U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the most ardent supporters of a multibillion-dollar plan to build a new rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey, has wasted no time in laying groundwork with the incoming Biden administration.
The New York Democrat said he is encouraged the long-stalled project may move forward after a discussion by videoconference Wednesday with Pete Buttigieg, President-elect Joe Biden’s choice to head the Department of Transportation.
“I explained to him that this has been a top priority for New York for more than a decade and that our future depends on it,” Schumer said in an interview Thursday. “He was very receptive, and I was very optimistic.”
Buttigieg, the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, must be confirmed by the Senate. A message was left with a spokesperson for Buttigieg on Thursday.
If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from NJ, PA, NY, Delaware…and beyond. Try it free for an entire month.
The new tunnel, part of the larger Gateway project to increase rail capacity in the country’s most densely populated area, would maintain train service while a crumbling, 110-year-old tunnel is repaired. The tunnel project has been mired in a dispute with the Trump administration over how both states will pay for their share of the cost, estimated most recently at about $10 billion after project overseers shaved more than $1 billion off the initial estimate.
The DOT has criticized the states for relying too heavily on federal loans and has given the project a low rating that has made it ineligible for crucial federal grants.
Schumer said Buttigieg agreed to tour the existing tunnel, which has been a source of regular delays for years due to aging tracks and wires. More troubling, saltwater deposits left behind by 2012’s Superstorm Sandy, activated by water seeping in from outside, continue to damage the walls that house 12,000-volt electrical cables.
In normal times, more than 400 trains carrying more than 200,000 passengers on Amtrak and commuter railroads pass through the tunnels each day, and delays can ripple from Boston to Washington.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday once again blocked legislation to send $2,000 payments to most Americans
McConnell, R-Ky., ignored a new plea from President Donald Trump — who tweeted earlier Wednesday, “$2000 ASAP!”— in refusing to allow a vote on the Senate floor. So did U.S. Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., who blocked a second request for a vote. and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who blocked a third request.
The Senate leader said there was “no realistic path” for the $2,000 payments “to quickly pass the Senate.”
“Look, it’s no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more non-targeted money,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Our duty is to get help to the people who need help. Like we did to an historic degree just four days ago.
Both Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made separate requests to allow the Senate to vote on the House-passed bill increasing the stimulus payments to $2,000. The House overwhelmingly approved the legislation following Trump’s demands for the larger checks.
“For once, Democrats agree with something on President Trump’s Twitter feed,” Schumer said.
Trump has called for the higher payments after he signed the coronavirus stimulus package that included $600 payments on Sunday.
Sanders has threatened to block quick consideration of an effort to override Trump’s veto of the defense policy bill, possibly forcing the Senate to spend New Year’s Day in Washington, unless McConnell agrees to allow a vote on the $2,000 stimulus checks.
“It’s about basic democracy,” Sanders said on the Senate floor. “All that Senator Schumer and I are asking of the majority leader is a very simple request: Allow the members of the United States Senate to cast a vote.
“What’s the problem?”
Senate Republicans refused to answer the question, but rather just criticized the proposal.
“They are in denial of the hardship that the American people are experiencing now,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said during her weekly press conference Wednesday. “Health wise, financially, in every way. Their lives and livelihood in many cases are on the brink. So, they’re in denial of that need in denying this benefit.”
Republicans, though, complained that some checks would be going to wealthier Americans or those who didn’t lose any income during the coronavirus pandemic.
“It is hardly clear that the federal government’s top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year,” McConnell said.
The $2,000 checks would begin phasing out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples without children.
Because the base is so much higher than it would be with the $600 checks, a family of four, which would start with $8,000 in stimulus checks, would have to make $310,000 before the entire payment would end, according to calculations by the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. For a family with five children, the cutoff would be $430,000.
GOP lawmakers in 2017 passed a tax cut that the Congressional Budget Office said would increase the federal deficit by $1.9 trillion over 10 years and independent studies showed gave most of its benefits to corporations and the rich, in part by reducing the estate tax paid only by multimillionaires.
“Any modification or addition to the House bill cannot become law before the end of this Congress. It’s a way to kill — to kill — the bill,” Schumer said. “Make no mistake about it. Either the Senate takes up and passes the House bill, or struggling American families will not get $2,000 checks during the worst economic crisis in 75 years.”
A small group of animal welfare scientists is seeking answers to that question. Facing a growing anti-dairy movement, many farmers are altering their practices.
SCHODACK LANDING, N.Y. — The 1,500 Jersey cows that Nathan Chittenden and his family raise in upstate New York seem to lead carefree lives. They spend their days lolling around inside well-ventilated barns and eating their fill from troughs. Three times a day, they file into the milking parlor, where computer-calibrated vacuums drain several gallons of warm milk from their udders, a process that lasts about as long as a recitation of “The Farmer in the Dell.”
Mr. Chittenden, 42, a third-generation dairy farmer whose family bottle-feeds each newborn calf, expresses affection for his animals. It’s a sentiment they appeared to return one recent afternoon as pregnant cows poked their heads through the enclosure to lick his hand.
Mr. Chittenden with a new calf, one of the 1,500 Jersey cows on his farm.Credit…Lauren Lancaster for The New York Times
“I’m in charge of this entire life from cradle to grave, and it’s important for me to know this animal went through its life without suffering,” he said, stroking the head of one especially insistent cow. “I’m a bad person if I let it suffer.”
Animal rights activists have a markedly different take on farms like Mr. Chittenden’s that satiate the nation’s appetite for milk, cheese and yogurt. To them, dairy farmers are cogs in an inhumane industrial food production system that consigns these docile ruminants to a lifetime of misery. After years of successful campaigns that marshaled public opinion against other long-accepted farming practices, they have been taking sharp aim at the nation’s $620 billion dairy industry.
Some of their claims are beyond dispute: Dairy cows are repeatedly impregnated by artificial insemination and have their newborns taken away at birth. Female calves are confined to individual pens and have their horn buds destroyed when they are about eight weeks old. The males are not so lucky. Soon after birth, they are trucked off to veal farms or cattle ranches where they end up as hamburger meat.
If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from NJ, PA, NY, Delaware…and beyond. Try it free for an entire month.
The typical dairy cow in the United States will spend its entire life inside a concrete-floored enclosure, and although they can live 20 years, most are sent to slaughter after four or five years when their milk production wanes.
“People have this image of Old MacDonald’s farm, with happy cows living on green pastures, but that’s just so far from reality,” said Erica Meier, the president of the activist organization Animal Outlook. “Some farms might be less cruel than others, but there is no such thing as cruelty-free milk.”
The effort to demonize dairy as fundamentally cruel has been fanned by undercover farm footage taken by groups like Animal Outlook that often are widely viewed on social media. In October, the organization released a short video filmed undercover on a small, family-owned farm in Southern California that revealed workers casually kicking and beating cows with metal rods, and a newborn male calf, its face covered with flies, left to die in the mud. One segment showed an earth-moving bucket hoisting an injured Holstein into the air by its hindquarters.
Stephen Larson, a lawyer for the Dick Van Dam Dairy, described the images as staged or are taken out of context. Earlier this month, a judge dismissed a lawsuit against the farm filed by another animal rights organization, saying it lacked standing. “The accusation that they mistreated their cows is something that cuts the Van Dam family very deeply, because the truth is that they have always, for generations, cared about and cared for all of their cows,” Mr. Larson said.
Dairy industry experts and farmers who have viewed the footage expressed revulsion and said the abuses depicted were not the norm. “These videos make every dairy farmer and veterinarian sick to their stomach because we know the vast majority of farmers would never do such things to their cows,” said Dr. Carie Telgen, president of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners.
The effort to turn Americans against dairy is gaining traction at a time when many of the nation’s farms are struggling to turn a profit. Milk consumption has dropped by 40 percent since 1975, a trend that is accelerating as more people embrace oat and almond milk. Over the past decade, 20,000 dairy farms have gone out of business, representing a 30 percent decline, according to the Department of Agriculture. And the coronavirus pandemic has forced some producers to dump unsold milk down the drain as demand from school lunch programs and restaurants dried up.
During his Academy Awards speech last February for best actor, Joaquin Phoenix drew rousing applause when he urged viewers to reject dairy products.
“We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and when she gives birth we steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable,” he said, his voice cracking with emotion. “And then we take her milk that’s intended for the calf and we put it in our coffee and cereal.”
The National Milk Producers Federation, which represents most of the country’s dairy 35,000 dairy farmers, has been trying to head off the souring public sentiment by promoting better animal welfare among its members. That means encouraging more frequent veterinarian farm visits, requiring low-wage workers to undergo regular training on humane cow handling, and the phasing out of tail docking — the once-ubiquitous practice of removing a cow’s tail.
“I don’t think you’ll find farmers out there who are not trying their best to enhance the care and welfare of their animals,” said Emily Yeiser Stepp, who runs the federation’s 12-year-old animal care initiative. “That said, we can’t be tone-deaf to consumers’ values. We have to do better, and give them a reason to stay in the dairy aisle.”
What scientists see
Among those caught in the battle to win the hearts and minds of dairy consumers is a small group of animal welfare scientists quietly working to answer knotty questions: Are cows that spend their entire lives confined indoors unhappy? Does the separation of a newborn calf from its mother result in quantifiable anguish? And are there ways to improve the life of a dairy cow that are both scientifically sound and economically viable?
Marina von Keyserlingk, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Canada and a widely recognized pioneer in the field of animal welfare, has made some headway in trying to understand whether certain aspects of modern dairy farming lead to avoidable suffering.
A young heifer peeked out of a pen at Dutch Hollow Farm.Credit…Lauren Lancaster for The New York Times
Raised on a cattle ranch, Professor von Keyserlingk says she can empathize with farmers who resent being lectured by urbanites disconnected from animal husbandry. Still, part of her job is helping persuade dubious farmers to accept improvements in animal welfare backed by science.
“As a little girl, I castrated thousands of calves without pain-relieving drugs and never thought to tell my dad, ‘This isn’t OK,’” she said. “But would I castrate a calf now without pain mitigation? Absolutely not.”
Divining the inner life of animals is notoriously elusive, but scientists like Professor von Keyserlingk have created experiments that seek to quantify bovine desires and ascertain whether some farming practices lead to poorer health and subpar milk production.
The studies she and other scientists have designed include installing weighted swinging gates inside barns to gauge whether pregnant cows might prefer to remain in their climate-controlled enclosures and munch on their favorite food or push through the gate to reach pasture. They found that cows’ desire to go outside depends on the weather (they avoid rain and snow) and the time of day (they prefer the outdoors at night).
One experiment sought to determine whether housing two calves together, as opposed to keeping them isolated in pens, could improve their learning abilities. (They found it did, and that paired housing also made them less fearful and easier to manage.)
The dairy at Hawthorne Valley Farm in Ghent. Credit…Lauren Lancaster for The New York Times
Another study highlighted the value of mechanical scratching brushes to a cow’s well-being. Using the same weighted gate setup, it found that cows were as interested in rubbing up against the spinning bristles as they were in gaining access to fresh feed. Although the brushes are not cheap, the findings have convinced a growing number of farmers that they are worth the expense.
“It’s really important that we don’t just anthropomorphize cows based on our human experience, but we do know that they can experience negative emotions like pain and fear that we want to minimize,” said Jennifer Van Os, an animal welfare scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “On the flip side, they can have positive experiences like pleasure, reward and contentment that we want to try to promote.”
Research by animal welfare scientists has led to a number of changes in the industry. Many large dairy farms have begun housing multiple cows together, abandoning the age-old tradition of keeping solitary cows tied up inside barn stalls, and a number of studies over the past two decades found there was no hygienic benefit to removing a cow’s tail, which they use to swat away flies.
(Until recently it was widely believed a swishing tail spread feces and bacteria, but farmers mostly found the tails to be annoying.)
Other changes promoted by scientists have led to the widespread adoption of pain-relief medication during dehorning, a process that has long angered animal rights activists but one that veterinarians say is necessary to protect both livestock workers and cows from being gored.
On the farm
Jersey cows on Mr. Chittenden’s farm.Credit…Lauren Lancaster for The New York Times
Mr. Chittenden’s farm is entirely populated by Jerseys, a smallish, tawny breed made incarnate by Elsie the Cow, the daisy-garlanded Borden Dairy mascot who provided generations of Americans with quaint notions of the happy, lovable milk cow. Jerseys are known for their gentle disposition, and for producing milk with a high butterfat content.
A loquacious man whose weather-beaten hands reflect a lifetime of toil, Mr. Chittenden said low prices, increasingly stringent environmental rules and heightened attention from animal rights groups had made the past five years especially stressful. He and other farmers say the allegations of widespread abuse from animal rights activists are exaggerated, contending that unhappy cows are poor milk producers.
UPDATE: Dec. 18, 2020: President Trump signed the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act into law on Friday. A White House announcement highlighted the bill’s creation of a Marine Debris Foundation, “genius prize,” increased cooperation “to raise international awareness of plastic waste and combat marine debris” and infrastructure grants to be administered by the U.S. EPA.
Dive Brief:
Both chambers of Congress recently passed the final version of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (S.1982) and it now awaits President Trump’s signature. Multiple sources anticipate Trump will sign it. The bill aims to reduce, remove and prevent plastic waste in the environment, especially waterways, through clean-up efforts and investments in plastic recycling infrastructure.
The bill would provide $55 million in funding each year through 2025 for improving “local post-consumer materials management,” including municipal recycling programs. Funding would also be available for local waste management authorities.
An additional $10 million per year (through 2025) would be available to local governments and nonprofits via grants for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and “trash-free waters” programs such as anti-litter initiatives and ordinance enforcement. A “genius prize” would be established for innovations that tackle marine debris.
Dive Insight:
SOS 2.0 appears likely to be the only notable recycling policy passed during this session of Congress and proponents have touted its bipartisan support in both chambers. The bill builds on the first Save Our Seas Act, which became law in 2018. It has undergone numerous revisions and additions over the past year in efforts to appease legislators and members of the public who argued it didn’t adequately address the problem of ocean plastic.
Many recycling-related discussions recently — from marine debris to reducing inbound contamination — end up at the same place: the need for better infrastructure. Cost is seen as one of the leading barriers to improving recycling infrastructure.
If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from NJ, PA, NY, Delaware…and beyond. Try it free for an entire month.
“Collecting and processing material is not free and it requires collaboration between local and state governments, the federal government, industry [and] nonprofits,” said Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Municipalities and private recycling businesses alike can struggle to secure the funding necessary for infrastructure upgrades. Proponents view SOS 2.0 as a federal shot in the arm needed to upgrade recycling programs and equipment across the country.
Groups including ACC and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) lauded the bill’s final passage in the Senate last week. SWANA noted the measure’s timeliness in relation to other actions that soon will impact the recycling industry.
“With China set to ban imported recyclables and scrap completely in less than a month, and an amendment to the Basel Convention taking effect in 2021 that will limit export options for discarded plastics, Congress’ action was both timely and necessary,” said SWANA CEO and Executive Director David Biderman in a statement.
But some environmental groups remain opposed to the bill. They would prefer to see plastic use reduced or banned instead of bolstering existing plastic recycling systems and encouraging more products to be manufactured. Beyond Plastics is among the opponents who say the legislation doesn’t go far enough.
“Over 11 million metric tons of plastics pollute our oceans every year. Instead of tackling the problem at the source, the Save Our Seas bill does virtually nothing to seriously address the problem. It includes a few studies, a genius prize and the creation of a new public-private organization that can accept unlimited money from companies that produce plastics and others,” said Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics. “A much more serious approach is embodied in the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act. Passage of that bill into law would actually help solve the problem.”
Baca suggests opponents might not be considering the whole picture, saying “they’re on the wrong side of the issue” and reiterating ACC’s common stance that “we don’t have a plastic problem, we have a plastic waste problem.”
2020 has been the year that everyone can’t wait to be over. This year, we saw things that have never happened before or haven’t happened in over 100 years. In spite of the coronavirus, we had many environmental accomplishments at the state, local, and national level. The pandemic brought about a different kind of activism as public meetings were replaced by Zoom and conference calls. We saw hundreds of people speak out at virtual meetings like NJ Transit and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. However, we also had many disappointments this year, which shows that we still have a lot of work to do.
We’ve seen tremendous environmental impacts this year, whether from air pollution and COVID-19 or sea-level rise and climate impacts. Last year was the warmest winter on record, and this July was the hottest in New Jersey’s history. We are seeing impacts from climate change on a regular basis. Air pollution has continued to impact communities in the state, especially overburdened and Environmental Justice communities, and water pollution and rising temperatures have led to algal blooms closing our biggest lakes.
Despite these challenges, we have had some progress. Some fossil fuel projects have been canceled and we’re moving forward with renewable energy like offshore wind.
Gov. Murphy signed landmark Environmental Justice legislation this year that will go a long way to protecting overburdened communities from new polluting facilities. He also signed the strongest plastic bag ban in the nation. NJ Transit stopped their Meadowlands power plant in order to review renewable energy alternatives, but they’ve set up a process that favors natural gas over renewable energy. Elcon, a hazardous waste facility across the river from Trenton, finally gave up because of public pressure. The state Department of Environmental Protection finally denied the Northeast Supply Enhancement project because New York turned the project down for lack of need.
Despite the climate urgency, there are still several damaging projects moving forward in New Jersey.
Josh Allen #17 of the Buffalo Bills attempts a pass against the Kansas City Chiefs during the second half at Bills Stadium on October 19, 2020 in Orchard Park, New York. Bryan M. Bennett/Getty Images
ALBANY — With positivity rates soaring to heights not seen since the dangerous days of the spring, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced that the Buffalo Bills will host nearly 7,000 fans at their stadium for their first-round NFL playoff game next week.
“I’m going to take my test and be out there to watch the game with you,” added Cuomo, who said he was a Bills fan.
Under the plan developed by the Bills, Cuomo’s Department of Health and a medical company that’s providing the tests, the Bills would allow 6,772 fans into the stadium for the game, which will be held either Jan. 9 or 10. Tickets will be available to season ticket holders starting Friday. Fans will pay $63 to be tested before the game; if they test positive, they would not be allowed into the stadium. (The ticket price would be refunded, but not the cost of the test.)
Cuomo framed the program as a “pilot” that could establish a model for reopening other businesses in the future. The Bills game provides a good test, he said, because there is control over who is allowed into the stadium and it is outdoors.
“If it works there, can you do Madison Square Garden,” Cuomo said. “Can you do a theater on Broadway? Could you do a certain capacity on a restaurant, so restaurants could start to open safely?”
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo speaks to members of New York state’s Electoral College before voting for President and Vice President in the Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol in Albany, New York on December 14, 2020. -(AFP)HANS PENNINK/Getty
He did not elaborate on how hosting fans at an outdoor football game could provide lessons applicable to indoor dining or other businesses, but he said the runway for achieving a critical mass in vaccination is so long — potentially nine to 12 months — that a total shutdown until then is unfeasible.
“If your position is there’s nothing we can do while the virus is here, you’re going to really have to be digging through the rubble, my friend,” Cuomo said. “And I’m in the business of trying to avoid rubble and devastation.”
