My (free) Lunch With NJBIA

Today is “Made in NJ Day” (No, Not Goodfellas “made”)

A Lousy Riff on “My Dinner With Andre

[Update 2 – 3/17/11 – This issue is so important it deserves its own post, but for now I’ll make the point in this update.

I got a nice email from a friend and former colleague asking if I now agreed with him about the positive role business can play in the environment. He was reacting to this:

several business folks said something along these lines in personal support of the environment, and I think it was sincere and not merely corporate PR).

So, I thought I’d outline my thoughts as to why individuals and corporate leaders could have very positive views, yet be constrained to act in bad ways.

The best explanation of what is going on (i.e. individual beliefs versus organizatonal practice) is discussed at time 2:20 in a superb interview: “How global warming became a liberal hoax”.    WATCH IT at this link:

Basically, there is an institutional contradiction – or trap. CEO’s know what is right (e.g. understand global warming), but the system incentives prohibit positive action.

“We’re marching over the cliff, and doing it for institutional reasons” end update]

I went to Trenton today to hear the Assembly debate the Christie federal standards rollback bill, which was posted for floor vote.

[Update: 3/15/11 - In writing the story of this bill, the Star Ledger failed to target the source of the problem and hold Governor Christie accountable for his policy (see: Assembly delays vote on bill barring N.J. agencies from making rules stricter than federal standards.

Could that be because they are listening to Dave Pringle, who has frequently provided cover for the Governor?

Environmentalists have lobbied hard against the bill, calling it a blatant giveaway to polluting industries. David Pringle, political director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said federal standards are supposed to be a floor that states can exceed if they choose.

“It’s clear that the drive behind this legislation is to make it harder to have strong, appropriate public health and environmental standards,” said Pringle. “It sends the wrong message. The federal government plays the lowest common denominator.”

Curious, I never heard Pringle once criticize Christie for issuing Executive Order #2, the real “drive behind the legislation“. EO #2 adopts the same federal standards policies. And EO #2 is even worse that the Burzichelli bill in one key regard: it is broader and would apply to the re-adoption of existing rules, so it is real rollback. In contrast, the legislation was amended and would exempt the re-adoption of existing rules.

Maybe Dave and Star Ledger reporters should read Star Ledger editorials, like this July 6, 2010 editorial criticizing the bill:   New Jersey politicians shouldn’t meddle with science.

But while this editorial correctly addresses the delegation doctrine issues and politicization of science by putting the legislature in charge of rules, , it too fails to target the Governor as the source of the federalism policy. Why is it so hard to get all the issues addressed in one place? There are only three: 1)Christie EO as the source of the problem; 2) federal standards; 3) politicization of science.

BTW, the Burzichelli excuse for why the bill was held is a lie. The bill was amended and already has an exemption for emergency rules. Leadership blocked the bill. End update]

Soon after I got there, I got a call and was invited to a meeting with a reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper, when Jeff Tittel popped in to advise that the bill had been held. I was just explaining the problem of delegation and modern doctrine of administrative law since the US Supreme Court’s 1935 Panama and Schechter Poultry New Deal decisions (professors Nate Hackman and Ted Lowi would be proud), when Jeff blurted out something about the Tea Party, Koch brothers, and a Democratic fundraiser …

So, off I wandered through the Statehouse chaos, where, according to the NJ Business and Industry Association (BIA):

Made in New Jersey Day is a celebration of New Jersey’s manufacturing industry, organized by NJBIA. Twenty-four New Jersey manufacturers will display their wares in  the halls of the State Capitol and tell their stories to state legislators…

These key policymakers will be able to see the interesting array of products that are still being made in New Jersey and learn more about the challenges manufacturers face doing business in New Jersey.

I immediately realized the opportunity to hear these stories and learn firsthand about “the challenges manufacturers face”.

I also decided to conduct my own infomal, ad hoc, non-statistically valid, opinion poll (is that enough caveats?).

While my poll is not valid, it is no less rigorous that NJBIA’s poll of its membership. NJBIA relies on that poll to lobby. Like mine, NJBIA’s poll  is not only statistically invalid and biased, it is based on anecdotal personal perceptions of businessmen, not on facts and data.

I spoke briefly and cordially with representatives of about half the 24 NJ manufacturers with displays.

I wanted to understand how they perceived the impacts of environmental regulations and DEP permitting on their specific businesses.

I also sought to test their knowledge of the claims and legislative policies being advocated by NJBIA lobbyists and to ask whether these claims jibed with their business experience and whether they agreed with them.

I specifically asked each business representative the following:

  • Do you have DEP permits? If so, what is your take on the impacts of environmental regulations and DEP permitting on your business practices? Please provide specific examples.
  • are environmental requirements discouraging investments in expansion of production or retention of jobs?
  • are environmental requirements driving production, investments, or jobs to locations in other states or countries?

After briefly discussing these questions, I asked more:

  • are you aware that NJBIA lobbyists have claimed that environmental requirements are a major factor in the economic recession and loss of jobs in NJ?
  • Do you agree that environmental requirements make NJ uncompetitive and drive manufacturing jobs to other states? If so, how? 
  • are you aware that NJBIA lobbyists are seeking across the board rollbacks in NJ’s environmental laws and standards?
  • Are these NJBIA claims and rollback policies consistent with your corporate philosophy and/or policies?

I got some interesting answers.

A few manufacturers said that environmental requirements had helped them economically by creating new markets, new products, satisfying consumer demands for environmentally friendly products, or serving marketing objectives by presenting the company as a good environmental steward (again, in response to public demands).

One explained how DEP restrictions improved his company’s handling of toxic heavy metals – which he said was not only good business, but reflected his personal concern for taking care of the planet’s health for his children and grandchildren (several business folks said something along these lines in personal support of the environment, and I think it was sincere and not merely corporate PR).

Based on these interviews, it seems like the NJBIA membership companies are philosophically far more more enlightened than their lobbying positions.

Only one company took the hardline NJBIA attack, Nustar Energy (Valero L.P. and Valero GP Holdings, LLC are now NuStar!)

So, after a brief but fierce “debate” – during which a Mr. Doug Brown from Nustar said his pro-environment business colleagues were “lying” to me - I felt compelled to remind Mr. Brown of the #1 corporate “Guiding Principle” on the huge placard displayed right behind him and then asked him how he reconciled the contradiction between attacking DEP and environmental regulations and adhering to his #1 corporate principle:

"1. Take care of yourself, others and the environment"

"1. Take care of yourself, others and the environment"

With the exception of Nustar, no other company could provide specific examples of how DEP hurt their businesses or would agree with NJBIA claims or policies advocated.

When I suggested I understood Nustar’s dinosaur perspective because there were inherent conflicts between oil refining and environmental protection, the Nustar spokeperson said Nustar was not just an oil company, but an energy company. So I then asked Mr. Brown - but he couldn’t provide an answer - how much Nustar was investing in non fossil fuels and alternative energy R&D or production. Earlier, I had seen Whitman Administration former DEP Deputy Commissioner Mark Smith at the Nustar display, so assumed Brown was up to speed on these kind of issues. I asked if Mr. Smith was with the company. Brown stated he had just met Smith and that he was Nustar’s lobbyist. Given NJ’s energy policies, I hope Mr. Smith is more knowledgeable than Mr. Brown and finds some time to give him a call to brief him on those policies.

So, after all this heavy lifting, I worked up quite an appetite, which gets us to the title of this post.

After the NJBIA heavyweights had their fill at the lunch trough, I stuck my head in the room and asked for alms for the poor - and the kind folks at NJBIA obliged!

Who said there’s no free lunch!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to My (free) Lunch With NJBIA

  1. Susan Armstrong says:

    I am heartened to hear the pro environment comments from the NJ businesses you write about, except for Nustar. The blatant contradiction in Nustars principles is too ironic and typical of these mega corporations that are doing such a fine job of ruining the planet.
    Great reporting, as always.

  2. Harry Schwartz says:

    I work for DEP and the businesses and municipalities I deal with often make the same comments that you heard: environmental rules are a cost of doing business – not a cost that is driving them away from NJ. Many of the businesses take pride in their environmental “stewardship” and recognize the need for it in this very densely populated state. What many of them do complain about is the high taxes, insurance costs, etc.

  3. Bill Wolfe says:

    @Susan Armstrong

    @Harry Schwartz

    Thanks Harry and Susan.

    Question for Hary – if this is your experience, then why do you think DEP and environmental regualtions are under such attack by the Governor, DEP Commisioner, Legislature and business community?

  4. Harry Schwartz says:

    Probably the biggest reason: development. By eliminating or reducing rules like the C1 protections or CAFRA rules, you open up that much more prime waterfront space for development.

    Also, as much as companies like to toot their environmental horn, DEP’s regs do cost them money. And every company and/or town is worried about the bottom line. So even though the enviro managers and staff that I deal with recognize the importance of DEP’s rules, the big bosses and moneymen only see the money spent.

    Finally, the DEP is made up of public employees who are the cause of the dire financial status that NJ is currently in (or at least that’s what the newspaper & radio tell me every day!) So get rid of the rules, you won’t need a DEP.

  5. Bill Wolfe says:

    I got a nice email from a friend and former colleague asking if I now agreed with him about the role of business in the environment. He was reacting to this:

    “several business folks said something along these lines in personal support of the environment, and I think it was sincere and not merely corporate PR).

    So, I thought I’d outline my thoughts as to why individuals and corporate leaders could have very positive views, yet be constrained to act in bad ways.

    The best explanation of what is going on (i.e. individual beliefs versus organizatonal practice) is discussed at time 2:20 in a superb interview: “How global warming became a liberal hoax”. WATCH IT at thuis link:

    http://www.thenation.com/video/158093/noam-chomsky-how-climate-change-became-liberal-hoax

    Basically, there is an institutional contradiction – or trap. CEO’s know what is right (e.g. understand global warming), but the system incentives prohibit positive action.

    “We’re marching ove the cliff, and doing it for institutional reasons”

  6. Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » NJ Democrats Attempted To Pass A Law That Would Do Exactly What The Radical US Supreme Court Just Did In Striking Down Obama EPA’s Clean Power Plan

Leave a Reply