Wall Street, the insurance industry, and local governments are far ahead of Tim Dillingham, Senator Smith, and DEP on coastal climate risks
In a July 5 post, I explained what I saw as the Murphy DEP’s climate train wreck in slow motion (known as “PACT”), and the media’s failure to cover the story, see:
So, I was stunned by NJ Spotlight’s story today that appears to be an attempt to address some of the DEP climate PACT issues.
But instead of engaging and drilling down on the issues I suggested badly need attention, Spotlight did exactly the opposite.
They doubled down on diversion. And laid out a perverse COVID cover story.
And they used Tim Dillingham to downplay expectations, divert the focus, and make absurd and timid arguments that sounded like those of the NJ Builders Association, NJ Business and Industry Association, and the Chamber of Commerce!
(Ironically, and this is the best case interpretation, reporter Jon Hurdle may have attempted to agree with my main point: that the upcoming DEP PACT regulations would be a disaster. But, because Spotlight doesn’t feature critical stories or quote real critics, he failed miserably.)
I wrote reporter Jon Hurdle this nastygram, which is self-explanatory:
Jon – when are we going to get a focus on the emissions mitigation side? Or is that TJ’s exclusive turf?
As I’ve written, it is very likely that DEP will defer to BPU Energy Master Plan and RGGI, and do virtually nothing on using DEP regulations to mandate emissions reductions.
One of the 3 DEP climate PACT regulatory categories is emissions reductions. On the DEP PACT website you can access their presentation to Stakeholders and see HUGE gaps and weaknesses– there’s more than enough information there to write a story on, especially when you compare the DEP focus with the BPU Energy Master Plan. Cities around the country are doing many things in all sectors (energy, housing, transportation, land use) to mandate emissions reductions. DEP should inventory and benchmark best practices – why isn’t anyone even making these demands of DEP? The BPU Energy Master Plan addresses much of this, but provides no mechanisms to implement the vague policies/goals they outline – many of which could be driven by DEP regulatory standards and mandates.
(Note to readers not included in Hurdle email: Which led me to ask: why is DEP not posting the comments of Stakeholders on emissions reductions, like they did with other Stakeholder comments? What are they hiding?)
BTW – contrary to what your story states as a fact, wind does NOT reduce current emissions. There is no legal mandate, policy, engineering practice, or economic/contract term that requires that every MW capacity of wind be offset by 1-1 reductions in carbon based energy sources. The wind industry argues they need fossil gas plants to provide base load reliability to address intermittency. And most energy analysts predict continued growth in electric energy demand, which is not subject to any limits or caps under NJ law (ironically, while solar and renewables are legally capped). So, wind may simply serve new energy demand/economic growth and not reduce emissions at all. The BPU EMP does not refute the wind industry’s arguments for the need for gas, but merely poses the issue as an open policy question.
Finally, if you’re going to quote Tim Dillingham on DEP coastal issues, you need to include the fact that he receives DEP funding for coastal related issues (I’m not positive if this funding is current this FY). Your readers deserve FULL DISCLOSURE – FULL TRANSPARENCY. This is especially so when he is used to downplay expectations, frame a narrative, and shift the focus, i.e. away from emissions reductions (mitigation), away from regulations, as well as away from other adaptation issues, which is exactly what DEP wants right now. Smith did the same thing with his support of Blue Acres, a voluntary willing seller market based program, not a DEP regulatory mandate. Frankly, I’m getting sick over groups that take DEP money doing DEP’s PR. Tim’s comments could have come from Ray Cantor NJBIA, the Chamber of Commerce or the NJ BUidlers Assc. Why not make the bad guys state their case? Why put their horrible arguments in the mouths of purported conservationists?
PS – ironically, the financial markets and insurance industry are far ahead of Tim, Senator Smith, and DEP on coastal risk issues.
Wolfe