little bit more about Grist and solutions journalism for those who aren't familiar with either?

Blanca Begert: Yes, sure. I'm writing for a great outlet called Grist, it's grist.org. We have tons of stories, and we have good coverage around California and New York, but also the whole country, the Midwest as well. We focus on stories of climate solutions and climate justice. Yes, I would definitely direct listeners to go check out some of the great reporting by the various reporters at Grist.

Nancy Solomon: Solutions journalism just refers to the idea of doing stories that are about what works as opposed to constantly breaking down what doesn't work. Correct?

Blanca Begert: It's not all gloom and doom. There are amazing people across the country doing great and inspiring things around climate change and climate justice, and we try to highlight those stories.

Nancy Solomon: Okay. I'm totally up for diminishing the gloom and doom. Thanks so much for talking with us. We've been talking to Blanca Begert, reporting fellow at Grist. Thanks for coming on the show.

Blanca Begert: Thank you so much for having me.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.