With a historic budget for parks and recreation, New York City is crafting strategic plans to increase tree canopy through an environmental justice lens.

New York City's $624 million parks budget includes funding for capital projects such as planting 20,000 new trees. City Council recently held an oversight hearing on increasing tree canopy, which gave residents the chance to provide input on shade access in their community.

Council Member representing Elmhurst and Jackson Heights, Shekar Krishnan - who chairs the Committee on Parks and Recreation - said the hearing can inform solutions to addressing disparities of tree presence in different neighborhoods.

"In particular, low-income communities of color have far less tree-canopy coverage than other neighborhoods do," said Krishnan, "and that directly results in hotter temperatures known as the 'urban heat island' effect. And so the brunt of the lack of tree-canopy coverage isn't shared equally."

The budget also includes funding for stump removal, which can make way for new trees. A report from The Nature Conservancy found that as of 2017, the city's overall tree canopy was about 22%.

Victoria Sanders - research analyst with the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance - said as New York City moves forward with plans for improving tree-canopy equity across the city, communities that have long been disinvested due to racially discriminatory policies such as redlining must be prioritized.

"There's all this red tape that impacts the way funds can be used," said Sanders. "A lot of the trees that are being planted are replacing trees that already exist. So I think there needs to be maybe some pushback so that a larger amount of the money can be put toward making sure there's equitable tree distribution."

Emily Nobel Maxwell - New York Cities program director for The Nature Conservancy - said she's excited by the budget investments in urban forests, but said there's more work to be done.

"We know that to better ameliorate the impacts of extreme heat, we need more tree canopy," said Maxwell. "It would mean protecting and maintaining the canopy we have. And that requires maintenance funding, laws to protect our canopy, it requires enforcement."

The Forest For All NYC coalition has called for a citywide goal of 30% tree coverage by 2035.

There's a new resource for Nebraska communities and organizations facing environmental justice issues: the Heartland Environmental Justice Center (HEJC) at Wichita State University.

WSU received one of 17 Environmental Protection Agency grants to establish an Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Center.

The HEJC's region covers Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and nine tribal nations.

Jeff Severin is the center's senior program manager. He said although people tend to see environmental-justice issues as an urban problem, plenty of rural Heartland communities also face environmental challenges.

He said the HEJC's involvement might involve several stages.

"That could look like just helping with an assessment to identify the major challenges that they're facing," said Severin, "what are some of the underlying causes of these challenges or threats, and then being able to identify the best funding sources to address those threats. "

Severin said their services are designed for communities, community-based organizations and nonprofits.

He said the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law include "unprecedented levels" of funding for environmental-justice issues. And helping groups access these funds is a major goal of the Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers.

The Center for Rural Affairs is one of the HEJC's eight partners, and the only one based in Nebraska. Nebraska projects can be initiated through either organization.

Severin said smaller communities and organizations can be at a disadvantage when it comes to navigating the sometimes "burdensome" federal grant application process.

"Some of these smaller organizations are just so busy doing the actual work on the ground, or don't have staff to do this preparation and grant writing," said Severin. "And so, we're here to kind of help folks get organized and ready for that, and then help them through that process of applying for grants."

The Center for Rural Affairs Project Associate Deborah Solie pointed out that what qualifies as "environmental" can be somewhat broad.

"It could be that they're facing a brownfields issue," said Solie, "but it also could be that they're planning toward the future because they know that there are climate-related issues that they are currently facing that will be exacerbated. "

Solie said Kearney, Nebraska's "food reclamation" project is one example of the different types of environmental-impact issues communities may choose to address.

"They are looking at trying to find a way to get that food to the people who need it," said Solie, "versus it going into the landfill, which then causes some significant challenges with methane gas and other issues."

Xcel Energy says its latest proposal before the Public Utilities Commission will help Colorado reach it's clean energy goals - by adding more wind and solar power, more energy storage, and a new biomass facility.

But critics are crying foul over plans to construct three new gas-fired power plants, one near Alamosa and two near Longmont.

Ean Tafoya, director with GreenLatinos Colorado, said he is urging the commission to reject the plan to protect disproportionately impacted communities.

"These are the people who are defined under the state's Environmental Justice Act," said Tafoya. "Linguisitally isolated, low-income, the people who are living around these plants that are definitely disproportionately impacted, those are predominantly Latinos."

Xcel claims the new gas plants are needed to ensure grid reliability, and says its proposal will remove 740 megawatts of gas power in part by retiring contracts and some of its 14 existing gas plants.

Alternative plans that add more renewables could save customers $29 million compared to Xcel's proposal in the first year alone, according to a new study.

The PUC is expected to make a decision by year's end.

Leading global scientists have long warned that burning fossil fuels must end to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change.

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is over 85 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than coal-fired climate pollution.

Tafoya said he opposes Xcel's plan to use ratepayer money to build new fossil fuel infrastructure.

"To invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build new plants," said Tafoya, "to me is a boondoggle that is about us investing in their technology, while they profit and send money to Wall Street."

Tafoya said he also worries that ratepayers will be on the hook for the cost of new gas plants long after they become stranded assets. He added that natural gas is not a safe source of energy.

"We know that when people use it in their households, that it causes the indoor ambient air to be as bad as it could be if you were standing next to a roadway," said Tafoya. "So these fuels when they burn and when you withdraw them from the ground, they all leave toxic legacy."




get more stories like this via email

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a plan extending a natural-gas pipeline in Virginia. The Virginia Reliability Plan and Transcot's CEC project calls for compressor stations and a natural-gas pipeline extension in communities already harmed by these impacts such as Petersburg.

The city ranked as the least healthy according to the University of Wisconsin's County Health Rankings and Roadmaps.

Tim Cywinski, communications director with the Sierra Club's Virginia Chapter, said projects like this undermine the state's climate progress.

"Whether it's a natural-gas pipeline that's doubling the size and diameter or a proposal to build a 'peaker plant' in Chesterfield, Virginia," he said. "All of these go against Virginia's goals, specifically since we're the last stronghold in the South that has any kind of climate commitment."

He said the state can't reach its climate goals and uphold environmental justice if projects like the VRP continue to be approved.

The project's Environmental Impact Statement is explicit on the determinants this project poses, but, Cywinski said Petersburg is a "sacrifice zone." This is an area where fossil-fuel companies already have an approved project and go there for a new project since the area's already facing environmental impacts.

Feedback to the project has been particularly negative. Numerous community and environmental groups voiced their opposition, and Cywinski said policymakers need to understand the importance in plans like this not being implemented.

"It's not unreasonable for us to expect our decision makers to implement a policy where protecting people from pollution is the floor -- not some negotiation up to the ceiling, the floor," he continued. "And, I think people, as the climate issue becomes more apparent, as people see more of the impacts of pollution, that this type of opposition is becoming more and more regular."

While some could get the misconception Virginia is pulling away from its climate goals, Cywinski said the opposite is true. He feels Gov. Glenn Youngkin and some legislators are working to blunt the state's climate goals.