New York state is currently missing a statement in their state constitution that gives citizens the right to clean air, clean water. Most likely, this will change on November 2nd when a vote is cast on “adding a right to clean water, clean air, and a healthful environment to the New York Constitution’s Bill of Rights.” If this is passed New York state will join 6 other states that have also made this leap. Publicly, this idea has a lot of support, but there is some backlash primarily from Republican political figures. The ironic part about the backlash is that many of these Republican lawmakers work inside the Adirondack Park, the most serene and natural piece of the state. While the amendment, if passed, may not have a huge impact on the Adirondacks, it is a step in the right direction for the state and makes it easier to pass further legislation in the future.
On November 2nd the amendment just needs a majority from voters and it will be put into effect immediately. How will this amendment constitute change? The biggest impact the amendment would have would be the regulations it would put on new developments and the emissions from large factories and plants. The executive director of Environmental Advocates, Peter Iwanowicz, says that the amendment “could help prevent pollution and environmental damage before it happens.” The proposal for clean air and clean water is both a matter of human health, as well as preventing climate change and protecting the land. It generally would be beneficial to all citizens and has been successful in other states where it has been implemented. So who is against the proposal?
The backlash comes from the more conservative legislature seen in upstate New York. According to Mike De Socio of the Adirondack Explorer “Some Republican lawmakers have cited concerns that the amendment would lead to a flood of litigation.” The argument coming from these lawmakers does have some validity to it. One piece of their argument is that the definitions of what is clean in the amendment is quite “loose.” Loose legislation leads to higher frequency of lawsuits which makes it hard to get anything done in the state.
It is important to see both sides of the argument on issues like this one because of the factors that are below the surface, such as the higher frequency of lawsuits. This Clean air and water proposal is certainly worth the trouble for New York state and will help out a lot in the future when it is time for further environmental regulations.
Literature Cited
BallotPedia. (2021). New York Proposal 2, Environmental Rights Amendment (2021). https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_Proposal_2,Environmental_Rights_Amendment(2021)
Craig, G. (January 2021). Adirondack lawmakers wary of adding clean air and water to state bill of rights. Adirondack Explorer. https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/adirondack-lawmakers-wary-of-adding-clean-air-and-water-to-state-bill-of-rights
De Socio, M. (September 2021). On the ballot this fall: Adding clean air and water to state bill of rights. Adirondack Explorer. https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/green-amendment-before-voters
I first just want to say that I really love the title. It’s like a sarcastic satirizing of the topic, making fun of the fact that such a policy hasn’t existed until now. It really works on a few levels. The topic itself is interesting as well, and I think that an amendment of this nature is an excellent way to prevent pollution from spiraling out of control in the future. Also, as somebody from New York City, I am curious to see if this will have any impact on the immediate state of the air quality or if it’s just a measure put in place to prevent things from getting worse. I certainly would not describe New York City air as especially clean.
This is a really interesting topic – especially given the incredible environment we currently reside in here at Middlebury. I think it’s important that people have access to clean air, clean water, and a healthful environment. I’d be curious to know how those would be quantified and if they’re quantified in the amendment or if a state agency would be place in charge of determining specific parameters. A “healthful environment” seems to be a particularly vague term. The Republican politicians seem to have a fair point – to a point. Would there be some sort of time condition involved, whereby people in power would have, say, three years to make sure standards were met before they could face legal challenges? Is there a reason why most opposition seems to be coming from inside the park? I would imagine this new amendment would most (from a financial cost / negative perspective) impact the state and landlords. It also would shock me if anyone in New York City would have access to “clean air” – curious to learn more about this. Thanks for sharing!