WolfeNotes.com

Rule Based On The 100 Year Storm Event, Despite Suffering Several 500 Year Storms

DEP Rule Is Obsolete Before It Is Adopted 

DEP Ignores Land Use Planning And Instead Relies On The Myth of “Resilience”

[Update: 1/15/22 – Even NPR gets it and is more critical than NJ environmentalists – billions of dollars of infrastructure money is being wasted by under-designed systems and lax regulatory standards, just like we noted in US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans $14 billion under-design boondoggle. DEP is repeating the same errors:

• Federal climate forecasts could help prepare for extreme rain. But it’s years away ~~~ end update]

After five years (second term), numerous self promotional press releases and toothless Executive orders, and several massive deadly floods, on Thursday October 27 the Murphy Administration finally proposed new rules to update decades old inland flood maps and recognize significant increases in rainfall and stormwater runoff that have exacerbated NJ’s vulnerability to flooding.

Even larger storms and floods are projected due to the climate emergency. This science is not new and has been clear for a long time – e.g. I wrote this 12 years ago:

The University of New Hampshire (UNH) just issued an important and amazingly timely Report: Trends in Extreme Precipitation Events for the Northeastern United States 1948-2007 […]

Why is no one analyzing the same rainfall and flooding data and correlating it with land use changes here in NJ? (hint: it’s not due any to lack of hydrology data or land use/land cover data or precipitation data)

Why is the relationship between global warming and increased storm frequency/intensity/pattern rarely if ever made by the same tired meteorologists quoted in the NJ news stories?

Of course, the liars and deniers at NJ BIA shamefully dispute the science:

NJBIA Deputy Chief of Government Affairs Ray Cantor said that’s good news, but the science behind the establishment of new standards is still questionable. 

(read the DEP press release  and read the “formal” DEP rule proposal – which will appear in the December 5, 2022 NJ Register).

Before we analyze the merits of the complex 117 page DEP proposal, we must note that DEP disingenuously continued their manipulation by issuing the Press Release under a “ICYMI” lede and inserted a new “courtesy copy” link to the rule proposal on the original October 13 press release (the text of the rule proposal was NOT included in the original), a track covering slight of hand that would make Orwell blush.

No Commissioner LaTourette, we didn’t “miss it” – we saw exactly what you did in duping the public on October 13 by creating a false impression that a Stakeholder outline was a rule proposal and then allowing the news media to print a false story, without making any effort to correct it.

NJ Spotlight also has egg on their face, because we told them that two prior false news stories stated as fact that DEP had proposed the rule already! and they did not correct their false reporting. Now that that is obvious, it will be interesting to see how they navigate those errors when they write about the actual “formal” proposal, see:

• Murphy DEP Is Misleading The Public And NJ Spotlight Is Printing Falsehoods On DEP Flood Rules

We need a few days to read and digest the entire rule, but we can make a few big picture observations today:

1. Just as we predicted, DEP based the rule on the 100 year storm event, despite the fact that NJ already has experienced several far more severe 500 year storm events.

We predicted DEP would do that back in February, when DEP released their Cornell rainfall study, see:

• Murphy DEP Signals That New Jersey Is About To Repeat The New Orleans Katrina Debacle

I explained the significance of the flawed 100 year storm in this September 4, 2021 post:

• Billions Of Dollars Spent On NJ Infrastructure “Resilience” Is Already Obsolete, As DEP Fails To Update Regulations To Reflect Climate Science

The US Army Corps of Engineers recently were forced to admit a similar huge engineering blunder in New Orleans, due to reliance on flawed design standards, a $14 billion mistake: (Federal Register Notice, 4/2/19)

Even NJ Spotlight understands the 500 year storm see:

• State Wants Sewer Plants to Plan for 500-Year Storms, Extended Outages

DEP’s proposal documents the fact that NJ has suffered 500 year (or more) Storm events and flooding (@ page 10):

Specifically, the remnants of Tropical Storm Ida resulted in flooding significantly more severe than FEMA’s published 100-year flood at various locations in New Jersey:

Raritan River at Bound Brook:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida equaled 1999’s Hurricane Floyd, which was the highest elevation ever recorded at Bound Brook.
• Including Floyd, flooding at this location in the past 23 years has equaled or exceeded FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation three times.
• The Raritan River during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at 42.13 ft NGVD (41.21 ft NAVD) which is 3.01 feet above FEMA’s 100-year elevation (38.2 ft NAVD) and 0.21 ft above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD).

Raritan River at Bridgewater

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD) which is 2.8 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (38.2 ft NAVD)

Millstone River at Manville:

• Flooding during Tropical Storm Ida peaked at roughly one foot above FEMA’s 500-year flood elevation (43.5 ft NAVD) which is 2.5 ft above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation (41.0 ft NAVD). Thus, flooding at this location peaked at approximately 3.5 feet above FEMA’s 100-year flood elevation.

DEP then explains the significance of the 500 year flood event: (@page 11)

“Forest Thinning” Is Wrong Chainsaw Medicine, Based On Flawed Science 

This thinning was intended as a wildfire protection measure, yet we learned at the Pinelands Climate Committee last year that thinning has not proven to be a useful wildfire control measure; if anything, it causes wildfires to burn hotter and more destructively. Leslie Sauer shared a paper by ecologist Chad Hanson on this subject ( https://grist.org/fix/opinion/forest-thinning-logging-makes-wildfires-worse/  ) and argued persuasively that pro forestation is a much better approach to wildfire management. I find it difficult to support thinning as a wildfire management practice generally, but particularly so in this case. ~~~ Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer

The Murphy DEP’s controversial Pinelands logging scheme purported to reduce wildfire risks is unnecessary, ecologically destructive, and will make wildfire risks worse.

There are 3 key points that are being ignored in the misleading spin and flawed science that DEP and their conservation group cheerleaders are using to defend their awful logging plan:

1) wildfire in the Pinelands is ecologically beneficial (read Emile DeVito of NJCF recent Op-Ed that he is now running away from:

“The Pine Barrens needs hot fires to persist, as do many of its rare species. The recent fire will ultimately benefit the ecosystem.”

2) there is little development (people and property) at risk in the forest that is targeted for 1,300 acres of “thinning” (cut & remove 2.4 million trees) and 13 miles of 50 foot wide clearcut “firebreaks”;

Both the firebreak and the thinning projects were proposed as wildfire control measures, yet—as Commissioner Doug Wallner pointed out on Friday—there is no population center, housing development, or commercial area near the sites of the project activity. Wallner, who spent his career at the National Park Service working with local agencies like the NJ Forest Service on wildfire control, argued that there was no reason to pursue these projects since there was no population at risk of wildfire harm that could be protected by this project. ~~~ Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer

3) Scientific studies show that “forest thinning” is not effective in reducing wildfire risks and actually makes them worse (see also above Lohbauer comment).

• Logging in disguise: How forest thinning is making wildfires worse

Forest thinning is gaining more media attention and is heavily promoted by some land management agencies and logging interests, but science suggests the technique more often makes fires burn hotter and faster.

Hundreds of scientists and forest ecologists wrote a letter to President Biden warning about the flaws in traditional “thinning” approaches to wildfire management, see:

• Open Letter to President Biden and Members of Congress from Scientists: It is essential to Remove Climate-Harming Logging and Fossil Fuel Provisions from Reconciliation and Infrastructure Bills

See especially these studies in footnotes 10 and 11 in that letter:

DEP Forest Fire Spokesperson Flat Out Lies To Press In Defending Plan

Conservationists Who Signed Off On This Are Embarrassed

Friends of Murphy DEP, Loggers, And Professional Foresters Pushing Back Hard

Theres’ been quite a large public response, mostly expressing outrage, on the Pinelands Commission’s approval of the DEP wildfire logging plan that would cut and remove 2.4 million tress from about 1,400 acres, create 13 miles of 50 foot wide clearcut “firebreaks, and apply toxic herbicides on over 1,000 acres in the heart of protected Pinelands forests.

Not surprisingly, those responsible for preparing, approving and signing off on the plan are looking quite bad.

I)  Some metrics, just days after the story broke:

1) Longtime veteran investigative reporter and columnist Bob Hennelly’s expose at Insider NJ is getting a lot of volume. Over 1,350 readers have read the story. The reader comments are brutal!

2) In less than 24 hours since it was posted last night, my petition at Change.org has been read 3,757 times and endorsed by 211 people. Those numbers will grow as NJ’s grassroots advocacy groups circulate  the petition to their members.

[Update – Sorry, I just learned that change.org is a commercial fundraising operation. Sorry for that. I am taking the petition down right now.]

I don’t know how many people have called the Gov. at 609-292-6000 to demand he veto the minutes, but I’ve spoke in depth with the Gov.’s office constituent relations staff.

3) My website (Wolfenotes.com) posts have had over 400 NJ hits.

4) Other reporters from major metropolitan newspapers are working on the story, so more shoes are likely to drop.

5) Pinelands resident and Democratic Party operative Bill Caruso sent me a Facebook post that is generating a lot of comments, many of which defend the logging plan and object to it being called a “clearcut”. Comments are restricted and Bill has no responded to my request that he allow me to reply to comments there. I interpret this as evidence of political pushback (instead of Russian trolls, there are conservation group members manipulating and distorting the conversation!).

[Update – Bill tells me:

I don’t have any control over the post or commenting abilities.  I’m not the moderator

6) Emile DeVito on NJCF has not responded to several questions I posed to him, including how the plan contradicts a recent op-ed he wrote on Pinelands wildfire. I interpret that avoidance as an attempt to duck criticism for signing off on and/or not opposing this disastrous plan. The same goes for Carleton Montgomery of PPA.

They all kept this disaster under the radar, instead of blowing the whistle on it and fighting to stop it.

They, like the Pinelands Commission, caved to the blatant political pressure of the DEP Firemen (i.e. “it’ll be YOUR fault if a wildfire kills someone”).

II)  Lies, Junk Science, And Spin – Some troubling developments:

1. NJ Forest Fire spokesperson Caryn Shinske flat out lied to reporter Bob Hennelly when she said this:

Tree removal will focus on the smallest snow-bent pitch pine trees first, and an intact canopy will be maintained across the site.”

That is absurd and flat out false.

An intact canopy will not be maintained. Here’s how the Pinelands Commission’s approval documents quantified the significant tree canopy reductions:

• The proposed “low and from below” thinning will reduce the forest from 2,075 trees per acre to 204 trees per acre. Canopy cover will be reduced from 68% to 43%.

• Approximately 255 acres of pine-shrub oak forest type will be subject to a variable density thinning treatment. This thinning will reduce the forest from 1,940 trees per acre to 74 trees per acre. Canopy cover will be reduced from 74% to 30%.

• The applicant indicates that this type of thinning creates a gradual transition in tree density from zero trees per acre created by the proposed forest firebreak to 33 trees per acre for a distance back from the proposed forest firebreak of 75 feet. Canopy cover will be reduced from 74% to 19% by the “feathered” variable density thinning treatment.

 2. I am working an another separate post about junk science, so let me just highlight a few points here.

The DEP is ignoring, misconstruing, and distorting US Forest Service and Rutgers research, and they do that in a coordinated fashion, first in DEP’s “80X50 Climate Science Report” (see p. 156) and in the sham justification for this logging project.

First of all, in the carbon sequestration section of DEP’s Climate science Report, DEP cites and relies on Rutgers professor Richard Lathrop’s published research to quantify carbon storage and sequestration in NJ’s forests.

The DEP logging plan and the Pinelands Commission’s review and approval of it failed to even consider climate impacts, including carbon storage and sequestration.

So I wrote Prof. Lathrop an email asking for his thoughts on this neglect, as well as his assessment of the science supporting DEP claims about “unnatural tree density” and attributing the susceptibility to pine bark beetle infestation.

In contrast to his immediate reply to my recent question to him about conflicts between USDA and his land use data on agricultural land cover and land loss,  Lathrop has not responded to my questions about DEP’s failure to consider his research on carbon.

I interpret his avoidance as an indicator of the huge scientific stakes and the political risks of speaking out critically about flaws in a Murphy DEP plan.

The US Forest Service published research (See Box 2.3 – The Southern Pine Beetle Reaches NJ Pinelands) attributes the susceptibility of Pinelands forests to southern pine beetle infestation due to the northern migration of the range of the beetle, as a result of warming due to climate change

(Ironically, this view is backed up by a NJ Department of Parks & Forestry fact sheet  and a public briefing by the Pinelands Commission).

In contrast, DEP implies that this is due to “unnatural tree density” and prescribes chain saw medicine, supplemented by toxic herbicide treatments:

I could find no USFS scientific support for the DEP claim that the forest in question is “unnnaturally dense” – or whether DEP even has published scientific basis and data to support what “natural” tree density is in the Pinelands..

DEP also gets the science on the relationships between their proposed “forest thinning” and wind and wildfire wrong: (Hennelly piece)

“Across the  project, the goal is to stop the spread of fire by removing dense undergrowth and preventing fire from getting into the treetops where wind can rapidly spread and intensify fire.

“Thinning” a forest increases sunlight hitting the forest floor, which dries out soil and vegetation, making them more prone to combustion. It also reduces wind resistance, thus INCREASING wind that promotes rapid spread of fire, as recent science and hundreds of scientist warn, see:

• Open Letter to President Biden and Members of Congress from Scientists: It is essential to Remove Climate-Harming Logging and Fossil Fuel Provisions from Reconciliation and Infrastructure Bills

https://johnmuirproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/ScientistLetterOpposingLoggingPro

Finally, DEP suggests that the logging is “badly needed”.

In contrast, Pinelands Commissioner Doug Wallner, a retired National Park Service expert on wildfire, noted that the DEP plan failed to provide a justification and failed to consider the “no alternative” option. Wallner noted that he had reviewed the maps and that there was little of no people or property at risk or benefit from the logging and firebreak plan.

And logging forests releases more carbon than wildfires do, see

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/30/opinion/california-wildfires-oak-fire-yosemite-sequoias.html

We’ll keep you posted as this debate unfolds.

Memorial Dedications Deserve Respect & Solemn Reflection, Not Smiles And Blue Jeans

Florio’s Legacy Celebrated Just Hours Before It Was Betrayed

[Update below – see especially Update #2]

Reader Warning: We’ve literally been losing sleep over this, so we lance the boil. For readers who are triggered by conflict; or who view criticism of black and brown people as racist, or criticism of women as misogynist, or view criticism in general as an ad hominem form of “symbolic  violence“; or who view all legacy white heteronormative male created and dominated institutions as inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, and unjust; please just hit the delete button now. Be forewarned: this is not a “safe space”.

Before I begin, I’ll put my biased cards on the table.

I strongly opposed Gov. Murphy’s nomination of Laura Matos to the Pinelands Commission (she now serves as Chair). It is my opinion that she lacks substantive subject matter expertise or experience; that she is a highly partisan Trenton political operative beholden and loyal to Gov. Murphy; that she would elevate political loyalty above her duty to preserve the Pinelands; and that her appointment was based upon identity politics and “diversity” objectives that have zero science and public policy relevance to the Pinelands (e.g. as Gov. Murphy’s office explicitly stated publicly in defending the nominations: Matos and McCurry were selected to bring “diversity” to the Commission).

Here’s how Gov. Murphy’s press office justified and defended the Gov.’s nominations (source: Michael Zhadanovsky, Deputy Press Secretary:

After collaborative talks this afternoon with Pinelands advocates, we are moving forward with two nominees to the Pinelands Commission. The Governor is committed to diversifying the Commission and ensuring that its actions promote environmental justice and accountability to those most impacted by its decisions.

The later objections stem from my beliefs that government service is not an opportunity for crony appointments and symbolic political gestures, and that policy substance and qualifications take precedence over individual identity. There are plenty of well qualified and independent black, latino/a, and women who could serve on the Commission. Chris Hedges explains:

W.E.B. Du Bois argued that white society feared educated Blacks far more than they feared Black criminals.

“They can deal with crime by chain-gang and lynch law, or at least they think they can, but the South can conceive neither machinery nor place for the educated, self-reliant, self-assertive black man,” he wrote.

Those, like Du Bois, who was blacklisted and driven into exile, who pull the veil from our eyes are especially targeted by the state. Rosa Luxemberg. Eugene V. Debs. Malcolm X. Martin Luther King. Noam Chomsky. Ralph Nader. Cornel West. Julian Assange. Alice Walker. They speak a truth the powerful and the rich do not want heard. They, like Bynum, help us find our song.

I predicted Matos would be a loyal Murphy lackey and not a defender of the Pinelands.

I was not alone in those views.

The moderate outlet NJ Spotlight provided harsh coverage:

• Murphy wants new names with corporate ties for Pinelands Commission

A former Pinelands Commissioner wrote a critical Op-Ed:

• Op-Ed: Murphy appointees to Pinelands Commission tip balance toward development

And the Star Ledger editorial board excoriated the Gov.’s nominations as “a craven power play”, a “brazen” attempt to “gut the Commission during lame duck”, and a “scheme” that was similar to the “bullying” by Gov. Christie.

Now, to the merits – beginning with the photo above (and subsequent press release).

A man’s life, death, and legacy is a serious thing.

A ceremony dedicating public space to a man’s legacy is a solemn moment that must exude dignity and somber reflection.

The photo above does not attain those basic standards of decency.

The photo op, the smiles, and the blue jeans are totally inappropriate (that goes for Commissioner Avery too).

(“the queen effects the behavior of all the bees“)

Shortly after this photo was taken, Ms. Matos Chaired a meeting of the Pinelands Commission, at which the Commission passed a Resolution lauding Florio’s legacy.

This was the first Commission meeting I’ve viewed with Matos presiding as Chair. Sadly, my objections to her nomination have just been validated. Let me briefly explain how.

I was appalled by her numerous totally inappropriate outbursts of giggling. Watch the whole 2 plus hours and count them if you think I exaggerate.

In contrast with the photo and Ms. Matos’ repeated giggling, the Resolution the Commission adopted was excellent: it was substantive and dignified.

But worst of all, just moments after Matos and the Commission recognized Florio’s Pinelands legacy, they betrayed it by approving DEP’s massive fatally flawed 1,300 acre forest clearcut and 13 miles “firebreak” plan that would cut and remove 2.4 MILLION trees!

On top of all that, in an extremely revealing move, when Matos opened the public comment period after the Commission approved that forest massacre, she allowed less than 1 minute for people watching on line to call in. She then noted that there were no calls, quickly closed the comment period and rapidly moved on to other business.

But moments later, staff had to interrupt and advise Matos that there were 2 callers on the line, forcing her to awkwardly re-open the comment period. She got caught rushing the close of comment!

And then, again revealingly, after 2 Commissioners agreed with some of my public comments – including the deficiencies in the CMP regarding climate and forest management, the lack of Staff expertise, and the denial of the OPRA request and “secret” meeting with DEP – Matos defended the indefensible.

Like I said: she is an unqualified partisan political hack that is loyal to Gov. Murphy in spite of duties to preserve the Pinelands, and she has no clue about how her actions impact the marvelous Pinelands forests and ecosystems.

[Update 1: And for those who buy the diversity argument, what have Ms. Matos and Mr. McCurry done to implement diversity objectives?  Is there a “diversity” agenda in policy? Are there funded programs to bring poor black and hispanic kids from Camden, Trenton, and Atlantic City into the Pinelands to experience nature? Are there CMP amendments to consider social justice and environmental justice impacts? Require applicants to mitigate injustice? CMP amendment to mandate affordable and diverse housing? Is there a funded new center on Indigenous culture and history? Nope, none of that and none of it is even being discussed. Instead, all Matos and McCurry have done is serve as tokens for Gov. Murphy’s political interests, rubber stamped the Murphy DEP clearcut plan, and advanced the Gov.’s agenda and their own personal careers.  They serve power, not principle or Pinelands preservation. The clearcut forest is the same outcome, whether approved by a white man or Latina woman Chair. That’s the sham known as “Progressive Neoliberalism” (Google Professor Nancy Fraser’s work on that), which uses identity politics to mask a Neoliberal corporate economic and regulatory agenda.

[Update 2: 10/19/22 – For those who may think I am just denying racism, or may even be a racist:

It is very easy to establish racist intent and racist impact when DEP permits garbage incinerators, fossil power plants, regional sewage plants, junkyards (now Orwellian called “recycling centers”), chemical plants, and garbage transfer stations in poor black and brown cities like Newark, Camden, and Trenton.

Similarly – although Ta-Nehisi Coats is widely noted for this, he was not close to breaking the story about racist schemes to “red line” black communities in US cities – it is very easy to establish racist patterns of investment, development, and land use based on government policies.

And its similarly easy to document racism in FDR’s concessions to southern racist Dixiecrats in excluding black people from the benefits of the New Deal.

And it’s easy to see racism in NJ’s highly segregated school systems and wealthy white suburbs – which were created by white flight and huge federal highway and water and sewer infrastructure subsidies – along with legacies of exclusionary zoning and racial covenants and deed restrictions.

I’ve written about all these issues for many years.

But please, by all means, tell me what the racist motives and impacts are when the Pinelands Commission approves logging of forests, restricts the allocation of water, or protects rare and endangered species?

Please then tell me how “diversity” on the Pinelands Commission can redress and fix these alleged social and racial; injustices. Please. And be specific.

All we have now on the Pinelands Commission is diversity in serving the Gov.’s political agenda and selling out the Pinelands.

EJ and Social justice activists are being played, and they don’t even know it.

[End Note: for comparison, I don’t see any blue jeans in this photo and a lot more preparation went into the more well attended ceremony (and Candy was still alive!)

Obama Executive Order Created Broad Program, Backed Federal Regulatory Authority

Trump Repealed Obama Order

Biden Restoration Order Actually Gutted The Obama Order

As Biden is about to depart on his Hurricane Ian PR tours (Puerto Rico and Florida), I want to put a little historical and policy meat on the bones of an important story about continuing government failures that were exposed by Hurricane Ian.

I’m sure Joe Biden and the lapdog media are not going to say anything about how privatization of energy and other Neoliberal economic reforms  – including Congress’s passage of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act – have contributed to the disaster in Puerto Rico.

Of course, this is more of the same of what Rutgers Professor Naomi Klein exposed in the post-Katrina response as “Shock Doctrine – Disaster Capitalism”.

But there are other government policy failures that warrant attention.

Let’s start with Obama’s Executive Order on climate adaptation. He issued that as a followup to his Order on Sandy, which I contrasted at the time with NJ Gov. Christie’s response. (see also:

• Christie’s Sea Wall Follies

At the time it was issued, following the Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy disasters, it got little press attention.

But the details of Obama’s Executive Order 13653 “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” actually directed broad and sweeping climate adaptation programs, including the use of federal regulatory authority.

Here’s the core text:

Sec. 3. Managing Lands and Waters for Climate Preparedness and Resilience. Within 9 months of the date of this order and in coordination with the efforts described in section 2 of this order, the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies as recommended by the Council established in section 6 of this order shall work with the Chair of CEQ and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to complete an inventory and assessment of proposed and completed changes to their land- and water-related policies, programs, and regulations necessary to make the Nation’s watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them, more resilient in the face of a changing climate. Further, recognizing the many benefits the Nation’s natural infrastructure provides, agencies shall, where possible, focus on program and policy adjustments that promote the dual goals of greater climate resilience and carbon sequestration, or other reductions to the sources of climate change. The assessment shall include a timeline and plan for making changes to policies, programs, and regulations. Agencies shall build on efforts already completed or underway as outlined in agencies’ Adaptation Plans, as discussed in section 5 of this order, as well as recent interagency climate adaptation strategies such as the National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate, released October 28, 2011; the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, released March 26, 2013; and the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, released April 16, 2013.

Of course, the Order was never implemented by the Obama administration. Another example of symbolic gesture over real reform.

The Obama Order was later repealed by President Trump’s Executive Order 13,783 “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth”.

The news coverage of the Trump Order did not even mention the climate adaptation provisions of the repealed Obama Order.

In Orwellian fashion, not surprisingly, the Biden White House has literally flushed that Trump Order down the Memory Hole:

All of which takes us now to the Biden Administration’s policy.

Biden issued Executive Order 14,008: Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad

Revealingly, the Order does not mention the word “regulation”.

As such, it greatly scales back and weakens the Obama Order.

On top of that, Biden’s “Bipartisan” infrastructure funding law and inflation reduction act included provisions and side deals to scale back federal regulatory authority and promote accelerated expansion of infrastructure, with no climate impact assessments or adaptation planning & mitigation measures at all.

The Biden Executive Order is very thin gruel on the important policy issues involved in adaption –

Here’s the full text on adaptation, which is limited in scope to federal government procurement and management of buildings and property:

Sec. 211.  Climate Action Plans and Data and Information Products to Improve Adaptation and Increase Resilience.  (a)  The head of each agency shall submit a draft action plan to the Task Force and the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer within 120 days of the date of this order that describes steps the agency can take with regard to its facilities and operations to bolster adaptation and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.  Action plans should, among other things, describe the agency’s climate vulnerabilities and describe the agency’s plan to use the power of procurement to increase the energy and water efficiency of United States Government installations, buildings, and facilities and ensure they are climate-ready.  Agencies shall consider the feasibility of using the purchasing power of the Federal Government to drive innovation, and shall seek to increase the Federal Government’s resilience against supply chain disruptions.  Such disruptions put the Nation’s manufacturing sector at risk, as well as consumer access to critical goods and services.  Agencies shall make their action plans public, and post them on the agency website, to the extent consistent with applicable law.

You can kiss all that pretend regulatory stuff good-bye. Biden is a corporate Neoliberal. He won’t even do symbolic regulatory gestures like Obama.

So, when Biden tours another climate disaster, would it be too much to expect that the national press corps or climate activists to ask some tough questions about Biden’s actual climate record, based on the foregoing?

I’m not holding my breath.