NJ LCV Announces Another Four Years Of Cheerleading and Political Cover For Gov. Murphy

The Epitome Of Setting A Low Bar

No Vision, No Leadership, Critical Issues Ignored

Cancel Your Membership Today – Contribute Your Time and Money To Real Activists

Ed Potosnak, 2nd from left. Four more years of sycophancy

A friend just forwarded Ed Potosnak NJ LCV’s fundraising letter to members, which outlined a “bold” agenda for the next 4 years.

One would think, after 4 years of a lot of promises but very little delivery from Gov. Murphy – and with NJ media finally honestly reporting that  fact – that NJ LCV would feel somewhat betrayed and reflect on the effectiveness of the sycophantic strategy of the first four years. (e.g. see: Green Masks Are Off)

One would think – after Gov. Murphy virtually ignored the climate crisis in his recent state of the state address – again, a fact critically reported by NJ media – that NJ LCV would join with real climate activists and express their deep disappointment and ramp up activist tactics and political pressure on Gov. Murphy.

One would think, with critically important upcoming DEP regulatory proposals on environmental justice, and climate, and electrification of buildings – and huge pending DEP permit decisions on multiple fossil infrastructure and environmental justice projects like PVSC power plant and Fortress Energy LNG (a project that is so bad, it has gotten national attention in the Washington Post)– that NJ LCV would join activists in drawing bright red lines and very clear demands on these issues, while ramping up pressure on Gov. Murphy.

One would think that NJ LCV would inform their members about and prioritize the enormous challenges ahead and important DEP policy and planning documents about to be released or finalized, including:

• DEP proposed Natural Lands Initiative which will determine the fate of NJ’s last remaining forests;

• DEP’s renegotiation of the greenhouse gas emissions caps under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – (see RGGI Program Review) which, despite the fact that the current RGGI cap is 30% higher than current emissions (see bottom of page 5), is still more restrictive and will reduce more emissions than DEP’s lame proposed CO2 emission rule for the power sector. There are NO NJ activists involved in the current RGGI renegotiation!;

• DEP’s failure to respond to the explosion of a new wave of sprawl, including proliferation of warehouses and industrial solar arrays that are destroying the last remaining forests, farms and rural communities in NJ, triggering what I have called the need to fight the battle for “The Final Frontier” in NJ’s land use war;

• the need to derail the Gov.’s radically pro-development economic development plan for the Highlands;

• the need to restore focus and integrity at the Pinelands Commission. The conservation agenda for the Pinelands needs to focus on adopting CMP amendments to address the climate emergency, and restrict water use to protect ecological functions, and restrict destruction by ORV’s, and monitor and regulate endocrine disrupting chemicals.

• a host of science and regulatory issues to protect public health and ecological integrity by restoring Christie DEP rollbacks, closing critical climate loopholes, and strengthening current DEP clean water, clean air, land use, and drinking water regulations, including unregulated pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting chemicals;.and

• under-regulated chemical storage facilities that pose enormous unacceptable risk of fire and explosion to NJ urban communities.

And finally, one would think that after 4 years of spin by the Gov.’s Press Office and watching how DEP’s former corporate lawyer Commissioner has gaslighted communities across the state, one would think that the NJ LCV policy and program demands would be expressed clearly and with competence and precision, to leave very little wiggle room, i.e. don’t get fooled again.

One would be wrong – very wrong.

NJ LCV just issued what they delusionally described as a “bold” agenda for the next for years. (the only thing “bold” about it is the font I used!) Aside from the slogans, this agenda could have come from the NJ League of Municipalities.

Instead, it is lame (my comments in red). Read it (and then don’t weep: send your NJ LCV resignation email directly to Ed Potosnak):

• Make New Jersey’s commitment to a 100% clean energy economy permanent by ending diversions from the Clean Energy Fund

[note the failure to specify how the diversions would be stopped, e.g. a Constitutional amendment dedicating the Fund is the only way to do this.]

• Ensure communities have accessible and modern public transit by establishing a dedicated funding source for NJ Transit

[NJ Transit gets a dedicated funding source, but Clean energy, climate, clean water, state parks, etc don’t and suffer even more budget cuts like those that resulted from NJ LCV’s “Keep It Green” theft of environmental and state parks funds? NJ Transit still relies on fossil power.]

• Ensure our cities and towns are ready for extreme storms by giving municipalities resources to invest and install green infrastructure projects

[why is climate adaptation a local responsibility? Why does NJ LCV ignore DEP’s upcoming climate PACT land use regulations? Is Potosnak aware that the PVSC power plant is a local “resilience” project? That DEP’s “green infrastructure” stormwater regulations rolled back standards and was sharply criticized by FEMA?]

• Protect and expand access to open spaces by increasing funding for trail and park maintenance

[This is the worst one. NJ LCV was part of the “Keep It Green” campaign that stole funds constitutionally dedicated to State Parks. It takes real chutzpa to now call for more funding years after.]

• Reduce carbon pollution from homes and businesses by ending new residential natural gas interconnections, particularly in communities of color, and retrofitting existing homes

[Why not be clear? Why ignore flaws in BPU Energy Master Plan that defer consideration and implementation of building electrification to beyond 2030? Why not be specific on State regulations, e.g. DCA Building codes or DEP land use? Why not set specific carbon reduction goals and timetables? This is a worthy goal but the demand is lame and ineffective.]