The Christie DEP says Barnegat Bay entering the Age of Aquarium?
“Barnegat Bay stressors are not just pollution,” said Thomas Belton, a state Department of Environmental Protection scientist, in a July interview. “They include bulkheads (that attract sea nettles), the Oyster Creek power plant, which has a big impact on the system.”
“When you shut that off, you have to think of Barnegat Bay as a giant aquarium, where the filter’s been turned off and the water has changed,” Belton said. ~~~ Asbury Park Press, 9/17/14
Ah yes:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ ~~~ Through the Looking Glass
Now let’s get back to reality.
The Christie DEP is being criticized severely in many quarters – rightly so – for a grossly irresponsible proposal that would invite even more development to NJ’s already over-developed and highly vulnerable coast, e.g. see this Star Ledger editorial:
Pressure is building on the Legislature to veto that DEP rule as “inconsistent with legislative intent”, e.g. see NJ Surfrider petition
But what is being lost in this – and many other single issue environmental debates – is how the Christie administration is not only going in the wrong direction.
The Gov. and his DEP team have – in an across the board fashion – derailed scientific and policy development efforts to move in the right direction.
A prime example of that is how the Gov.’s Barnegat Bay “10 Point Management Plan” has politicized the DEP’s research agenda and how those mis-focused studies have displaced and diverted scientific research on issues like this:
At over 1/3 of the bay watershed in human altered land use, the BB-LEH system is heavily impacted by watershed inputs and adjacent land use
Next steps: Defining critical thresholds of BBW land use change in relation to the downstream impact to the Bay.
– How much impervious and lawn surface can be added before the bay reaches a critical tipping point? Are we already there?
Those were the critical scientific questions being framed by Rutgers researchers in 2010, as the Christie Administration took control of DEP.
Could you imagine the Christie DEP talking about “ghost trees” and the fact that the shore is “in a vice”? That back bay flooding is an “achilles heel”?
The last things the Christie DEP wants to talk about are climate change, limiting shore development, and the need to “retreat” and adapt to sea level rise.
So they suppress science and hijack the research agenda and shift focus to secondary issues that examine politically safe topics.
As an illustration of how they do this, it is simply amazing to contrast the focus of that 2010 Rutgers/DEP research agenda with the current Christie DEP research agenda.
All the key issues framed in 2010 are completely gone:
- land use as driver of water quality, habitat, and ecological declines
- loss of riparian buffers
- climate change – sea level rise – coastal vulnerability
- adaptation and restoration strategies – “retreat”
- tipping points
All of that work was building the scientific basis to support land use planning and regulatory strategies that could mitigate the ecological collapse and human disaster underway at the coast.
All of that is now gone. Completely gone.
And the coast is not the only place where the irresponsible and incompetent Christie DEP regime has hijacked and reversed the scientific, environmental, and public health policy agendas.
Some of this damage is irreversible, while other will set back progress by a decade.
Pingback: precios camisetas del real madrid
Pingback: borussia dortmund nueva camiseta 2014
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » NJ Media Continues To Mislead The Public About Shore Risks
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » “The Whole World Is In Non-Attainment for Greenhouse Gases”
Pingback: 丕賱賳卮乇丞 丕賱廿禺亘丕乇賷丞 丕賱丕禺亘丕乇 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丞 丕賱賲丨賱賷丞 賵丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 .. 賵賱賯丕亍 丕賱兀賴賱賷 賲毓 丕賱兀賮乇賷賯賷 賵丕賱夭賲丕賱賰 賵爻丕賳噩
Pingback: 毓賳丿 丕禺 賷丕乇 賲賱丕亘爻 丕胤賮丕賱 賱賱亘賷 賳乇丕毓賷 丿丕卅賲丕 丕禺 賷丕乇 丕賱兀賯賲卮丞 丕賱賲乇賷丨丞貙 賵丕賱 氐賲賷賲丕 丕賱賵丕爻毓丞貙 賵丕賱兀賱賵丕賳 丕賱賲
Pingback: 1 夭賵噩 丕賱乇賷丕囟丞 丕賱爻賱丕賲丞 丿毓賲 丕賱賲毓氐賲 丕賱兀爻丕賵乇 賵 賵爻丕丿丕鬲 丕賱賰賵毓 丕賱賲毓氐賲 賴丿賮賷賳 賷賱鬲賮 囟賲丕丿丞 賱賱賯賮丕夭丕鬲 丕賱氐丕賱丞
Pingback: LULAA 8 兀賱賵丕賳 亘賷乇賱賷爻爻賷賳鬲 賱丕賲毓 匕賴亘賷 賱丕賲毓 兀丨賲乇 卮賮丕賴 賲胤賮賷 賱丕賲毓 卮賮丕賴 鬲賷賳鬲 亘賵丿乇丞 賲爻鬲丨囟乇丕鬲 鬲噩賲賷賱 丿丕卅賲 亘丕鬲賵
Pingback: 丕賱兀亘丿賷丞 1 賯胤毓丞 丕賱賲丨賲賵賱丞 丕賱鬲禺賷賷賲 賱丨丕賲 丕賱睾丕夭 丕賱卮毓賱丞 賱賴亘 亘賳丿賯賷丞 賯丕匕賮 丕賱賱賴亘 丕賱亘賵鬲丕賳 丕賱賲賵賯丿 丕賱乇賷丕丨 亘
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » NJ Residents Are Still Drinking Rocket Fuel In Tap Water