Search Results

Keyword: ‘infrastructure’

Climate Change Already Impacting Pinelands Forests

October 19th, 2013 No comments

Despite Denial By Some Leaders at the NJ Pinelands Commission and NJ DEP

Source: NJ Pinelands Commission

Wolfe argued the effects of fossil fuel should figure into the commission’s decision.

“The effect of climate change on forests is well documented” in the Pinelands and elsewhere, he said.

“Our standards don’t directly deal with it,” Witteneberg (sic) affirmed Thursday.

The Pinelands plan was written at the beginning of the 1980s, before climate was widely seen as an issue, and “as much as they (critics) like to say we have the means to do that, I’m not sure we do,” she said.  ~~~ Asbury Park Press, 10/18/13

Lets take a look at what the science says about climate change impacts on forests, from the international; to the US; to the regional Pinelands scales – in that order – in light of Director Wittenberg’s denial:

I)  IPCC  Climate Change Impacts on Forests    

1.5.4.3. Pests and Pathogens

Warming in winter may allow destructive insects and pathogen- ic fungi to survive at higher latitudes than at present, enabling subtropical or warm-temperate pests and pathogens to invade vegetation from which they are now excluded (Dobson and Carper, 1992). Some insects also will be able to complete more generations per year in warmer climates. Increased incidences of pests and diseases may further limit the growth of stands that are already declining from the effects of climate change or pol- lution. Summer droughts and other climatic stresses have been associated with outbreaks of bark beetles like the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) in southern parts of the United States, bark beetles in western Canada (Kimmins and Lavender, 1992), and bronze birch borers on paper birch in northern Michigan (Jones et al., 1993). Elevated CO2 can change the palatability of leaves and either promote or discourage insect herbivory (Overdieck et al., 1988; Mueller-Dombois, 1992). In areas where forestry practice has led to the establishment of mono-specific stands, forests are particularly vulnerable to out- breaks of pests and diseases, especially where that combines with poor site quality or exposure to industrial pollutants.

II)  US Forest Service: Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: – A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector 

See Box 2.3 – The Southern Pine Beetle Reaches NJ Pinelands

The northern distribution of southern pine beetle is constrained by the occurrence of lethal winter temperatures (cite). As part of the first National Climate Assessment, it was estimated than an increase of 3 degrees C in minimum annual temperature would permit a northern expansion of about 180 km for this beetle. In fact, there was a regional increase of just over 3 degrees C from 1960 – 2005, and beetle populations are now endemic in the NJ Pinelands, about 200 km north of frosts with a long history of such epidemics.

III)  NJ Department of Parks & Forestry fact sheet:

Since 2001, SPB populations in New Jersey have been on the rise, destroying 1000 new acres of pine forests each year on average, but infestations remained largely confined to the southern sections of the state. Then, in 2008, SPB crossed the Egg Harbor River for the first time and entered the pine forests of Atlantic County, and continues to move north and west.

In 2010, New Jersey experienced the warmest growing season on record (average temperature 68.3°F) and below-average precipitation. These conditions quickly advanced SPB’s range and damage levels. SPB entered the heart of the New Jersey Pinelands – designated as the nation’s first National Reserve by Congress in 1978, and a Biosphere Reserve in 1983 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. According to USDA Forest Service estimates, 80% of the pine forest could be impacted by SPB within the next 10 years if no action is taken.

IV)   NJ Pinelands Commission:

So, it sure looks like the international, national, and regional science has measured impacts and projected even more severe impacts, in conflict with Director Wittenberg’s assessment.

Who are you going to believe? The scientists or Director Wittenberg?

If Director Wittenberg is correct and the NJ Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and regulations have not kept pace with the science, then the plan and regulations must be updated before huge new damaging major greenhouse gas emission sources and regional fossil fuel infrastructure projects are rubber stamped, in direct contradiction of what the science is telling us must be done.

 [End Notes – Just to clarify:

1. Of course, this post just scratches the surface of a broad range of climate change impacts on the Pinelands. Pines forests and ecosystems are sensitive to water, something we’ll look at in future posts.

2. The staff understand this science. The leadership of the Pines and DEP are merely following orders of Gov. Christie’s office to deny the problem and rubber stamp corporate energy schemes cooked up by the supporters of the Governor.

3. PPA has essentialy surrendered – and without even mentioning the climate change cause!

If warmer winter temperatures continue, we may not be able to completely resist the northern range expansion of the SPB and, in that case, we would need to accept its new role in our local ecology. The pine forests would likely benefit if we also accept that high-intensity fire through prescribed burning should be restored as a natural disturbance process.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Assembly Committee Conducts Oversight Hearing Today on Christie Administration’s Climate Change Efforts

October 10th, 2013 No comments

[Important Update below]

The Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee will hold a hearing today on the Christie Administration’s efforts to implement the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act (see NJ Spotlight set up story:  ASSEMBLY PANEL TO TAKE CLOSER LOOK AT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

We were highly critical at the outset of the Administration, see:

It’s only gotten worse since then.

The Obama Administration’s recently proposed rule for GHG emissions from new power plants will have no impact on NJ (see:

However in making that announcement on that proposed rule, the EPA stated the the upcoming proposed rule for existing power plants would rely on State primacy in setting emission reduction standards and regulatory requirements through the SIP process under the CAA.

Given EPA’s deference to State’s in regulating GHG emissions, it is critical that NJ get ahead of the curve and pursue strong and enforceable standards that can meet GWRA goals. A phase out of fossil fuel plants would be the way to do that.

The Christie Administration has shown no willingness or interest in such a policy. They remain in denial.

That means the Legislature will need to lead and do so aggressively.

I had planned to testify, but am under the weather, so I wrote a quick note this morning to the Chairman (see below).

We’ll listen to the hearing  and let readers know what went on in a future post.

I really hope the environmental community turns out and testifies about the Christie Administration’s across the board failures in making climate change and greenhouse gas emission reductions a priority.

And that the NJ media covers the hearing.

Otherwise, this could become just another dog and pony show – weeks before an election – limited in scope to criticism of the Gov. exit from RGGI, with no real commitment by Democrats or ENGO’s to serious efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

This hearing could lay the groundwork for legislative initiatives in the next Administration, which must include far more than simply rejoining RGGI and reducing the RGGI cap.

Mr. Chairman – I had planned to testify at your hearing today, but unfortunately am unable to attend.

I’d like to submit written testimony for the record and ask that you hold the record open until early next week in order for me to do so.

In the meantime, allow me to make just a few points of emphasis here:

1. I hope you can focus today on the Administration’s record in implementing the emission reduction goals of the GWRA and the recommendations in DEP’s 2009 Report to the  legislature.

This would include Commissioner Martin’s abolition of the DEP’s Office of Policy and Planning, which housed those scientific, policy, planning, and regulatory efforts. That Office’s responsibilities included the Coastal Management Program and climate change adaptation efforts along the shore, such as the Coastal Community Vulnerability Assessment Protocol, a pilot program DEP implemented in 3 shore towns.

Additionally, DEP has excised prior climate change vulnerability findings and recommendations from the Coastal Hazard Assessment in what is known as the “309 Report”.

2. I am not a  fan of cost benefit analysis, but realize that NJ laws include important economic cost tests and that Gov. Christie’s Executive Order #2 requires CBA in regulatory initiatives.

In that regard, Senator Gordon recently held hearings on oversight of the Administration’s off shore wind program – one issue he flagged was the “cost test” and the methodology for meeting that test. That methodology ignores quantification of the environmental benefits of wind. In fact, the consultant’s Report the BPU relies on in this regard explicitly rejected consideration of the EPA’s “social cost of carbon”.

This serious flaw must be addressed legislatively.

3. NJ is now making making huge economic investments in fossil fuel power and infrastructure.  I would hope your hearing explores the implications of these projects with respect to meeting the GWRA goals, renewable energy goals, and cumulative economic impacts on ratepayers.

Given the imperative of making reductions to avoid climate catastrophe and – literally – the collapse of industrial civilization, we must terminate these projects and instead invest exclusively in efficiency and renewables.

4. As you know, in 2005, DEP adopted regulations that define greenhouse gases as “air contaminants” under State law (NJ Air Pollution Control Act). In that rule proposal and adoption documents, DEP pledged a phased regulatory approach to implementing the deep emission reduction goals of the GWRA. However, DEP has not followed through on that pledge to regulate, and instead relied almost exclusively on the RGGI program.

Going forward, because RGGI is limited in scope to the electric sector and has other regulatory flaws and limitations, I would hope the Legislature would pursue a comprehensive and regulatory approach to GHG emissions reductions.

To send the correct market signals and provide incentives to shift to a renewable energy economy, this comprehensive regulatory approach must include a price on carbon.

As you know, in addition to a carbon tax, one approach would include  application of US EPA’s “social cost of carbon” in various relevant state policies and programs.

5. Last, the Obama Administration’s recently proposed rule for GHG emissions from new energy sources will have no impact on NJ. In making that announcement, the EPA stated the the upcoming proposed rule for existing GHG emissions sources would rely on State primacy in setting emission reduction standards and regulatory requirements through the SIP process under the CAA.

Given EPA’s deference to State’s in regulating GHG emissions, it is critical that NJ get ahead of the curve and pursue strong and enforceable standards that can meet GWRA goals.

As you know, the Christie Administration has shown no willingness or interest in such a policy.

That means the Legislature will need to lead and do so aggressively.

I would be pleased to work with you on such a legislative initiative.

Sincerely,

[Update: 12:45 pm –  The Committee hearing just adjourned.

At the end, there was no discussion among members; no summing up of the hearing; no vision or sense of future direction; no plan for followup; no going forward commitments; and no outrage or criticism over Gov. Christie’s Administration’s continuing refusal to appear.

Do they even know they have subpoena power? Why are Dems afraid to use it?

The testimony, aside from Lyle Rawlings of behalf of solar industry   and Jim Walsh of Food & Water Watch and some of Tim Dillingham’s,  was weak, vague, and not tied to specific policies, regulations, or laws, so as to be effectively useless.

The  Democrats obviously are not serious and this was just a political stunt to whack the Gov. a few weeks before an election.

It was a classic dog & pony show, not worth the time to write about.

Ironically, adding insult to that injury, during the hearing I did get an email from NJ Audubon (AWOL at hearing) about Red Knot ESA, as if Red Knot habitat is not threatened by climate change.

I also got an email from NY/NJ Baykeeper (also AWOL at hearing) inviting me to a wine tasting event – shocking given the destruction of NY/NJ bays from climate change.

And, we saw an Op-Ed from the Keep It Green Coalition (also AWOL at hearing) – also shocking given their appeal for funding purportedly to protect lands vulnerable to climate change.

Such is the pathetic state of affairs in Trenton and the ENGO community.

 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Fracking is a Ponzi Scheme

October 9th, 2013 No comments

Source: “U.S. Shale Gas: Less Abundance, Higher Cost” by Arthur E. Berman and Lynn F. Pittinger

 Lower the price, create the demand. Then raise the price.

“The word in the world of independents is that the shale plays are just giant Ponzi schemes and the economics just do not work”  ~~~ NY Times: Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush (6/25/11)

[Update #3 – 9/1/18 – Op-Ed in NY Times exposes fatal financial flaws and agrees with my initial analysis, see:

The Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground – Fueled by debt and years of easy credit, America’s energy boom is on shaky footing.

A key reason for the terrible financial results is that fracked oil wells show a steep decline rate: The amount of oil they produce in the second year is drastically smaller than the amount produced in the first year. According to an economist at the Kansas City Federal Reserve, production in the average well in the Bakken — a key area for fracking shale in North Dakota — declines 69 percent in its first year and more than 85 percent in its first three years. A conventional well might decline by 10 percent a year. For fracking operations to keep growing, they need huge investments each year to offset the decline from the previous years’ wells.

~~~ end]

[Update #2: 3/9/18 – thus far, the projections and analyses I based my opinions on appear to have been wrong. But time will tell. Long run issues.

[Update #1: 12/6/14 -new study is consistent with my analysis, see:

“That’s when there’s going to be a rude awakening for the United States.” He expects that gas prices will rise steeply, and that the nation may end up building more gas-powered industrial plants and vehicles than it will be able to afford to run. “The bottom line is, no matter what happens and how it unfolds,” he says, “it cannot be good for the US economy.”  – end update]

NJ Spotlight reports that the US Energy Information Administration projects a 13% increase in home heating costs this winter nationally, but not in NJ, where – according to industry – gas prices will drop slightly, see:  FORECAST: NJ HEATING, ELECTRICITY COSTS WILL DROP THIS WINTER

I talked to Tom Johnson about the EIA forecast, and emphasized the exact opposite conclusion:

“The natural-gas driven industrial renaissance is over,’’ predicted Bill Wolfe, executive director of the New Jersey section of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a public watchdog group. Wolfe argued the huge demand from new natural-gas plants could drive prices up sharply.

Unfortunately, there’s a ton of complexity compressed in that quote, so let me briefly expand upon what I was driving at. I was not just focused on increased demand.

Basically, there are 3 inter-related things going on – the first two on the supply side and the third on the demand side:

  • recoverable gas reserves have been greatly exaggerated;
  • data on individual fracking wells show steep depletion curves – up to 70% in first year. More wells, less production;
  • demand for gas is booming, especially as coal power plants switch to natural gas;

That all boils down to far less gas supply and a hugely growing demand, and declining returns on drilling investments, a formula for price spikes and reliability concerns. Some call this a “drilling treadmill”, some a Ponzi scheme.[Exclusive of industry’s proposed plans for large exports of US gas.]

In fact, although made more complex by pipeline transmission capacity issues, there is already an event that suggests where gas markets are headed. There was a gas crises last winter in New England and in the Southwestern US, where prices increased tenfold and gas fired power plants were unable to operate due to lack of gas (see also: Energy experts offer solutions to prevent a New England natural gas crisis)

Here’s an example of how the industry lies: (see: What the Frack? Is there really 100 years worth of natural gas beneath the US? 

An example of how inflated initial resource claims can be, and how they can be sharply cut, presented itself in August with a new assessment of the Marcellus shale by the U.S. Geological Survey. It offered a range of estimates, from 43 tcf at 95 percent probability, to 84 tcf at 50 percent probability, to 114 tcf at 5 percent probability. (Not surprisingly, the 95 percent probable estimates have proven historically to be closest to the mark.) Only five months earlier, the EIA speculated in its Annual Energy Outlook 2011 that the Marcellus might have an “estimated technically recoverable resource base of about 400 trillion cubic feet.” The USGS reassessment had slashed the estimate for the Marcellus by 80 percent. Similar adjustments may be ahead for other shale plays.

In addition to USGS, many professional energy analysts suggest that the gas industry’s claims of an abundant, cheap, 100 year supply of fracking gas are grossly exaggerated. A key aspect of that argument is embedded in the graph above.

This exaggerated claim by the gas industry has led related petrochemical industries to talk about fracking as a “game changer” that will lead to a US “industrial renaissance” (see NY Times business page for an example of that cheerleading:  Natural Gas Signals a ‘Manufacturing Renaissance’)

Even the EIA presents data on short term production in a way that reinforces that exagerated claim, see this from today’s EIA release: – notice how there is no right hand side to that graph, which creates the impression that huge growth will continue into the future, and masks the declines in individual well productivity:

Source: US EIA (10/9/13)

But, other analysts disagree and raise disturbing questions:

Shale gas has become an important and permanent feature of U.S. energy supply. Daily production has increased from less than 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day (bcfd) in 2003, when the first modern horizontal drilling and fracture stimulation was used, to almost 20 bcfd by mid-2011.

There are, however, two major concerns at the center of the shale gas revolution:

• Despite impressive production growth, it is not yet clear that these plays are commercial at current prices because of the high capital costs of land and drilling and completion.

• Reserves and economics depend on estimated ultimate recoveries based on hyperbolic, or increasingly flattening, decline profiles that predict decades of commercial production. With only a few years of production history in most of these plays, this model has not been shown to be correct, and may be overly optimistic.

These are not purely technical topics for debate among petroleum professionals. The marketing of the shale gas phenomenon has been so effective that important policy and strategic decisions are being made based on as yet unproven assumptions about the abundance and low cost of these plays. The “Pickens Plan” seeks to get congressional approval for natural gas subsidies that might eventually lead to conversion of large parts of our vehicle fleet to run on natural gas. Similarly, companies have gotten permits from the government to transform liquefied natural gas import terminals into export facilities that would commit the U.S. to decades of large, fixed export volumes. This might commit the U.S. to decades of natural gas exports at fixed prices in the face of scarcity and increasing prices in the domestic market. If reserves are less and cost is more than many assume, these could be disastrous decisions.

Disastrous decsions – like using scarce resources to convert all our power plants to gas, instead of investing in efficiency and renewables. Or developing natural gas infrastructure for truck and cars, instead of mass transit and electric cars.

You can watch YouTube interview summary that explains it all here: The Economics of Fracking (extended version lecture: Shale Gas or Shell Game?)

So, there are credible indications that instead of a renaissance, the fracking bubble is about to burst and the Ponzi scheme will crash and burn.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Review of Pinelands Gas Pipeline And New Power Plant Fails to Consider Climate Change Impacts

October 7th, 2013 No comments

$500 Million Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Project Would Promote Massive New Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Over the past decade an overwhelming body of scientific evidence has emerged linking anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to climate change and sea level rise. The projected climate impacts and related impacts on ecosystems and society related to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic emissions supports the conclusion that CO2 should no longer be disregarded in the formation of environmental policy. […]

2.3 New Jersey-Specific Impacts

Climate change resulting from anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is expected to have significant negative impacts on New Jersey ecosystems, coastal property, air quality, and human health. As a result, CO2 emissions can no longer be considered benign and would clearly meet the Department’s definition of air pollution at N.J.A.C. 7:27-5.1.   

~~~ NJ DEP – Oct. 18, 2004 –  basis for rule to define greenhouse gases as regulated  air pollutants.

Almost a decade ago, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) defined greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” under State law, emphasizing that those emissions “should no longer be disregarded in the formation of environmental policy.”

A few years later, in 2007, the Legislature enacted the Global Warming Response Act establishing aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions – roughly 20% lower emissions by the year 2020, and 80% reduction below 2006 levels by 2050.

Yet almost a decade later, the environmental review and approvals for a proposed $500 million regional fossil fuel infrastructure project does not consider – at all – the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the pipeline itself, or the power plant it is designed to serve.

The South Jersey Gas Co. (SJG) has proposed 22 mile 24 inch wide gas pipeline through the Pinelands National Reserve, designed to re-power the B.L. England power plant, would provide enough gas to power 267,000 homes.

Let me repeat that; neither the Pinelands commission staff review or the applicant (South Jersey Gas Co.)  presentation to the Commission even mentions air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, or climate change impacts.

[The Clean Air Act permit issued to the B.L. England plant by DEP also did not regulate GHG emissions. Long story on why that is the case, beyond the scope of this post. Long story short: DEP failed to follow through and adopt permit regulations, while the Legislature backed a market based cap/trade scheme known as RGGI, instead of DEP regulatory controls.]

Despite extensive public testimony to the Pinelands Commission on the climate change issues and impacts of the project – including my specific recommendation that the Commission task staff with examining this issue – no member of the Commission has uttered one word on the topic.

How can that be possible?

This is a remarkable failure, in and of itself, given the significance of the climate change issue.

But it is bizarre and inexcusable given that Pinelands Forests are now being devastated by climate change impacts – the impacts on Pines forests are so severe and the link to climate change so clear, that the Pinelands have become a case study in the ecological effects of climate change on forests.

Here is what the US Forest Service research says about climate change impacts on forest resources: USFS stresses that “sufficient scientific information is available to begin taking action now.”

This report is a scientific assessment of the current condition and likely future condition of forest resources in the United States relative to climatic variability and change. It serves as the U.S. Forest Service forest sector technical report for the National Climate Assessment and includes descriptions of key regional issues and examples of a risk-based framework for assessing climate-change effects.

By the end of the 21st century, forest ecosystems in the United States will differ from those of today as a result of changing climate. Although increases in temperature, changes in precipitation, higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), and higher nitrogen (N) deposition may change ecosystem structure and function, the most rapidly visible and most significant short-term effects on forest ecosystems will be caused by altered disturbance regimes. For example, wildfires, insect infestations, pulses of erosion and flooding, and drought-induced tree mortality are all expected to increase during the 21st century.  […]

Significant progress has been made in developing scientific principles and tools for adapting to climate change through science-management partnerships focused on education, assessment of vulnerability of natural resources, and development of adaptation strategies and tactics. In addition, climate change has motivated increased use of bioenergy and carbon (C) sequestration policy options as mitigation strategies, emphasizing the effects of climate change-human interactions on forests, as well as the role of forests in mitigating climate change. Forest growth and afforestation in the United States currently account for a net gain in C storage and offset approximately 13 percent of the Nation’s fossil fuel CO2 production. Climate change mitigation through forest C management focuses on (1) land use change to increase forest area (afforestation) and avoid deforestation, (2) C management in existing forests, and (3) use of wood as biomass energy, in place of fossil fuel or in wood products for C storage and in place of other building materials. Although climate change is an important issue for management and policy, the interaction of changes in biophysical environments (e.g., climate, disturbance, and invasive species) and human responses to those changes (management and policy) will ultimately determine outcomes for ecosystem services and people.

Although uncertainty exists about the magnitude and timing of climate-change effects on forest ecosystems, sufficient scientific information is available to begin taking action now. Building on practices compatible with adapting to climate change provides a good starting point for land managers who may want to begin the adaptation process. Establishing a foundation for managing forest ecosystems in the context of climate change as soon as possible will ensure that a broad range of options will be available for managing forest resources sustainably.

The Pinelands have become a case study on forest ecosystem impacts of climate change, see: Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector –

In that assessment, the Pinelands impacts are presented as a case study, see: The Southern Pine Beetle Reaches New Jersey Pinelands – Box 2.3 – p.19).

The US Forest Service is working on and will soon release more research on climate change impacts on pines forests.   US Forest Service is about to release this research report:

Title:  Climate Change and Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics in the NJ Pine Barrens

We are assessing the interactive effects of fire management and insect defoliation on tree species composition, carbon, and nitrogen dynamics in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. We are determininghow interactions among these disturbances affect management goals. Our goal is to create a framework for understanding landscape to regional management scenarios in areas with multiple, interacting management priorities that can be applied across the US.  We use then use this framework to project future changes and may be caused by climate change or changes in fire management policy.

Given prior and ongoing research, it is simply inexcusable for the Pinelands Commission to stick its head in the sand and ignore all these climate change driven ecological impact issues during the review of a fossil pipeline.

In a subsequent post, we will connect the dots between scientific research and the Commission’s jurisdiction and legal authority to regulate the proposed pipeline with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and impacts of climate change on Pinelands forest, ecological, and water resources.

[Update: Thought I’d provide a table to show that DEP regulators don’t even look at carbon/greenhouse gas emissions – see this side by side comparison of emissions from a coal versus new gas plant in Vineland:

Source: NJ DEP (hit link above for document)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Climate Change Story Buried in Coverage of Christie Lies about Weinstein

October 6th, 2013 No comments

The Climate Issue Is Far More Important Than The Political Intrigue of “Who Done It”

“I know there are some folks at Rutgers who are looking at whether climate caused all this, but I certainly haven’t been briefed in the last year, year-and-a-half on this,” Christie told WNYC’s Bob Hennelly last month.[…]

As Sandy was bearing down on the region , WNYC’s Bob Hennelly asked Christie if the Governor was discussing the increasing severity of storms with climate change scientists.

“No, that’s over my head.,” Christie replied.  ~~~ Critics: Christie Deep -Sixed Climate Change Prep (WNYC 12/7/12)

[Update below]

The news coverage of the NJ Transit fiasco is again missing the most significant story.

Never mind the in the weeds emails and cover stories: NJ Transit head Jim Weinstein was following the lead of his boss, Governor Christie.

Buried in the Record’s coverage of the most recent revelations on the NJ Transit fiasco, is this:

Immediately after Sandy, Weinstein said the agency based the decision on the best weather models available and that those models predicted an 80 to 90 percent chance there would be no flooding. He has also said that the yards had never flooded before in NJ Transit’s 30-year history, so officials never could have known the equipment was at risk. Yet, four months earlier, the agency had received a $46,000 climate change report it had commissioned that warned the region where the two yards sit were flood prone. Weinstein in December admitted to legislators he didn’t read the report.

Repeat: Weinstein admitted he didn’t read the report.

The buried and mis-focused coverage is baffling, because Record investigative reporter Jeff Pillets was on to the real story when he wrote this killer back in December: Months Before Sandy, NJ Transit Dismissed Need for Climate Risk Study

Only a few months before superstorm Sandy devastated hundreds of New Jersey’s commuter locomotives and railcars, state officials were confident that the state’s passenger rail fleet was well protected from extreme weather.

They were so confident, a review by The Record shows, that they decided it wasn’t even necessary to study ways to weatherproof NJ Transit’s rolling stock against unruly new climate patterns.

Worse, the mis-focused news reporting has lead to flat out false conclusions, including this from the Record edtorial today:

Let us be clear: In the days prior to and after Sandy, Christie’s priority had to be – and it was – ensuring that the loss of life would be low to zero if possible, and limiting the damage to Shore communities. On that score, Christie was flawless, Weinstein was not.

WRONG! Christie was not “flawless” in days prior to Sandy. The Gov. ignored multiple warnings. The State was not as prepared as it should have been and lacked adequate plans and therefore suffered far more damage than necessary. Christie was directly at fault.

That conclusion that Christie was “flawless” results from a serious misunderstanding of the problem and how government agencies plan and operate.

In negligently not reading a critical report that warned about storm surge risks, Weinstein was following Gov. Christie’s lead.

Gov. Christie did not want to hear anything about climate change.

Gov. Christie himself stated that he had not been briefed on climate change.

Climate change was not only not a priority for the Governor.

Instead, for political and ideological reasons, it was a taboo topic – as in: don’t bring it up at Cabinet meetings and don’t get me involved with or put my name of any State plans or documents involving climate change.

Politically, Christie chose to ignore climate change to appease the Republican base, the large majority of whom are outright climate deniers.

Ideologically, Christie chose to ignore climate change because solutions required significant State government intervention in the economy, including stricter government regulation of business and state mandates to local governments, something he strongly opposes as “job killing bureaucratic red tape”.

In fact, Gov. Christie, in the first hour of his first day in office, signed a series of Executive Order #1 -4 to impose a moratorium on regulations, dismantle much existing regulation, and erect hurdles to new regulation in order to provide “regulatory relief”.

The heads of State Departments follow the lead of the Governor. The Governor wanted to hear nothing about climate change – despite the scientific warnings – except that State programs to address it were being dismantled and DEP was standing down and getting off the backs of business and local governments.

Climate change is not, as the Governor has said, an “esoteric” or “academic” issue.

As the NJ Transit case illustrates, it involves very concrete and economically significant things. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg – DEP failure to plan and prepare led to the loss of drinking water supply at hundreds of water treatment plants and billions of gallons of raw sewage in our rivers – which are sources of our drinking water (see: The Deafness Before the Storm).

With this background in mind, it is clear that Gov. Christie was at fault for ignoring numerous scientific warnings about shore and infrastructure risks of climate change, extreme weather, and sea level rise.

Christie was at fault for denying climate change, for dismantling State government programs and efforts to manage climate change, and for his failure to plan and prepare all state agencies for the impacts of climate change.

NJ has a Hazard Mitigation Plan. Just five months before Sandy struck, it was updated and approved by the Gov.  in April 2012, and the update failed to learn from the wakeup call of Hurricane Irene:

Technical information on the four (4) most recent disasters and climate change issues are still being reviewed and are not included in this April 2012 NJ Hazard Plan update.

The State Hazard Mitigation Plan is guided and approved by the Governor. It controls emergencies like Hurricane Sandy. It still does  not include climate change risks, like extreme weather and sea level rise.

The DEP Commissioner dismantled and shelved Coastal Management Office and a pilot programs (e.g. the “Coastal Community Vulnerability Assessment Protocol”) designed to help shore towns understand climate change and sea level rise vulnerabilities and to better prepare for storms like Sandy.

The DEP dismantled Offices and efforts to prepare statewide climate adaptation plans. NJ is the only northeastern state without a climate change adaptation plan.

The DEP rewrote coastal hazard assessments and strategy documents to delete findings and recommendations regarding the nature of risks of climate change and over-development, including a recommended strategy for “strategic retreat from the most hazardous locations and findings that beach replenishment projects provide a false sense of security.

Those are all the Governor’s responsibilities. And all these irresponsible actions were taken as a result of the Governor’s policies.

This NJ Transit story makes no sense without  understanding that 1) climate change significantly impacted the severity of Sandy, an example of “extreme weather” and sea level rise; 2) climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning was the opportunity to address storm vulnerabilities, particularly for infrastructure; 3) there were numerous reports and warnings about the risk of climate change and NJ’s high vulnerabilities; and 4) Governor Christie intentionally chose to neglect these issues, his cabinet followed that lead, and as a result NJ was not prepared and suffered far greater damage than necessary.

Seemingly lacking that understanding, the Record editorial gets it all wrong.

[Update 10/7/13 –  The Star Ledger editorial today commendably attempts to hold Gov. Christie accountable, but makes the same mistakes as the Record.  Both papers have failed to assign environmental or investigative reporters to cover this story so of course they’ve missed it and their facts are as shaky as the Gov.’s:  Christie shifts blame for NJ Transit damage, but his facts are shaky: Editorial – end]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: