By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
Last Thursday night, I watched the New York City mayoral debate on television, and, as is typical in today’s polarized political world, I heard lots of insults, soundbites, and misinformation, along with discussion of several issues that mayors don’t really impact. This was no Lincoln-Douglas or even Kennedy-Nixon debate. The debate agenda was set by the moderators, and there was no segment devoted to flooding, air pollution, climate resiliency, or decarbonization. Perhaps there is a wide consensus on these issues and no need to raise them during a debate. When Andrew Cuomo served as Governor, he had a solid environmental record. He banned fracking, signed a major climate law, and promoted congestion pricing. As a mayoral candidate he has retreated on congestion pricing and waffled on implementation of Local Law 97 requiring the gradual decarbonization of the city’s larger buildings. Zohran Mamdani has a clearer record of support for Local Law 97, congestion pricing, and climate policy. Curtis Sliwa’s answer to climate-accelerated flooding is more frequent sewer and catch basin maintenance. He sees no need to expand the subway system, instead focusing on maintaining the system we have.
Watching these fellas the other night, I understood their emphasis on the city’s affordability and public safety, but was looking for at least a sign that they understood that with 600 miles of shoreline and decaying sewage and transportation infrastructure, this city is one extreme weather event away from a catastrophic interruption of business as usual that would make Hurricane Sandy look like a walk in the park. There are a number of environmental challenges that need to be addressed by New York City over the term of the next mayor. These are local issues which can and should be subject to democratic discussion and debate.
The most important of these issues is our need to continue to build a more climate-resilient city. Much work has been done, and billions of dollars have been spent, but we are a long way from where we need to be. We need to add to the city’s ability to absorb, store, and control rain from extreme weather events. We need to continue to add permeable surfaces to absorb water and reduce the heat island effect. Structures close to the shoreline must be retrofitted to reduce the impact of flooding. The shoreline itself needs to be engineered to hold back rising seas, and wetlands need to be restored to provide natural protection from storms. This will continue to cost billions of dollars and will compete for resources with other local needs such as police, education, food security, and housing.
There are other environmental issues as well. A major challenge is replacing about 150,000 lead water service lines. These pipes bring the city’s world-class, high-quality water into homes, businesses, and schools, polluting them with lead that is unhealthy for everyone but particularly unhealthy for young children. It will cost $2 billion to replace those pipes and eliminate lead exposure for up to two million New Yorkers. Most New Yorkers are completely unaware of this danger to their health.
While the Trump Administration has eliminated federal environmental justice staff, funding, and programs, the issue of environmental injustice remains. Poor people who cannot protect themselves from environmental hazards are most at risk from the health impacts of environmental pollution. While crime and inadequate food and shelter pose more immediate threats to life and well-being, more subtle long-term threats from pollution deserve greater attention from government and the media. Of course, some environmental justice issues are neither subtle nor long-term. According to the City of New York:
“Each summer, on average, more than 500 New Yorkers die prematurely because of hot weather in New York City… Heat-exacerbated deaths increased in the past decade, mainly due to hotter summers overall with more “non- extreme hot days” of 82°F up to but below the extreme heat threshold (95°F)… Black New Yorkers are more likely to die from heat stress, with death rates two times higher than white New Yorkers. Black New Yorkers also have a higher likelihood of heat-exacerbated death compared to other New Yorkers. This inequity is due to past and current structural racism that creates economic, health care, housing, energy, and other systems that benefit white people and disadvantage people of color. Lack of access to home air conditioning (AC) is the most important risk factor for heat-stress death. Among those who died from heat stress, the place of death was most often an un-air-conditioned home. Heat-exacerbated deaths were also more likely to occur at home, underscoring the importance of access to cooling at home. NYC summers are getting hotter because of climate change.”
While President Trump keeps referring to climate change as a hoax and deriding decarbonization as a “green new scam,” the threats from a hotter planet persist. Climate change is causing death and destruction from hotter summers and a warming ocean that exacerbates extreme weather events. The impact of Trump’s fossil fuel fetish is real and is damaging New York City. Mamdani and Cuomo both positioned themselves as best suited to “stand up” to Trump, but they were mainly focused on the visible threats of federalizing the National Guard and ICE. There is no attention being paid to the gutting of FEMA and EPA and the defunding of sustainability infrastructure, even though these products of Project 2025 will pose as much of a threat to New York City as the media events staged by Homeland Security as red meat for the MAGA base.
One cannot only blame the candidates for ignoring environmental issues; the media, including the debate moderators, focus on the issues they think are of most interest to the public. The candidates’ monthly cost of housing and weekly grocery bills may not be subject to mayoral control, but it allowed Cuomo to complain about Mamdani’s rent-stabilized apartment—as minor an issue as you can imagine. The grocery bill question seemed like a gotcha question, hoping to elicit ignorance about the price of milk and eggs. That was a question the candidates seemed prepared for.
Another environmental issue that persists in New York City, but also not discussed during the mayoral debate, was air pollution. According to New York City’s government:
“New York City air quality is improving, but our health impact estimates from 2015 to 2017 found that fine particle pollution alone each year caused:
- At least 2,000 deaths
- About 1,400 hospital admissions for lung and heart conditions
- 3,750 emergency department admissions for asthma based on levels” I assume each candidate would be alarmed by these data, but it would be interesting to learn what they might do to address this issue and reduce the health impacts of air pollution.”
Local government’s primary function is to deliver services directly to the public that enhance their quality of life. Local government must ensure that education, public safety, health care, energy, water, and food are available and that waste and sewage are properly removed and treated. In addition, libraries and parks are amenities directly funded and managed by the city. But there is also a set of services and attributes that attract people to cities, and government is also accountable for facilitating the private economy. Private sector economic opportunity, entertainment, social interaction, and mobility are urban features that the best cities must also create conditions to nurture. New York City continues to attract people from all over the nation and the world, and it does this through good mayors and mediocre ones. Its government is capable of stunning accomplishments and breathtaking inefficiencies. A continuing challenge the city faces is the range of environmental impacts that persist due to our location, population density, and use of polluting technologies. A mayor needs to pay attention to these challenges. As a voter, I’d like to know where they stand on these issues. Perhaps they all agree, and there are no political issues here. But it would be nice to know.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
