Editorial Roundup: New York

New York Post. May 25, 2024.

Editorial: Thank green fanatics for New York’s looming summer blackouts

The green fanatics have been so successful at crippling the Empire State’s power infrastructure that now a minor heat wave, just three straight days with temps only above 95 degrees, could plunge the state into darkness.

The grim news comes from the New York Independent System Operator, the nonprofit that runs the local power grid: In those near-inevitable circumstances, the NYISO warns, the system will be short more than 1,400 megawatts.

One megawatt covers the needs of 800 to 1,000 homes, so that translates to well over a million houses in the dark.

Just think how bad it could get if temperatures run above 100° for few days, or we get one of those beyond-sultry Augusts when thermometers sit above 90° all month.

So to recap: Our climate freaks, so publicly obsessed with ideas like “sustainability” and “resilience,” have sent the state’s power system back into the Stone Ages, leaving millions of New Yorkers vulnerable if we just get a typical summer.

How have they done this?

By demanding that the state switch generation away from tried-and-true sources like natural gas and oil (and nuclear) to wind and solar — except that the sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow and the state’s solar and wind buildout is nowhere near sufficient to meet its massive, growing energy demand.

Yes, New York is shooting for an insane goal — cutting CO2 emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050 — and immiserating its citizens along the way.

Pointlessly: Even if New York somehow hits this target (it won’t), the overall impact on climate change will be null, thanks to committed emitters like China and India — both still building coal plants by the dozens.

They know better than to try and choke off the carbon-based fuels that power the modern world — and will need to keep powering it until we get the only truly sustainable solution, nuclear energy, off the ground.

Indeed, the Green New Dealers’ brainless strategy here, i.e. calling for transition before wind and solar can possibly get built out enough, has rendered New York City’s grid “dirtier” than Texas’ and the US average.

The only thing the green drive will achieve is depriving Empire State families of the blessings of modernity — like refrigeration and AC.

Not only will the juice not be there, the cost of trying to build enough wind and solar guarantees massive rate hikes.

With every new absurdity, climate fanaticism is revealed more and more as a quasi-religion, not a rational response to the risks of a warming world.

Not that the true believers (or the politicians who pander to them) will pause to face these inconvenient truths.

Remember who to thank when you’re plunged into darkness in this summer’s dog days.


Dunkirk Evening Observer. May 29, 2024.

Editorial: New York State One more shot at the gun laws

We’ve disagreed with the way New York state handled changes to conceal carry permits for pistols.

But one thing that we can’t disagree with is the logic behind wanting to know who is concealed carrying a handgun. After all, the point of pistol permits is to have some record of those who can legally carry a concealed weapon.

We’re not sure the logic extends to a proposed ban on the open carry of long guns.

State Sen. Michael Gianaris, D-Astoria wrote in his legislative justification that restrictions on the open carry of long guns will help decrease violent crime. It’s hard to judge whether or not that’s true because the state’s own gun-related violence statistics don’t delineate if a crime was committed with a handgun or a long gun. Gianaris further says that the lack of licensing and restrictions on the open carry of long guns has allowed bad actors to display long guns while engaging in various forms of intimidation including protests, counter-protests, intimidation in front of places of worship and places of reproductive health.Of course, it’s hard to know how big a problem such behavior actually is if people aren’t being charged with crimes for such behavior – which leads to governing by anecdote.

At the same time we can’t disprove what Gianaris is saying about the use of long guns to intimidate. But wouldn’t an easier change in state law be to include those who threaten another person with a long gun a part of existing menacing or criminal mischief statutes?

Gianaris’ bill shouldn’t affect hunters and sport shooters, which is honestly a major concession. In fact, the Astoria Democrat’s bill has a laundry list of exemptions that should put rural New Yorkers’ minds at ease if they’re concerned about changes to hunting, military ceremonies or the use of rifles on private property.

But we still don’t know how necessary this proposed change to state law actually is. It would be easier to support a piece of legislation like this one S.9137 if there were statistics showing a pervasive problem. In the absence of those numbers, we’d prefer a bill that is more narrowly tailored to the problems Gianaris cites with intimidation by those carrying long guns in public by punishing the actor, not banning the instrument.


Albany Times Union. May 29, 2024.

Editorial: There’s a vetting — and vexing — problem with New York’s laws

Too much prominent legislation is being thrown out by courts, raising concerns about competence and the cost to taxpayers.

Today’s question: Why are New York legislators finding it so hard to write a law that passes legal muster?

Yes, the question is hyperbolic, but consider the oh-so-familiar pattern: The Legislature passes a law, the governor signs it — and then courts reject the legislation as either vague or blatantly unconstitutional. The result is confusion, acrimony and seemingly endless litigation.

The latest example comes via an appellate court ruling that New York violated the due process rights of opioid companies with a 2018 law that required them to pay retroactively into a public fund. The law was short-lived and the ruling is likely to be appealed, but New York might still be forced to refund millions to opioid producers.

How was it that lawmakers and then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo failed to realize that retroactive legislation was likely to cause legal problems? That remains an open question. But this is far from the only example of Albany lawmakers rolling out poorly written and even unconstitutional legislation.

Earlier this month, for example, an appellate court ruled that the law creating the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government unconstitutionally stripped power from the executive branch. The unanimous ruling, which could also be appealed, could leave New York, once again, without a viable ethics watchdog able to sniff out and punish corruption.

A few days earlier, a state Supreme Court justice found the Legislature violated the procedures necessary for putting a proposed Equal Rights Amendment before voters. The ruling knocked the proposed constitutional amendment, which sought to enshrine the right to an abortion and broaden protections related to gender and gender identity, off the November ballot.

That same week, a state Supreme Court justice struck down part of a 2021 state law governing the issuance and handling of absentee ballots. And while an appellate court upheld new state rules regarding early voting, that case is expected to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.

You get the point, but we’d be remiss not to mention the gerrymandered congressional districts drawn up by Democratic lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul. Courts, of course, rejected a plan that would have given Democrats the advantage heading into the 2022 elections, reminding lawmakers that New York’s constitution explicitly forbids districts that offer a partisan boost. The result was an embarrassing years-long battle that could and should have been avoided.

Some of this could be passed off as part of the normal push-pull between the legislative and judicial branches. But when so many prominent pieces of legislation are rejected even by courts seen as ideologically friendly to Democratic lawmakers, the trend raises legitimate questions about competence and the cost to taxpayers.

The litigation might be a boon to the state’s lawyers and constitutional scholars, but it does nothing to reassure New Yorkers about the capability and effectiveness of state government. Who, after all, is vetting New York’s laws? Is anybody?