global warming

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares82 Views

    Climate Law Could Shape the Race for New York City’s Next Mayor

    by

    Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, has vowed to strictly enforce the measure, Local Law 97, which calls for potentially expensive upgrades to buildings to curb greenhouse emissions.Zohran Mamdani’s campaign for mayor has focused on the high cost of living in New York City and the lack of affordable housing.But Mr. Mamdani’s embrace of an ambitious climate law — called Local Law 97 — could have as much impact on the real estate sector as his better-known plan to freeze the rent on about a million apartments.Local Law 97, which was approved in 2019, calls for potentially expensive upgrades to the city’s largest buildings in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman, has said he intends to tighten enforcement of the measure. Some critics, however, warn that his approach would create a heavy financial burden on property owners.“Thousands of buildings are in trouble here, and Local Law 97 and rent freezes will be the end,” said Kenny Burgos, the chief executive of the New York Apartment Association, a landlord advocacy group.Mr. Mamdani, a democratic socialist who recently said that he didn’t believe there should be billionaires, has not been shy about asking the city’s affluent to subsidize his platform, which includes free buses and a $30 minimum wage. Mr. Mamdani has also called for freezing the rent on all rent-stabilized apartments, which has sent a chill through some corners of the real estate sector.He has promised to take the same approach in enforcing Local Law 97, saying in a mayoral forum earlier this year that he would back the measure by “taking on the real estate industry” in the pursuit of “climate justice.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Heat Wave Hits New York Earlier Than Usual for a Second Year in a Row

      by

      Climate change is increasingly making weather extremes more common.Scorching, record-breaking temperatures on Tuesday kept many people indoors throughout the metropolitan region, strained the electrical grid and stoked concerns among those who are the most vulnerable to the heat, including older New Yorkers and the very young.It was 99 degrees in Central Park this afternoon, the hottest June 24 temperature since records started there in 1869. Kennedy Airport recorded the hottest June day since the site was built in 1948, at 102 degrees.It is the second year in a row that a heat wave has hit the New York City region earlier than usual, as global warming is projected to worsen heat waves and make them more frequent, climate experts say.“Our warming climate underlies everything,” said David Robinson, the New Jersey state climatologist and a geography professor at Rutgers University. “It’s not about the highest temperature; it’s about how long it stays hot and the area of coverage of that heat. It’s 100 up in New England today and down here as well.”Of the 69 weather stations in New Jersey, Mr. Robinson said, over 30 hit 100 degrees. He added that the 10 hottest summers on record for the state had all occurred since 2005.As climate change wreaks havoc with the traditional calendar, the familiar rhythms of the seasons have begun to shift. New York City pools, for example, are not scheduled to open for the summer until Friday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Budget Cuts Threaten State Geological Surveys

      by

      Nearly two dozen state geological surveys depend heavily on federal funds. A proposed budget cut could slow or stop key geologic mapping work.Every spring for the last 31 years, Reed Lewis has traversed Idaho to do what technology still cannot: examine rocks, collect samples and make a map that is critical for mining, oil and gas and other industries. He knows getting an early start is essential, as summer smoke and winter snows limit the days that are useful for gathering data.Dr. Lewis, a geologist for the state of Idaho, is normally in the field by June at the latest. But halfway through the month, he’s stuck at his desk.That’s because amid uncertainty over the federal budget, funds from Washington that pay for geological mapping have not arrived. “It’s starting to be worrisome,” Dr. Lewis said. The concern is widespread; no states have received their 2025 mapping money.What’s more, one line in the Trump administration’s proposed budget could hamstring the ability of states to create basic geologic maps for years to come.Geologists in every state use federal funds to study wildfires, water resources, hazards and to map the locations of mineral deposits and energy sources. In addition to mining and fossil fuel industries, the free and publicly available maps are used by geothermal energy and real estate companies.Private companies might map a small area of particular interest but they generally do not share the information.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Proposal Ends Tax Cuts for Clean Energy, Disappointing Climate Advocates

      by

      A Senate tax package softens some blows imposed on renewables by a House version of the bill. But it still terminates many credits for clean power.Climate advocates, Democrats, and even some House Republicans who last month had supported a tax package that gutted federal support for clean energy were hoping the Senate would make fixes to protect energy manufacturing and jobs.But on Monday, Senate Republicans disappointed them, proposing to quickly end most tax breaks for wind and solar power, electric vehicles and other clean energy.Draft legislation released by the Senate Finance Committee would terminate or scale back most of the major tax incentives for clean energy contained in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Biden administration’s signature climate law.The plan would eliminate within six months a $7,500 consumer tax credit for purchases of electric vehicles as well as home energy rebates for things like electric heat pumps and induction stoves. A tax credit for homeowners who install solar panels on rooftops would end within 180 days. A subsidy for making hydrogen fuels would expire this year.Federal tax credits for wind and solar power, which have been in place for decades but were made more lucrative under the Inflation Reduction Act, would be rapidly phased out. Wind and solar companies could qualify for the full tax break only if they began construction in the next six months. They would receive 60 percent of the tax break if they began construction in 2026, and 20 percent of the tax credit if they began construction in 2027. Projects built after that would get nothing.That’s a slightly longer runway for renewable energy than is in the House version of the bill, which would have ended those tax breaks almost immediately.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Tick Situation Is Getting Worse

      by

      As temperatures rise, ticks of all kinds are flourishing in ways that threaten people’s health.Lately, Shannon LaDeau and her colleagues have had unwelcome visitors at their office in New York’s Hudson Valley: ticks, crawling up the building and trying to get through doors.“Which is kind of alarming,” said Dr. LaDeau, a disease ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies who studies the arachnids and the pathogens they carry.As winters get warmer, ticks of several kinds are flourishing. Deer ticks, known for transmitting Lyme disease, are moving farther north. The longhorned tick, which came from overseas, has gained a foothold on the East Coast and begun moving west. Gulf Coast ticks have made it to states like Connecticut and Indiana. The lone star tick, which can make people allergic to red meat, is fanning out from the South and has been found as far as Canada.And even in places long accustomed to them, ticks are becoming more numerous and active for longer stretches of each year.Why is this happening, and how can you protect yourself? We asked the experts.What changes are researchers seeing?Marc Lame, an entomologist and clinical professor emeritus at Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, put it simply: “There are more and different types of ticks around than there used to be, and I don’t see that stopping anytime soon.”The spread of individual species can be difficult to track. The longhorned tick, for example, was not identified in the United States until 2017, but a recent study confirmed that it was here as early as 2010.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      As Energy Costs Surge, Eastern Governors Blame a Grid Manager

      by

      For decades, a little-known nonprofit organization has played a central role in keeping the lights on for 65 million people in the Eastern United States.Even some governors and lawmakers acknowledge that they were not fully aware of how much influence the organization, PJM, has on the cost and reliability of energy in 13 states. The electrical grid it manages is the largest in the United States.But now some elected leaders have concluded that decisions made by PJM are one of the main reasons utility bills have soared in recent years. They said the organization had been slow to add new solar, wind and battery projects that could help lower the cost of electricity. And they say the grid manager is paying existing power plants too much to supply electricity to their states.Some governors have been so incensed that they have sued PJM, drafted or signed laws to force changes at the organization, or threatened to pull their states out of the regional electric grid.The Democratic governors of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania sharply criticized the organization in recent interviews with The New York Times and in written statements. And the Republican governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, called on the organization to fire its chief executive in a letter obtained by The Times.“PJM has lost the plot,” Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey said in an interview. In another interview, Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland said about PJM, “I am angry.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Court Debates Whether a Climate Lawsuit Threatens National Security

      by

      The judge asked lawyers how a suit by Charleston, S.C., claiming oil companies misled people about climate risks, might be affected by a Trump executive order blasting cases like these.Two teams of high-powered lawyers clashed this week in Charleston, S.C., over a global-warming question with major implications: Do climate lawsuits against oil companies threaten national security, as President Trump has claimed?In the lawsuit, the City of Charleston is arguing that oil companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron and about a dozen others carried out a sophisticated, decades-long misinformation campaign to cover up what they knew about the dangers of climate change.There are some three dozen similar cases around the country, and recently Mr. Trump issued an executive order calling the lawsuits a threat to national security, saying they could lead to crippling damages. The hearings in Charleston were the first time lawyers had to grapple in a courtroom with the president’s assertions.Mr. Trump’s executive order was the opening salvo in a broad new attack by his administration against climate lawsuits targeting oil companies. Citing the executive order, the Justice Department this month filed unusual lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan seeking to prevent them from filing their own climate-change suits. (Hawaii filed its suit anyway, and Michigan’s attorney general has signaled that she will also be proceeding.)In court hearings in Charleston on Thursday and Friday, Judge Roger M. Young Sr. asked each side to weigh in on the order as they sparred over the companies’ motions to dismiss the case, which was filed in 2020.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Youth Climate Activists Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Orders

      by

      The complaint argues that orders aimed at increasing American fossil fuel production infringe on the rights of young people to a healthy environment.Young people who sued state governments over climate change have begun a legal challenge aimed at President Trump’s spate of executive orders on climate and the environment.The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Montana, argues that three of the executive orders are unconstitutional and would cripple the clean energy industry, suppress climate science and worsen global warming.The 22 plaintiffs, ranging in age from seven to 25 years old, are mostly from Montana, as well as Hawaii, Oregon, and other states, and are represented by the nonprofit legal group Our Children’s Trust. That group has notched two important legal victories in recent years, winning cases against the state of Montana and the Hawaii Department of Transportation.“Trump’s fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation,” said Eva Lighthiser, 19, the named plaintiff. “I’m not suing because I want to. I’m suing because I have to. My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line.”The plaintiffs argue that they are already experiencing harms from a warming planet in the form of wildfires, drought and hurricanes, and that Mr. Trump’s executive orders will make conditions even worse. They say the executive orders violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty by infringing on their health, safety and prospects for the future.Further, they argue that the orders constitute executive overreach, because the president cannot unilaterally override federal laws like the Clean Air Act.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Vote Against E.V. Mandate Felt Like an Attack on California, Democrats Say

      by

      For decades, California has been able to adopt its own emissions regulations, effectively setting the bar for carmakers nationally. And for just as long, Republicans have resented the state’s outsize influence.There is little question that California leaders already see fossil fuels as a relic of the past.At the Southern California headquarters of the state’s powerful clean-air regulator, the centerpiece art installation depicts in limestone a petrified gas station. Fuel nozzles lie on the ground in decay, evoking an imagined extinction of gas pumps.For more than half a century, the federal government has allowed California to set its own stringent pollution limits, a practice that has resulted in more efficient vehicles and the nation’s most aggressive push toward electric cars. Many Democratic-led states have adopted California’s standards, prompting automakers to move their national fleets in the same direction.With that unusual power, however, has come resentment from Republican states where the fossil fuel industry still undergirds their present and future. When Republicans in Congress last week revoked the state’s authority to set three of its mandates on electric vehicles and trucks, they saw it not just as a policy reversal but also as a statement that liberal California should be put in its place.“We’ve created a superstate system where California has more rights than other states,” Representative Morgan Griffith, who represents rural southwestern Virginia, said in an interview. “My constituents think most folks in California are out of touch with reality. You see this stuff coming out of California and say, ‘What?’”Federal law typically pre-empts state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But in 1967, the federal government allowed smoggy California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact its own clean-air standards that were tougher than federal limits, because the state historically had some of the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards as their own under certain circumstances.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said last week that the state would fight in court to preserve its autonomy in setting emissions rules.Rich Pedroncelli/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More