New York Democrats have a longstanding habit of taking an issue like environmental policy and addressing it with the most extreme, unrealistic solutions conceivable. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) passed in 2019 is one such example of that type of overreaction, and [as of press time] several Assembly committees were set to be meeting to discuss one of the proposals born of the law: all-electric buildings.

The hearing was to examine the feasibility of requiring all new construction to eliminate fuel combustion and move to an all-electric energy system. There are enormous concerns with this type of dramatic shift in energy policy. One such concern, as enumerated by the Empire Center for Public Policy, is a lack of power during the coldest, darkest months of the year. The policy analysts there estimate that energy deficits could lead to a supply shortage of as much as 10 percent by 2040. An energy shortage or blackout during a severe winter storm could be fatal under these conditions.

For example, last year a polar vortex enveloped Texas and the state’s energy grid was unable to keep up with demand. All told, as many as 750 people died and property damage approached $200 billion. We simply cannot have a situation where there is not enough power to go around, and the CLCPA is setting us up for that very scenario.

Broadly speaking, the CLCPA is, essentially, a list of emissions goals. Outside of the obvious risks to the energy grid, the goals are financially unworkable. Estimates of the annual cost to implementing the recommendations in the legislation are in the billions of dollars. Taxes and utility costs are expected to rise dramatically to cover expenses like retrofitting the state’s energy system. The motivation for the law is dubious as well, as New York only contributes about 0.5 percent of global carbon emissions and only 3 percent of emissions here in the U.S. In other words, New York is “green” by any reasonable standard, especially Upstate.

The Assembly Republican Conference has always stood for creating a cleaner, healthier New York, and I believe there are responsible ways to leverage the benefits of renewable energy. But Democrats are forcing through climate policy and a massive overhaul of the utility sector without even the courtesy of telling the average New York household what it’s going to cost.

Unfortunately, the current path we are on is dangerous and unsustainable. I urge the [state legislature] to consider closely the impact this law will have on the individuals asked to pay for and live though its standards; they are the ones most at risk.

William (Will) A. Barclay, 53, Republican, is the New York Assembly minority leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. 

Having just watched a U.S. Supreme Court nominee supported by a comfortable majority of Americans draw just three Republican votes in the Senate, you could be forgiven for thinking bipartisanship in Congress is a thing of the past. And in the case of Supreme Court nominees, you’d be right: The last time a nominee received more than half the votes of the opposition party was in 2005, and you have to go back nearly three decades — to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 — to find one who drew votes from almost all senators.

But if you look carefully, there are plenty of signs that bipartisanship is still possible in Washington, D.C. President Joe Biden recently signed into law a bill reforming the Postal Service, which drew strong support from both parties in Congress. The same happened with a measure that keeps companies and universities from shielding themselves against lawsuits for sexual harassment. And both houses have passed a package aimed at boosting American competitiveness, again with support in both parties. 

There are other examples, as well, but you’ll notice something about them — they’re not focused on hot-button issues like voting rights or gun control or immigration. This is in no small part because in the Senate, a measure effectively needs 60 votes to pass — which means neither party can get bills approved without members of the other party.

This is often intensely frustrating to partisans of whichever party is in power. Yet I’d argue it’s not a bad thing. In fact, the need for bipartisanship is pretty much baked into our system. 

We live in a time when political life is intensely polarized and many Americans live in what amount to partisan bubbles of like-minded neighbors. For many people, this is just fine — they’re okay with avoiding contact with people who have different views. And ambitious politicians, always looking for an edge, have figured out how to navigate division: They use polarization to raise money from one group of potential supporters by attacking another group, and then goose election turnout by riling up their base. 

There are some state legislatures where party-line lawmaking can produce actual laws, but at the national level, intense polarization yields legislative deadlock. And at both the federal and state levels, it produces laws with dubious futures. 

The reason for this is that by requiring lawmakers to compromise and work with their political adversaries, bipartisanship often produces better, longer-lasting legislation. It helps ensure that a proposed law will take into account a broad range of views, produces wider acceptance both within a legislative body and in the public at large, and perhaps most importantly, means that the legislation has a chance of surviving the next change in power. That, inevitably in our system, will occur. 

Politicians recognize this, of course. It’s not just that most Americans prefer to see bipartisanship. The reason you see politicians talking about finding bipartisan support and, less frequently but still often enough, working hard to secure it, is that they know that getting support from members of the other party is usually necessary not only to get something passed, but also to have it be implemented effectively. 

To put it simply, if you’re just interested in scoring points with the base, then bipartisanship doesn’t matter. If you want to have a beneficial and lasting impact on American life, it matters a great deal. 

It may be tempting these days to throw up one’s hands in despair at the displays of highly partisan behavior in Washington, D.C., and all around us at home in our states. But as a voter, there is something you can do about it. Notice all the instances in which lawmakers work across the aisle to secure some piece of legislation. Pay attention to who does the heavy lifting to make it possible, and who stands in the way. Then support the people who recognize that bipartisanship is the route to effective legislating.        

Lee Hamilton, 91, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.