SUFFOLK CLOSEUP: Global Warming "We Are In The Fight Of Our Lives"

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

The title is long but what’s being considered are projects that have financial costs with a very long series of dollar numbers. “Coastal Defense Megaprojects in an Era of Sea-Level Rise: Politically Feasible Strategies or Army Corps Fantasies?” is its title.

It is a detailed analysis just out about proposed “megaprojects” involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the Corps sees as protecting coastal areas from storms made extremely intense due to global warming or climate change. 

Consider $119,000,000,000. That $119 billion would be used for a plan featuring a series of retractable gates built in a six mile stretch out in the Atlantic Ocean from New Jersey to the Rockaways. Writing in The New York Times in 2021, Ann Barnard reported: “The giant barrier is the largest of five options the Army Corps of Engineers is studying to protect the New York area as storms become more frequent, and destructive, on a warming Earth.” Her article was headlined: “The $119 Billion Sea Wall That Could Defend New York…or Not.”

It continued: “The proposals have sparked fierce debate as New York, like other coastal cities, grapples with the broader question of how and to what degree it must transform its landscape and lifestyle to survive rising seas.”

This scheme was succeeded—after its cost, environmental impacts and practicality were questioned—by what Barnard in The Times described in an article last year as the Army Corps’ “latest vision of how to protect the region from future storms: a $52 billion proposal to build moveable sea barriers across the mouths of major bays and inlets along New York Harbor.” 

“If Congress approved the proposal,” she went on, “the federal government would pay 65 percent” of the $52 billion cost.” The plan, she added, would also include “31 miles of land-based levees, elevated shorelines and sea walls. It would require approval from the state and local governments that would foot the rest of the bill.” 

Whether $119 billion or $52 billion—taxpayers will be deeply affected. 

And also last year, for Long Island Dr. Malcolm Bowman, an oceanography professor at Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, presented a study he did that proposed “sea gates” to serve as storm surge barriers at south shore inlets from East Rockaway Inlet on to five other inlets including Fire Island, Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets.

It is titled “Protecting Long Island from Future Sandy Flood Events: A South Shore Sea Gate Study.” The gates would be mostly left open but when a big storm approached, they’d close to prevent storm surges from entering the bays into which the inlets lead.

In presenting his study, funded by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bowman told the Long Island Regional Planning Board about the “sea gates—“Think of them like a saloon door.” As for cost, he set no figure but acknowledged that the plan would be in the multi-billion dollar range.

That “Coastal Defense Megaprojects in an Era of Sea Level Rise” report in the current issue of the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management of the American Society of Civil Engineers was written by a professor from Rutgers University and two professors from Princeton University—including Dr. Michael Oppenheimer. They conclude: “We are pessimistic that storm surge barriers will be politically feasible climate adaptation options” for reasons including “modern environmental laws that provide avenues for expression of oppositional views within the decision process” and “the allure of alternative options that are more aesthetically pleasing and cheaper and faster to implement even when they do not offer equivalent levels of protection—e.g. green/nature-based solutions.”  Before joining the Princeton faculty, Oppenheimer was for 20 years the chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, launched and long headquartered in Suffolk County.  

In medicine, there’s a focus on the cause, not just the effect, of a disease. These “megaprojects” focus on an effect of global warming, of climate change. Would it not be a wiser—and economically far more practical—to focus on the cause? Instead of the billions upon billions of dollars being proposed to try to deal with an effect, we need to get at the main cause of global warming: the burning of fossil fuels: coal, gas and oil. 

Efforts to combat global warming/climate change—notably a rapid transition to clean, green fuels—have for years not been strong enough. There’s been talk and talk, and some action. But time and again necessary steps have been blocked by vested interests—the coal, gas and oil industries—and politicians in denial of climate change often in the pockets of these industries.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declared at last year’s COP 27 Climate 

Change Summit: “We are in the fight of our lives, and we are losing. Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing, global temperatures keep rising, and our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible. We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.”

We must, indeed, fully challenge and counter the cause of an existential global illness.

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books. 

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP: Legislator Trotta Wants To Limit Political Activities Of Police

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

Legislator Trotta At LegislatureSuffolk County Legislator Rob Trotta—a long-time Suffolk cop now retired—has introduced a bill that would prohibit members of the Suffolk County Police Department from, as its title declares, “engaging in political activity.”

His measure states that the Suffolk County Legislature “determines that legislation is needed in Suffolk County to limit the participation of police officers in the political arena in order to ensure public confidence in the Suffolk County Police Department and for effective maintenance of discipline and the preservation and promotion of the integrity and efficiency of the Police Department and its personnel.”

It also declares that “nothing herein shall a prevent a police officer from: registering and voting in any election; expressing an opinion as individual privately on political issues and candidates; signing political petitions as an individual or personally contribute to a candidate’s campaign, or otherwise participating fully in public affairs.”

It would “prohibit conduct” of a police officer to: “serve as an officer of partisan political parties or clubs in the County of Suffolk; assume an active role in management, organization or financial activities of partisan political clubs, campaigns or parties in the County of Suffolk; contribute any money, directly, or indirectly, to or solicit, collect or receive any money for any political fund or event; become a candidate for a campaign for a partisan elective public office affecting the County of Suffolk; solicit votes in support or in opposition to any partisan candidates within the County of Suffolk; use their official capacity to influence, interfere with or affect the results of any election; serve as a delegate to a political party convention affecting the County of Suffolk.”

And the list of “prohibited conduct” continues: “endorse or oppose a partisan candidate for public office in a political advertisement, broadcast or campaign literature within the County of Suffolk; initiate or circulate a partisan nominating petition within the County of Suffolk; address political gatherings in support of or in opposition to a partisan candidate within the County of Suffolk; serve as a member of a political party committee in the County of Suffolk, or: otherwise engage in prohibited partisan activities on the federal, state, county or municipal level.”

It might seem unlikely that a former Suffolk County Police Department officer would author such legislation. Trotta, of Fort Salonga—he grew up in Commack—for 25 years served as a uniformed officer and then a detective in the department. He retired in 2013 running that year successfully for the Suffolk County Legislature. His tenure as a cop included more than 10 years as a member of the FBI Violent Crimes Task Force. He was named “Cop of the Year” in 1993 and “Detective of the Year” in 2001 by his department superiors. 

As a Suffolk legislator, Trotta, a Republican, has been highly concerned about political activities of Suffolk police unions—led by the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association—endorsing and giving the money as campaign contributions to Suffolk politicians. “The funds are collected illegally,” Trotta said in an interview last week. “Each police officer is forced to give a dollar a day—which comes to a million dollars a year.” Meanwhile, there are “police officers who say they do not want to contribute.” 

They “are essentially bribing politicians,” said Trotta, and in return get lavish contracts. The police unions by intervening in politics “rule by fear and intimidation,” he said.

The Suffolk County Police Department has an unusual structure. The department came into being in 1960 following a countywide referendum in 1958 in which voters were asked whether they wanted to disband their town and village police departments—the long-time police system in all of Suffolk—in favor of a county department. 

A majority of voters in the five East End towns voted no to that, along with voters in several western Suffolk villages, among them the large villages of Amityville and Northport and several smaller villages such as Nissequoque. 

So only in the western Suffolk “police district” where voters opted for the change is the county department the uniformed police force. However, the county still provided that many functions of the new Suffolk County Police Department—its headquarters operation, special units such as the Homicide Squad, Arson Squad, and its Marine Bureau, among others—be financially supported by all county taxpayers. Ostensibly, these components of the new department would provide assistance to the retained town and village departments. They are financed through the “general fund” of the annual county budget into which all Suffolk taxpayers pay.  

More next week on the Trotta legislation.

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books. 

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP : "A Celebration Of Trees"

 SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

It’s enchanting and important: “A Celebration of Trees,” an exhibit at the Southampton Arts Center.

The inspiration for it came from the experience of artist Laurie Dolphin at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic at her home, amid trees, off Fresh Pond on Shelter Island. “During COVID I was on Shelter Island surrounded by trees and I was isolated,” she relates. The “trees were talking to me. I would feel their interconnectivity.”

She had a “dream” of organizing an exhibit honoring and recognizing the significance of trees. 

Knowing “I cannot do this alone,” she enlisted Daniela Kronemeyer and Coco Myers to work with her in being co-curators of a possible exhibit.

It is outstanding—and includes the work of 77 artists from 20 countries. 

Dolphin explains that the aim was not only to present the “diversity” of trees from around the world but also to do it with a diversity of art: paintings, photography, sculpture, film, etchings and poetry. 

Upon entering the exhibit, one encounters a narrative on a wall declaring: “A Celebration of Trees is an ecological multi-media exhibition created to expand thought and consciousness about the world’s vast network of trees, a critical resource to humanity’s survival…. This exhibit showcases the beauty and mystery of trees while inspiring viewers to thoughtfully contemplate how to protect them.”

The eloquent narratives on the walls of the many rooms that the exhibit encompasses are the words of poets Megan and Scott Chaskey of Sag Harbor. Scott is also the author of books, a farmer and pioneer of the community farming movement. At the entrance, too, is a striking sculpture, in wood, done by Megan’s father, the late Bill King.

“Trees have been called the most successful form of life within the great wheel of nature,” says one of the narratives.

The exhibit includes photos by famed Brazilian photojournalist Sebastiao Salgado of trees and Indigenous people in the Amazon, the world’s largest tropical rainforest—which is under extreme threat.

There are photos by Beth Moon who has traveled the world photographing trees notably the Baobab tree in Africa which can live for more than 2,000 years.

Information and art relating to the redwoods of California which “can live as long as 3,000 years” it is noted, are featured.

Focusing on Long Island, there are presentations involving Indigenous people here and trees—notably the white pine with its medicinal values for them.

There is a series of nine etchings by master printmaker Dan Welden, who came from Babylon to Sag Harbor, of evergreen trees, their limbs bedecked by snow.

Photos of palm trees taken by artist Andy Warhol, long a resident of Montauk, are presented. It is explained: “Little known and rarely exhibited are Andy Warhol’s black and white silver gelatin photographs” and how Warhol “viewed trees and the natural landscape with just as much importance as the celebrity-filled arts and culture scenes for which he is most famous.”

There are “60,000 species of trees,” the exhibit points out. 

“For over 300 million years, trees have helped stabilize and improve environmental conditions for life on our planet,” it is noted. 

A partner, too, in the exhibit is the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive. As a flier available at the exhibit says about this Michigan-based organization, its “mission is to propagate the world’s most important old growth trees before they are gone… and reforest the Earth with the offspring of these trees to provide the myriad of beneficial ecosystem services essential for all life forms to thrive.” There is a warning: “Even though the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive has made great strides, there is still much work to do. With over eight thousand tree species on the endangered species list and our world in ecological peril, AATA needs your help in attaining their goal.”

There is also a series of events—including workshops—connected to the exhibit. 

Two weeks ago, my wife and I went to Vermont to witness the glorious burst of color of trees in Vermont starting in early October. Now, in late October, trees on Long Island are also abounding in color—just one of the gifts they provide.

“A Celebration of Trees” will be running Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays through December 18. The Southampton Art Museum is at 25 Jobs Lane, Southampton. Admission is free. What you will get out of it is enormous.

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP: Elections, Political Advertising And Likability

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

As the 2022 election season comes to a close, highways in Suffolk County are full of political campaign signs making those sequential Burma-Shave signs of decades ago look minimal. For those who were not around when those placards bedecked the landscape, one of their sequences ran: “Within this vale/of toil/and sin/your head grows bald/but not your chin/use Burma-Shave.”

Put up until the 1960s, what became 7,000 signs are credited with leading Burma-Shave to becoming the second best-selling shaving cream in the U.S. I’d say there are well more than 7,000 political campaign signs just in Suffolk these days. Their main purpose: familiarizing voters with the names of candidates.

Then there are fliers and newspaper ads—material in print which highlight the positions on issues of candidates and their backgrounds.

And then have come political TV commercials, and today these commercials are increasingly running on the internet, too. They aim at striking a different chord: appealing to feelings and emotions. This is done mainly by having candidates seem likeable. The commercials also often feature negative attacks on opponents of the nominees illustrated with unflattering photos and videos of them. 

In New York State, we are flooded this year with many political TV commercials for incumbent Governor Kathy Hochul and Suffolk Congressman Lee Zeldin in their contest for governor. In Suffolk, candidates for Congress are using TV commercials.

Political TV commercials are expensive. Indeed, paying for them is a big part of the finances of any campaign utilizing them.

The model for the political TV commercial was launched 70 years ago.

It was 1952, and a Madison Avenue advertising man, Rosser Reeves, convinced Dwight Eisenhower to use TV commercials in his run for the presidency. Four years earlier, Reeves tried to interest the prior Republican presidential candidate, Thomas Dewey, in the approach. But Dewey “did not buy the idea of lowering himself to the commercial environment of a toothpaste ad,” relates Robert Spero in his book “The Duping of the American Voter, Dishonesty & Deception in Presidential Television Advertising.”

The Eisenhower commercials were coordinated with what became the campaign slogan: “I Like Ike.” Reeves had an early understanding that television best communicates feeling and emotion, not information. 

Thus, the Eisenhower commercials presented the former five-star general grinning and appearing likeable—getting to voters’ feelings and emotions and making the strongest use of the TV medium.

The Democratic candidate, former Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, tried to counter the blitz of 15-second Eisenhower spots. He embarked on a series of half-hour lectures on TV. Stevenson tried to, as he reflected, “talk sense to the American people.” As National Public Radio has noted, Stevenson “was an old-fashioned intellectual who believed in long speeches and the power of words…So he bought 30-minute blocks on TV, but nobody tuned in to watch.” 

I wrote a thesis as a graduate student in the Media Studies Program at the New School for Social Research titled: “The Political TV Commercial as a Pivotal Component in American Presidential Politics.” I analyzed every presidential campaign from the Eisenhower-Stevenson races through each presidential contest up until 1980 (as I received my degree in 1981).

The final race I wrote about was the 1980 presidential run of Ronald Reagan. Many voters might have disliked his policies, but a substantial number liked Reagan—based on the image he projected through television. With the ability to perform on TV having become a necessary attribute of a presidential candidate, the Republican Party had chosen an actor to run for president. He had been governor of California but previously, for eight years, Reagan performed on TV as host of “General Electric Theatre.”

So, it has gone—highlighted in recent years by Barack Obama, a master at speaking, smiling and being likeable through television, and, for some, Donald Trump, who earlier, for 14 years, performed on TV as host of “The Apprentice.”

I’ve long wondered how George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln would have fared in presidential races which rely on a candidate’s likeability as transmitted in political TV commercials. 

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books. 

LTE: Why not Announce Your Salary Increase Before Election

To Tom McCarthy,

I want to voice my concern to the 22% Salary increase you are giving. Remember the people of Smithtown are the ones paying your salary, and if you really think it is necessary you should have let us know prior to electing you. You obviously wouldn’t propose this prior to your election, so you are trying to sneak it thru. Please be transparent, it is not your money its ours.

 Sincerely,

 Alan Robbins, Smithtown