WolfeNotes.com

No wakeup calls. No lessons learned. No real reforms.

The Worship of Mammon

After Ida – just like after Sandy – it’s business as usual in Trenton (see:

• We’re All Okies Now – The Dustbowl As Metaphor For Global Warming Crisis

No wakeup calls. No lessons learned. No real reforms.

I wrote a letter to Legislators I have worked with for years recommending real reforms, and they are so deep in denial that they don’t even give me the dignity of a response.

But lots of self serving press releases; “bold” tweets; empty platitudes paraded around in “serious” Op-Ed’s; window dressing gestures; and cheerleading by the usual Neoliberal sycophants.

Lots of diversionary press stories and apologetics (hey – one should never “cast aspersions”!) – with no focus on the root causes and real science based solutions.

Lots of human interest stories about heroic resilience, “NJ Strong”, and bold political leadership – voluntary private local efforts displace government responsibility.

Lots of scientists and “experts” downplaying problems and dancing gently around “policy issues” as they effectively unwittingly manufacture paralyzing uncertainty in their cowardly equivocations.

The land grant public universities abandon their independent, public interest, and critical role and instead promote toothless and knowingly failed voluntary local “solutions” that present absolutely no threat to the political status quo, corporate power, or development and financial interests.

Lots of government abdication.

(And we warned you: (NJ Spotlight)

Bill Wolfe, a retired DEP policy analyst and the current author of an environmental blog, said the comments “reflect an astonishing abdication of DEP’s regulatory responsibilities,” particularly coming from an administration that claims to be a leader in battling climate change.

“DEP must regulate to achieve deep emissions reductions and reduce risks as clearly reflected by an overwhelming scientific consensus,” Wolfe said. “Delay only makes matters worse.”

Lots of well fed Foundation and corporate funded faux “environmental leaders” and boutique activists providing political cover and lying to the public.

Lots of corporate spin and business community concerns about the costs of reforms and impacts on the economy.

And lots of NJ Spotlight stenography of those corporate lies.

Lots of opportunist media mouthpieces, who desperately seek their names in the paper at all costs, not matter what drivel they are spouting.

Lots of empty virtue signaling and identity politics, which intentionally divert from the substance to give politicians false praise and DEP a pass.

Lots of denial and flat out lies and propaganda.

We’re doomed and we really deserve it.

Diogenes

Whitman Never Clearly Admitted Error or Lies, Or Apologized

Failure To Hold Whitman Accountable Has Enabled Government Officials To Lie With Impunity

This is a repost of my September 11, 2009 post. 

I need to add a few thoughts today, upon reflection.

Since then, Whitman offered up an excuse for her lies and expressed regrets – but not an apology and not regrets for the huge loss of life and suffering she caused. Of course, the NJ hometown media mischaracterized it as an admission of error and an apology.

Whitman’s so called “apology” – where she actually doubled down on her lies – also was published internationally – here’s the Guardian of 9/10/16: note the big “IF”:

Speaking to the Guardian for a report on the growing health crisis to be published on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of the attacks, Whitman made an unprecedented apology to those affected but denied she had ever lied about the air quality or known at the time it was dangerous.

“Whatever we got wrong, we should acknowledge and people should be helped,” she said, adding that she still “feels awful” about the tragedy and its aftermath.

“I’m very sorry that people are sick,” she said. “I’m very sorry that people are dying and if the EPA and I in any way contributed to that, I’m sorry. We did the very best we could at the time with the knowledge we had.”

“Whatever we got wrong”? IF? IF? IF? “Contributed in any way“?

“Did the best” “with the knowledge we had” is a another lie.

Since then, Whitman has shilled for the nuclear industry and taken steps to rehabilitate and distance herself from her role in 9/11. Of course, the corrupt corporate media has supported that effort.

I write this post for accountability. There can be no redemption without truth.

Very few recall the fact that a federal Judge found that Whitman’s knowing lies about the toxic risks of the post 9/11 air were so false and damaging to first responders and the public that they “shocked the conscience”. That is the legal phrase a federal Judge used. 

Here’s the text (boldface) of that judicial finding in the District Court decision (which was reversed on appeal on narrow technical legal grounds, not whether Whitman’s statements were knowingly and intentionally false):

In Benzman v. Whitman, No. 04 Civ. 1888, 2006 WL 250527 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2006), the district court considered substantive due process claims arising from the same press releases at issue in this case.   Citing Briscoe, Benzman held that if the reassuring statements made by EPA officials were made with knowledge of their falsehood, they were unquestionably conscience-shocking based on the nature of the EPA’s mandate:

The EPA is designated as the agency in our country to protect human health and the environment, and is mandated to work for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.   The agency enforces regulations regarding pollution in our environment and the presence of toxic and hazardous substances, and has endorsed and promulgated regulations for hazardous and toxic materials, such as asbestos and lead.   As head of the EPA, Whitman knew of this mandate and took part in and directed the regulatory activities of the agency.   Given this responsibility, the allegations in this case of Whitman’s reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the September 11, 2001 attacks are without question conscience-shocking.

As a matter of fact, the Appellate Court decision that reversed the District Court’s findings that Whitman’s behavior “without question” “shocked the conscience”, actually validated the finding that Whitman knowingly lied. The Appellate Court ruled:

Accepting as we must the allegation that the defendants made the wrong decision by disclosing information they knew to be inaccurate, and that this had tragic consequences for the plaintiffs, we conclude that a poor choice made by an executive official between or among the harms risked by the available options is not conscience-shocking merely because for some persons it resulted in grave consequences that a correct decision could have avoided.

Whitman should have been shamed and run out of public life.

Instead, the media gave her a pass.

Instead of sending a message of deterrence to government officials that lies about science that kill people will not be tolerated and will destroy your career, the pass gave a green light to allow public officials to lie with impunity.

And here we are. Bush WMD lies stacked on Climate lies stacked on COVID lies stacked on “Stop the Steal” lies. (CounterPunch)

In an October 17, 2004 New York Times Magazine article, Ron Suskind interviewed a Bush administration official who, with imperialistic hubris, referred to journalists as members of the “reality-based community” and declared, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too.” In 2005, Stephen Colbert coined the term “truthiness.” And now, we live in a world where Trump supporter Scottie Nell Hughes’ blithe declaration that “There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore, as facts” is less hollow than one might wish and where former Trump administration spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway referred on numerous occasions to “alternative facts.”

YEARS BEFORE WHITMAN’S 9/11 EPA lies, the media also gave Whitman a pass for the lies she told about the risks of eating toxic mercury laden fish in 1994 when she was Governor of NJ.

In that case, Whitman lied, distorted, and suppressed science that put people’s lives at risk and she did so knowingly and to protect her own personal political interests.

I blew the whistle on these abuses, and as a result, Whitman’s henchmen retaliated and  threatened me with criminal prosecution and ultimately forced me out of DEP.

Let me now name names:

These henchmen were DEP Commissioner Bob Shinn; Shinn’s Chief of Staff Mark Smith; (since deceased), Shinn’s legal Counselor  Mike Hogan (the notorious Judge in the corrupt Exxon billion dollar sellout); and Florio administration holdover, “liberal” Democrat DEP Assistant Commissioner Richard Sinding.

I have a transcript of Mr. Sinding’s sworn testimony during my administrative hearings where he admitted knowingly lying about the science, at the direction of Commissioner Shinn, in writing a corrupt strategy memo to Gov. Whitman. I have that memo as well.

I have press clips that have Whitman’s hand written notes directing Shinn to brief her on the issue, a request that the Sinding memo responded to.

Instead of being held accountable for those lies in 1994, Whitman evaded accountability and instead of being dismissed from public life she was rewarded and promoted.

I’ll be writing about this in detail in future posts.

Had the media taken my whistleblowing seriously back in 1994, Whitman would have been exposed as a liar in 1994 and would have been discredited, and perhaps never confirmed by the US Senate as George Bush’s EPA Administrator.

I alerted the US Senate Environment Committee and submitted written testimony, which was ignored (hard to make any headway when NJ’s Democratic Senators Torricelli and Corzine introduced Whitman to the Committee and supported Whitman’s nomination).

And that is a deeply disturbing counter-factual that troubles me to this day.

Dying Jersey Guy Recalls Whitman 9-11 Remarks – “She’s a Liar”

After the dust settled on Hurricane Katrina’s deadly devastation of New Orleans, the news media disclosed the fact that the levees failed due, in part, to the fact that they were designed and constructed to meet lax standards by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

As a result of the public outrage that ensued, the USACoE levee standards were strengthened and upgraded to protect against a Category 3 storm.

That is not adequate, but it improved protections over the status quo.

We have a very similar situation now unfolding in the deadly Hurricane Ida flooding, which was exacerbated by historic failures of NJ’s flood protections laws and DEP regulations.

As a result of these flaws:

• thousands of people live in dangerous flood hazard areas and don’t know it.
• people are unknowingly buying homes in hazardous locations and putting their families and financial futures at risk.
• billions of dollars of property located in dangerous flood hazard areas is not insured.
• developers are being allowed to build in hazardous locations and pass the costs on to the public.
• we are wasting billions of dollars on fatally flawed “resilience” projects that are “antiquated” and designed to fail because they are designed to meet “obsolete” DEP regulatory standards that do not reflect climate science.

The current DEP regulations do not consider climate change impacts and risks.

Gov. Murphy’s promised DEP climate regulations have been stalled for 4 years, despite the fact that DEP has “emergency rulemaking” powers and could adopt regulations immediately.

In response to this inaction, I fired off this request to legislators:

Dear Chairman Smith and Senators:

In light of the most recent round of catastrophic flooding, I strongly urge you to hold oversight hearings and enact legislation to address the following “significant deficiencies” in current NJ law and regulation:

1. Amend the following statutory law to eliminate the 100 year design flood and address climate science and projected storm intensity:

58:16A-55.2. Structure or alteration within area subject to inundation by 100 year design flood of nondelineated stream; approval; conditions 

2. Amend the following statutory law to eliminate the “right to rebuild”:

58:16A-55.1. Repair or rebuilding of lawful preexisting structure within flood hazard area

3. Amend the following statutory law to eliminate preference for private property rights over public safety and the public interests: (Flood Hazard Area Control Act):

“No such approval by the department shall impair or affect any property rights otherwise existing which might be invaded by the construction or maintenance of any such structure or alteration. “

4. Conduct oversight of DEP regulations to reform, at a minimum, the above regulatory provisions that implement the above statutory flaws and the following “significant deficiencies” identified by FEMA:

“To highlight, FEMA finds that the abandonment of the nonstructural stormwater management in design and the absence of restrictions in the increase in runoff volume post-development to be significant deficiencies.

FEMA is also concerned that the proposed rule does not consider future conditions of increasingly intense precipitation that is expected with climate change. 

The use of the term Green Infrastructure will not offset the proposed changes to the nonstructural stormwater management strategies and the multiple missed opportunities to reduce riverine and urban flooding impacts.”

I appreciate your prompt and favorable consideration of this request.

I am available to respond to any questions you may have.

Respectfully

Bill Wolfe

We’ll keep you posted on the response by Legislators – but I’m not holding my breath.

Ditto media coverage by NJ news media, especially NJ Spotlight.

And I didn’t even mention the need for a more aggressive and legislative mandate for “strategic retreat”.

Legislature Must Repeal 100 Year Storm and “Right To Rebuild” Flood Damaged Structures

DEP Must Update Flood Hazard Regulations And Maps To Consider Climate Change

After another cheerleading Op-Ed and set of misleading stories today by NJ Spotlight that miss the point and – by citing FEMA standards – divert attention from NJ DEP regulatory failures, I thought I’d provide some legislative text to improve the press coverage and stop the cheerleading by environmental groups.

If Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner LaTourette are serious about “resilience”, protecting the public, and adapting to climate change, they must make the following reforms immediately.

NJ Spotlight Again Diverts From Flawed Or Non-Existent DEP Climate Plans And Regulations

Focus On FEMA Diverts From DEP and Misses The Mark

[Update: 9/19/21 – So called “Resilience” (aka “flood mitigation”) projects not only failed in Jersey City (as discussed below). Hoboken is another major example of failure: (Fund for a Better Waterfront)

Since Superstorm Sandy hit the region nine years ago, Hoboken, aided with a $230 million federal grant, has made a concerted effort to implement a series of flood mitigation measures. New parks on the western side of town include stormwater detention systems. Rain gardens and bioswales have been constructed throughout town. Three wet weather pumping stations, costing tens of millions, have been built since 2010. Yet what has been completed to date was overwhelmed by Ida, which put parts of town under several feet of water, flooding basements and causing untold damage. ~~~ end update]

NJ Spotlight political reporter David Cruz – who I previously praised for opening Pandora’s Box on climate regulations and the “resilience” sham – did a followup story.

Sadly, that story put the final nail in closing Pandora’s box, following corporate PR efforts by PSE&G and efforts by the Murphy administration to divert attention and bury any story about the administration’s actual policy and that would expose the actual regulatory record and fatal flaws in NJ’s billion dollar funded “resilience” projects.

Last night, Cruz ran a followup piece on NJ TeeVee.

Despite the facts I provided to him, the narrative thrust of his new take on the issue is that the problem is not the “obsolete” and “failed” “resilience” projects he originally reported on in Jersey City.

Instead, Cruz now reports that the problem is really a plethora of very good “resilience plans” that just have not been funded!, see:

• No Shortage of Resiliency Plans In NJ, Just Funding

This is completely false.

Cruz reported on a hodgepodge of local and private groups voluntary plans for specific narrow purposes. Some were not even “plans”, but the equivalent of press releases. These “plans” are all fatally flawed, not because they were not funded, but because they are based on obsolete or lax DEP regulatory standards (i.e. amount and intensity of rainfall, volume and rate of runoff, flood hazard maps, storm surge and flood elevations, etc).

(it’s actually good that these local voluntary piecemeal “resilience plans” were never funded because they were designed to fail – read on)

The real unreported “Pandora’s box” story is:

The planning and regulation of resilience is a State responsibility, under federal and NJ State laws. Here is just one example: (link)

58:16A-50. Short title; declaration of policy

a. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Flood Hazard Area Control Act.” is in the interest of the safety, health, and general welfare of the people of the State that legislative action be taken to empower the Department of Environmental Protection to delineate and mark flood hazard areas, to authorize the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt land use regulations for the flood hazard area, to control stream encroachments, to coordinate effectively the development, dissemination, and use of information on floods and flood damages that may be available, to authorize the delegation of certain administrative and enforcement functions to county governing bodies and to integrate the flood control activities of the municipal, county, State and Federal Governments.

DEP is the lead agency delegated authority to develop and enforce those plans though regulations.

The State of NJ has no “resiliency plan”.

The DEP has abdicated its statutory responsibility by delegating that planning to local governments and/or outsourcing and privatizing that planning to DEP funded private groups.

DEP has abandoned their regulatory role – the Murphy DEP has not adopted a dingle climate regulation (for greenhouse gas emissions “mitigation” or climate impact “adaptation”).

I told Cruz all that. I also told him that NJ Spotlight was intentionally missing the story and that their coverage was being corruptly influenced by politics and donors.

Cruz responded with a personal attack:

Bill.

You don’t know me. If you think that I’m writing a press release for a donor, then it’s best that you don’t get to know me. For all your public mouthing off on social media, I would think you’d have something intelligent to say. So far, a lot of bluster. Thanks for not much.

You don’t know how journalism and journalists work.

I don’t know where you developed the notion of funders getting involved in stories.

It’s a fantasy. I was trying to figure out if you were an activist or a gadfly.

You’ve answered my question.

I fired back this:

Dave – Gadfly? I’ve written and worked on dozens of DEP regulations and worked in the field for 35 years (at a policy level, with Gov.’s Offices back to Tom Kean). I was a media critic before Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”. NJ Spotlight (and Tom Johnson when he was at the Star Ledger) used to quote me all the time. So did Ed Rogers of NJN. I even had a column at NJ.com.

If you deny any role of funders in stories, you are naive beyond repair.

Self censorship by journalists reflects the boundaries they know exist, and those boundaries are political (not fact based) and part of those politics is the desire of funders.

You surely know all this.

Here’s my response, in detail:

A Note To NJ Spotlight On Cheerleading Versus Journalism

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2021/09/a-note-to-nj-spotlight-on-cheerleading-versus-journalism/

But Mr. Cruz is not the only problem at NJ Spotlight – the corruption is systemic.

Another example of this lack of accountability and diversion from DEP and regulatory flaws is today’s NJ Spotlight story by Andrew Lewis:

• Another flood brings same question to Manville: Stay or go?

That story not only ignores DEP’s planning and regulatory role, it buries the lead on fatal flaws with FEMA flood mapping in this quote, several paragraphs into the story:

“We don’t have flood insurance,” Carl said. When he and his wife bought the house in 2019, they learned that the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s flood zone ended just short of their house, running through the center of their backyard. But that worried them little. “We knew about Lost Valley, so we knew there was a chance of flooding, but everybody said it was a one-in-ten-thousand chance.”

Obviously, FEMA’s flood plain maps were wrong. And DEP’s flood plain maps are wrong for the same reasons.

They are wrong because they fail to consider climate science.

Ironically, FEMA themselves criticized NJ DEP for this failure, calling it a “significant deficiency”. FEMA wrote THIS to DEP:

To highlight, FEMA finds that the abandonment of the nonstructural stormwater management in design and the absence of restrictions in the increase in runoff volume post-development to be significant deficiencies.

FEMA is also concerned that the proposed rule does not consider future conditions of increasingly intense precipitation that is expected with climate change. 

The use of the term Green Infrastructure will not offset the proposed changes to the nonstructural stormwater management strategies and the multiple missed opportunities to reduce riverine and urban flooding impacts.

Let me rephrase FEMA’s warning to NJ DEP – maybe NJ Spotlight will report it:

[the DEP] rule does not consider future conditions of increasingly intense precipitation that is expected with climate change. 

As a result of these flaws, thousands of people live in dangerous flood hazard areas and don’t know it.

As a result of these flaws, people are unknowingly buying homes in hazardous locations and putting their families and financial futures at risk.

As a result of these flaws, billions of dollars of property located in dangerous flood hazard areas is not insured.

As a result of thee flaws, developers are being allowed to build in hazardous locations and pass the costs on to the public.

As result of these flaws, we are wasting billions of dollars on fatally flawed “resilience” projects that are “antiquated” and designed to fail because they are designed to meet “obsolete” DEP regulatory standards that do not reflect climate science.

As the late great reporter William Greider said: Who will tell the people?