WolfeNotes.com

DEP Proposal Would Reduce Statewide Carbon Dioxide Emissions a Paltry 2.6% by 2035

Allows DEP To Continue to Rubber Stamp Permits For Gas Pipelines, Power Plants, & LNG Exports

Makes A Mockery Of Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order Purported to Accelerate Emissions Reductions

Why we need a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure, an enforceable cap on total emissions and explicit linkage between the emissions from an individual project to attaining the total statewide emissions reduction goals

The Murphy DEP finally proposed their long awaited “Climate PACT” rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (read the DEP proposal).

I previously provided a critical overview of that proposal and wrote a followup post about how it failed to even consider Gov. Murphy’s recent Executive Order #274 to accelerate the GHG emissions reduction goals of the NJ Global Warming Response Act.

So, in assisting folks to participate in the public hearing (2/1/22) and public comment process on the proposal (public comment period ends on 3/6/22), today I want to highlight remarkable and fatal flaws in the proposal.

First, the DEP proposal fails to regulate methane emissions.

Methane is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (in the short-run, over a 20 year period).

In 2020, Governor Murphy signed into law P.L.2019, c.319 that requires DEP to use a 20-year time horizon and most recent IPCC Assessment Report when calculating global warming potential to measure the global warming impact of greenhouse gases.

Yet here is how DEP (under)estimated the warming potential of methane (top of page 30)

Direct methane emissions released to the atmosphere (without burning) are about 25 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of their warming effect on the atmosphere.

So, the DEP not only failed to regulate methane emissions, they are ignoring a State law mandate and misleading the public about  the warming potential of methane.

DEP originally defined methane as a regulated greenhouse gas way back in 2005, but did not regulate methane emissions (see DEP rule adoption, @ p. 66)

In 2019, the NJ Global Warming Response Act was amended to address methane: (revealing their cheerleading role, Gov. Murphy’s press release is actually posted on the NJ Conservation Foundation website!)

The Legislature further finds and declares that, while carbon dioxide is the primary and most abundant greenhouse gas, other greenhouse gases known as short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane, create a warming influence on the climate that is many times more potent over a shorter period of time than that of carbon dioxide, and have a dramatic and detrimental effect on air quality, public health, and climate change; and that reducing emissions of these pollutants can have an immediate beneficial impact on climate change and public health.

But DEP defied the legislature’s findings and mandate on how to calculate methane warming potential.

The failure to regulate methane allows DEP to rubber stamp permits for major fossil infrastructure like LNG export plants, gas pipelines, gas power plants, and compressor stations without considering GHG emissions, climate impacts or the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act or the Governor’s recent Executive Order 274.

According to a petition for rulemaking submitted to DEP by the EMPOWER NJ coalition, there are multiple major proposed natural gas pipelines, compressor stations, power plants and an LNG export project pending DEP permit review. Those projects, according to the petition, would increase current greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%. (see point #64, p. 19-20)

These projects emit both methane (directly and by leaks) and carbon dioxide (by combustion of the methane natural gas fuel).

Because DEP is not regulating methane, the methane emissions from these projects (lifecycle, from the fracking gas well to the point of use) would not be considered or regulated.

The carbon dioxide emissions from these projects, e.g. for gas fueled power plants, would be below DEP’s promoted CO2 emission standards for individual sources, and therefore would be permitted by DEP.

Second, there is  no overall cumulative cap on emissions under DEP’s proposal – i.e. the emission standards for an individual project are NOT linked to the Global Warming Response Act reduction goals or the Governor’s Executive Order (50% by 2030). 

For context for the DEP’s alleged 2.5 million ton carbon dioxide reduction and failure to regulate methane, consider this just one gas fired power plant project would completely wipe out the DEP’s entire projected 2.5 million ton emission reduction: (Bergen Record, 2/15/19)

A controversial, natural gas-fired power plant proposed for the Meadowlands would emit more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than any existing power plant in New Jersey, according to a review of federal data.

In fact, North Bergen Liberty Generating station’s estimated 2.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions would tie it with the Phillips 66 Bayway Refinery in Linden as the top single greenhouse gas producer in the Garden State.

Third, there is no enforceable linkage between individual project emissions and attainment of Statewide emissions reduction goals.

This is why we need a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure, an enforceable cap on total emissions and explicit linkage between the emissions from an individual project to attaining the total statewide emissions reduction goals.

The DEP proposal fails in all those ways: no moratorium and no cap and no linkage from individual to statewide limit.

The DEP proposal is a weak effort.

It completely contradicts Gov. Murphy’s rhetoric about his commitment to address the climate crisis.

We need far more to address the climate emergency.

But, just don’t expect NJ Spotlight to tell you that. They provide readers with sweeping propaganda.

For Over A Decade, DEP Flouts Laws Mandating Submission Of Critical Annual Reports

Corporate Polluters Get A Pass

What You Don’t Know Can Kill You

Once upon a time, there was this big bad regulatory agency called the DEP. They used to serve the public and go after corporate polluters, take prisoners, and name names.

I’ll let the DEP explain:

New Jersey was one of the first states in the nation to require public reporting of toxic and hazardous chemical storage, or inventory, data and chemical throughput and multi-media environmental release data, and to establish a mechanism to promote public awareness of the information.

But today, remarkably, for over a decade, DEP has failed to submit annual public Reports to the Legislature and Governor as required by the Clean Water Enforcement Act and the “Doria Permit Activity” Environmental Management And Accountability Act.

The DEP has also failed to prepare and publicly release annual Reports of the critically important data on manufacture, use, storage and discharge of toxic and extraordinarily hazardous chemicals collected under the NJ Worker and Community Right to Know Act, the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act, and the Pollution Prevention Act. DEP had annually released public reports of that data for decades, prior to 2010.

There are several other important reports on environmental conditions that DEP used to prepare and release to the public that they no longer do.

These failures at DEP have gone unchallenged by any Legislative oversight or media coverage.

Environmental groups who used to work on these pollution and corporate accountability issues have abandoned the field for corporate foundation funded “greener” pastures.

The public has no way of knowing about any of this.

As a result, DEP has been transformed from an agency that historically promoted disclosure of critical scientific and environmental information to the public to literally an unaccountable black box.

DEP’s lame attempt to shift the burden to the public to conduct individual discrete website queries via their dysfunctional “Data Miner” is no substitute for DEP preparing Statewide data and analysis in a public Report. And it doesn’t comply with the law.

I just filed OPRA public records request for all these reports over the period 2010 – 2020 to make this post “official”.

Then when DEP denies the OPRA’s and is forced to admit that these Reports don’t exist, maybe the NJ press corps and environmental groups will get off their lazy incompetent assess and do something about it.

Because, you know, hey, shit happens. But you can just duck and coved and shelter in place, right?

• Toxic Train Wreck – “Shelter in Place” is Modern Version of “Duck & Cover”

But then again, there’s always the good old reliable duct tape: (a true story)

• NJ School Used Duct Tape To Respond To Toxic Oil Spill

Below, I highlight what’s at stake.

The public disclosure provided by these annual reports promoted important common benefits. These Reports were historically used to:

• hold individual corporate toxic polluters accountable
• hold DEP accountable
• provide the public with information about risks to their health and environment
• empower environmental groups to pressure polluters and lobby for stronger environmental laws
• educate the media about environmental and public health issues
• provide information to draft legislation and allow legislators to conduct legislative oversight and DEP budget review
• provide baseline data required to analyze trends in environmental quality

I) Clean Water Enforcement Act

The Clean Water Enforcement Act was passed in 1990. The Act was made necessary by DEP’s gross failure to enforce violations of water pollution permits by industry and local sewage treatment plants. The Act established mandatory penalties for violations of permits.

Importantly, the Act also: (per DEP)

The CWEA requires the department to submit a report on the implementation of the CWEA’s requirements to the Governor and the Legislature by March 31 of each year. The statute also specifies the items that the department must include in the report. The department has organized the required information into several categories, including Permitting, Enforcement, Delegated Local Agencies, Criminal Actions, Fiscal, and Water Quality Assessment.”

As you can see from DEP’s Clean Water Enforcement Act webpage, the last annual CWEA Report was submitted in 2010.

The CWEA Reports would identify specific toxic water polluters, by corporate name.

Environmental groups would routinely use these Reports for their own Reports and press events that were designed to pressure DEP and corporate polluters to do better.

Obviously, corporate polluters hated that, as did DEP regulators.

No wonder those Reports are down the memory hole.

II) “Doria” Permit Activity Report

The “Doria” “Permit Activity Report” law – named after sponsor and former Assembly Speaker Joe Doria – was enacted during the Florio administration in the early 1990’s largely in response to the business community’s attacks on DEP permit processing delays.

The law requires detailed reporting of all permit, enforcement (e.g. scroll down to see annual air enforcement reports, which haven’t been issued in a decade), and related activities at DEP. (see DEP website)

Here’s an example, from the 2002 DEP Doria Report:

III) Worker and Community Right To Know Report

I’ll let DEP’s Executive Summary of the last issued 2009 Report  explain what this is all about:

Here’s an example of the kind of information that Report provided – no wonder the corporate polluters killed it:

Where is that data now?

When was the last time a NJ based environmental group issued a Report and held a press conference blasting these corporate polluters for poisoning NJ?

When was the last news report you read about all this?

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

IV) Pollution Prevention Report

The Pollution Prevention Act, passed in early 1990’s during the Florio administration, was a huge step towards forcing corporations to reduce the manufacture and use of toxic chemicals. It required submission of Pollution Prevention plans by individual chemical plants showing how they would do that.

The law enabled DEP to mandate toxic use reduction requirements in DEP air, water and waste permits, an incredibly strong power DEP never used.

Regardless of DEP’s do nothing appeasement, the Big Corporate polluters correctly perceived this law as an existential threat and they killed it.

Again, I’ll let DEP summarize what this is all about, from their final 2012 Report, issued before the corporate polluters killed the program:

V) Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act

These are the “Bhopal” facilities, were an accident literally could kill thousands of people nearby.

In fact, DEP TCPA regulations require a chemical facility to prepare a map that show’s the “kill zone”.

They hide the “kill zone” behind the Orwellian bureaucratic euphemism “off site consequence analysis“.

Thousands dead is some “consequence”, eh?

Do you live in a “kill zone”? Does you child go to school in a “kill zone”?

Don’t ask DEP – and they won’t tell.

Just go to DEP’s TCPA website and see if you can find out anything. Anything at all about any of that.

Still think this is all about just red tape and bureaucratic paperwork?

VI) Contaminated Sites, polluted groundwater, and remedial cleanup priorities

Is you house near a toxic waste site? How’s DEP doing in cleaning up toxic site in your town? Is your drinking water well threatened by groundwater pollution from a toxic waste site? Should you be sampling your tapwater? Was your child’s school or daycare facility built on an old toxic waste site? Are underground vapors migration into your basement?

Don’t ask. The DEP’s toxic site cleanup program has been privatized.

But don’t worry be happy, DEP has a FAQ on that.

Oh, it’s useless?

But, hey, you can still go to DEP’s website and see what you can find on the dysfunctional “Data Miner”.

Or file an OPRA and see what comes back. Be sure to have the name of site, ID number, lot and block number, etc. Good luck.

VII) Other Important Data and Information No Longer Routinely Distributed To The Public

DEP used to make data available and issue reports on everything from hazardous air pollutant levels, drinking water quality (Private Well Testing Act statewide data and Source Water Protection program data), cancer maps, litter cleanups, recycling rates, solid waste generation, pesticide use, changes in land use/land cover, water use, beach water quality, wetlands loss, enforcement fines and penalties, to trends in environmental quality  ….. I could go on.

DEP used to regularly update and hold statewide public hearings on important Statewide Plans, like the Solid Waste Management Plan, Sludge Management Plan, Coastal Zone Management Plan, Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP – ironically now subject to public comment for an important Ozone compliance update you’ll never read about in the news or hear anything about from environmental groups) and more.

DEP even used to issue an annual “State of the Environment” report – with a press release and public distribution of the Report – that tracked trends in key environmental and public health indicators. (DEP now buries that trend data in an obscure website the public has no clue on how to locate or interpret the data.) That Report was terminated by DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell in 2002 in response to propaganda abuses by the Whitman administration, who used the Report as cover for her budget cutting and deregulation at DEP.

They are all gone now. Polluters literally own DEP (an additional report on that coming soon).

The only major Report DEP still issues is the Bi-Annual Dirty Water Report and list of polluted waters. But those reports don’t name corporate polluters or provide any data on how much toxic pollution is being discharged to NJ waterways and drinking water sources (and they ignore groundwater pollution).

DEP only continues to issue this report because it is federally mandated by the Clean Water Act and EPA would revoke DEP’s funding if they failed to issue that Report.

Clean Water Enforcement, Permits, Community Right To Know, & Pollution Prevention Laws Ignored.

No Transparency, No Public Information, No Legislative Oversight, & No accountability.

Hey all you techies out there: find me a Google Maps or App for these data layers, with an accessible analysis about what they mean.

Who will tell the people about all this?

[End Note: So, don’t worry, be happy.

As you and your family are poisoned by polluters and climate and ecosystems collapse, you can take solace in all the earth shaking work that NJ Audubon is doing – while fundraising my email for the billionth time. (BTW, Eileen Murphy, the head of NJA Government Affairs, is the former Director of DEP Science and Research. She knows all this, was the target of gag orders and retaliation by DEP managers, and shamefully keeps it all to herself. And the NJA fundraiser left a few important “successes” out: they didn’t mention their new Exxon minted head of Stewardship and the Highlands logging projects. And the Sparta Mt. golden wing warbler “success” is a flat out lie. NJ Audubon didn’t “measure” that success, they outright fabricated it (just ask them for the documentation supporting that claim – May 2020 after the fact, by DEP):

Thanks to you, New Jersey Audubon can keep doing what we do best:

• We celebrate stewardship each time a landowner makes a conscious choice to manage the land for American Black Duck, Northern Bobwhite, Ruffed Grouse, and other declining wildlife.
• We welcome partnerships that preserve the Delaware River Basin, advocate for the strongest plastics laws in the nation, protect pollinators against toxic pesticides, and serve as a leading voice for responsibly developed offshore wind energy
• We measure success in the presence of Golden-winged Warbler in a patch of young forest habitat at Sparta Mountain, Bog Turtles thriving in the restored wetlands of Salem County, and Black Skimmer chicks fledging on the enhanced dunes at Stone Harbor Point.
• We glance into a healthier, more equitable future when children at a Jersey City middle school are empowered to build a rain garden that resolves their neighborhood drainage concerns.

Would Reduce NJ CO2 Emissions From Power Sector Just 13% by 2035

Would reduce total State emissions just 2.6% by 2035

Methane Emissions Are Not Regulated

Unregulated free market in PJM grid would produce lower emissions than DEP rule

Proposal Would Allow NEW SOURCES of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Proposal would allow current emissions to INCREASE

Transportation and Building Sector Emissions Remain Unregulated

(*Source: Congressional Research Service Report)

The Murphy DEP just proposed the long awaited and long delayed “climate PACT” regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions. You can read the full proposal here.

Before I begin to outline the details, we need the context.  According to the DEP’s most recent Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory total GHG emissions in NJ were 97.7 million tons/year (2019).

Of that total, 19.2 million tons (20%) were from the electric power sector.

According to DEP, the best case, assuming full compliance with the rule and other rosy DEP projections, the power sector emissions would be reduced by 2.5 million tons per year by 2035. That’s just 13% of power sector emissions and just 2.6% of current total state emissions.

Transportation and building sector emissions are not regulated. They make up the large majority of GHG emissions.

Natural gas (methane) emission from major sources like pipelines, compressor stations, LNG plants, and LNG export projects are not regulated.

Electric demand is projected to double, which would greatly increase current emissions, not considering new emissions from economic growth. The proposal does nothing to address these concerns (e.g. by imposing a real cap on total emissions, prohibiting new major GHG emission sources and fossil infrastructure, phasing out current GHG power sources, mandating electrification of building and transportation sectors (new and retrofit  existing), mandating energy efficiency, increased renewable energy portfolio standards, emissions mitigation, mandatory offsets to get to “net zero”, imposing economic incentives like emission fees to reflect the “social cost of carbon”, or reviewing DEP air permits for consistency or compliance with the Global Warming Response Act emission reduction goals, like NY state climate law requires).

That is not a serious proposal and it was not designed to meet the old emissions reduction goal of the 2009 Global Warming Response Act or the new accelerated goal of Gov. Murpy’s recent Executive Order #274.

DEP even admitted that right up front, describing the proposal as an incremental “initial step“: (@ page 8)

this rulemaking is not meant to be viewed as the definitive action by the Department to ensure the State meets the 80×50 goal. Rather, this rulemaking is an initial step developed in response to current modeling and technology.

DEP also admits that the proposal would impact only a tiny handful of older power plants  – likely to retire anyway – that produce just 3-4% of NJ’s power.

But it is even worse than that.

More critical context. This lame DEP proposal comes shortly after dire warnings from scientists, and in the wake the Governor’s recent Executive Order accelerating greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.

It is far weaker than the Obama EPA Clean Power Plan, which was proposed back in 2014 (see table above) in major respects, including total GHG emissions reductions and the allowable emission rates for the power sector.

[Note: I was a critic of the Obama CPP at the time it was proposed as far too modest. Proving that point, since it was proposed, market forces alone has delivered the projected 32% Obama emissions reductions, largely due to fuel switching from coal to natural gas.]

Read this Congressional Research Service analysis of the Obama CPP and compare the emission rates to DEP’s proposal:

Here’s my first cut rapid review summary, limited to 10 bullet points:

1. Instead of simply regulating CO2 emissions (i.e. what actually goes up the stack), the DEP proposal is far narrower and only captures a small subset of the power sector that serves the grid and industrial boilers.

With respect to the power sector, the DEP proposal repeats all the loopholes and exemptions from the RGGI program.

DEP notes: (@ p. 16)

This retains huge RGGI loopholes found in definition of “compliance entity” and allowance purchase requirements:

But even within the narrow scope of the power sector that produces electricity for the grid, the impact is small: (@ p. 22)

The proposal also does NOT impose CO2 or GHG emission fees of $130/per ton air pollution emissions fees for other polluters.

DEP misleadingly uses the “Social Cost of Carbon” only to analyze the economic benefits of the proposal. DEP does not use SCC as basis for establishing emission limits or as a basis for imposing emission permit fees.

2. The proposal defines methane as a greenhouse gas – that’s nothing new. DEP defined methane as a GHG back in 2005 – but it does not regulate methane sources. That means that huge methane emissions from pipelines, compressor stations, gas plants, and LNG exports will continue to be unregulated.

DEP does not analyze any GHG emissions reductions from methane. Instead, atonshingly, DEP considers methane in the “hazardous air pollutant” impact section, showing reductions of just 81 – 92 tons per year as co-benefits.  (@ p. 65)

DEP not only fails to regulate methane, they significantly underestimate its warming potential.

Methane is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 in 20 year time horizon. But here is how DEP (under)estimated the warming potential of methane (top of page 30)

Direct methane emissions released to the atmosphere (without burning) are about 25 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of their warming effect on the atmosphere.

Gee, now why would DEP seriously minimize the warming potential of methane like that?

3. DEP’s “output based” emissions approach allows CO2 emissions to INCREASE as power production increases. Same trap as efficiency standards in cars. Emissions increase as the increase in vehicle miles traveled exceed the efficiency increases (e.g. 25 MPG traveling 10,000 miles emits less than a 50 MPG car traveling 25,000 miles)

DEP admits that: (if demand doubles, then efficiency would need to MORE than double or emissions would need to be reduce by MORE than 50% in order to reduce emissions)

“The Department acknowledges that fossil fuel-fired electric generation in the State will continue to be needed until clean energy sources come online and clean energy technology advances to meet anticipated electric demand. As depicted in the EMP, with the electrification of buildings and transportation, the EMP predicts more than doubling electricity demand.” (@ page 18)

4. The DEP emission standards are actually weaker then the Obama Clean Power Plan:

“For the first tier, on or before January 1, 2024, existing EGUs must meet an emission limit of 1,700 lb CO2/MWh gross energy output. For the second tier, on or before January 1, 2027, the applicable limit ratchets down to 1,300 lb CO2/MWh gross energy output. For the third tier, on or before January 1, 2035, existing EGUs must meet a more stringent limit of 1,000 lb CO2/MWhgross energy output.” (DEP @ p. 17)

Compare that to the emission rates in Table 1 on page 16 of this Congressional Research Service Report on the Obama Clean Power Plan:

Example: the DEP’s strictest limit (third tier) is 1,000 lbs/MWhr by 2035. Over 95% of this fossil power will be from gas plants.

In comparison, the 2014 Obama EPA CPP set a standard of 898 lbs/MWh by 2022 for gas plants!

The DEP plan is also weaker than the Obama plan because NJ has almost all natural gas generated fossil (little coal) while the Obama plan had far lower rates for natural gas plants and the overall rates included higher emitting coal. Obama EPA also required some fossil power generators to procure renewable energy to achieve the average emission rates.

DEP notes this fact: (@ p. 11)

5. The DEP admits that the free market in current PJM grid will actually produce LOWER emissions than their regulations:

First tier:

“The Department’s rough projection calculated a 1,132 lb/MWh PJM CO2 marginal rate in 2024,which is lower than the proposed 1,700 lb/MWh CO2 emission limit that existing EGUs in New Jersey would need to meet by January 1, 2024.” (@ p. 20)

Second tier:

“the Department roughly projects a PJM CO2 marginal emission rate of 1,051 lb/MWh in 2027, which is lower than the January 1, 2027, proposed emission rate of 1,300 lb/MWh CO2 for in-State existing EGUs.”

Third tier:

“Again, looking at the 2015 through 2019 annual marginal on-peak CO2 emission rate trend, the Department roughly projects a PJM CO2 marginal emission rate of 834 lb/MWh in 2035, which is lower than the proposed emission rate of 1,000 lb/MWh by January 1, 2035.”

The FREE MARKET PJM grid (unregulated) will produce LOWER EMISSIONS than the DEP rule!

CO2 emissions will INCREASE under the DEP rules.

6. And the cherry on top is that DEP allows extension of the deadlines:

“the Department proposes to allow affected existing EGUs to apply for an extension of compliance, if the EGU must continue to operate to ensure electric grid reliability. Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:27F-2.5 sets forth the circumstances under which the Department will grant an extension of the compliance deadline(s).”

7. The “modification of exiting sources” section allows “case by case” standards. This is weaker than EPA’s “New Source Review” program under the Clean Air Act, where modifications trigger stricter new source standards. Polluters will be able to extend the life of the old plants without triggering stricter new emission standards.

8. Ironically, the emission standards for NEW units are consistent with the Obama CPP.

But there should NOT BE ANY NEW UNTIS ALLOWED!!!!!!

The New York State DEC just denied air permits for a new gas plant for exactly this reason: new fossil sources fundamentally contradict the goal of reducing current emissions. For an analysis of how the NY law differs from NJ’s toothless climate laws, see:

• What A Difference A State (Law) Makes

9. In terms of estimated emissions reductions that potentially could result from the DEOP proposal (i.e. best case, 100% compliance, rosy assumptions and projections hold) DEP estimates that reductions would be 2.5 million tons per year by 2035. This is just 2- 3% of current total emissions. It is not clear if RGGI alone would exceed these reductions (I haven’t looked at the RGGI cap lately). Regardless, such paltry reductions are a joke.

But again, DEP admits that the free market alone will provide greater reductions, absent the DEP rule. DEP openly admits this on page 58:

“Nevertheless, if PJM resources are called upon to meet the State’s capacity needs, then based on the projected PJM marginal rate, the State would still realize a net avoided CO2 emissions benefit.” 

10. The DEP estimates of the fossil boiler emissions reduction provisions of the proposal are even lame – just 71,000 tons per year.

DEP estimates that the fuel requirements would be less, just 101 tons per year

Bottom line: This is not a serious proposal.

It Will allow and result in increases in emissions.

It will not regulate methane or transportation and building sectors.

This is my first cut. More to follow.

Major Stories Are Suppressed By NJ’s Lame Media

Big Pharma, NJ Petro-Chemical, & NJ Corporate Power Block Coverage

A Tale of The Personal and The Political

(we name names)

Let me preface my NJ story with a remarkable parallel.

I got the headline for this post from legendary journalist and film maker John Pilger, who used that phrase during his remarks on a panel at the War On Terror film festival with Noam Chomsky, Stella Morris, and Michael Moore (hit the link and listen!)

Pilger was talking about how the media, the US media in particular, have gone silent on the persecution and torture of Julian Assange.

The media initially reported on several of Assange’s Wikileaks documents – particularly US war crimes like “collateral murder video” and the Afghanistan papers – but things changed dramatically after Assange leaked DNC and Clinton emails and was blamed by Democrats for Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump.

After that, Assange’s status suddenly changed from First Amendment protected brave whistleblower to political pariah and national security threat and criminal.

Obama AG Eric Holder considered but refused to prosecute on threats to First Amendment press freedom grounds (thereby defying the recommendations of the military, National Security State apparatus, and the Clinton DNC wing of the Democratic Party), but the Trump administration indicted Assange under the Espionage Act and sought extradition from Britain. The Biden Department of Justice has continued to prosecute the Trump case.

The media got the memo: after first attempting to smear Assange, they simply have erased Assange and his persecution by the US Justice Department, which represents the most serious threat to press freedom and the First Amendment in US history (the lawyer for The NY Times in the leading press freedom “NY Times v. Sullivan” case wrote a NYT Op-Ed making that argument, but it’s since fallen off the media radar).

A propaganda off silence.

I don’t pretend to be a real journalist or to work on such world shaking issues, but I am very familiar with the media practice of “a propaganda of silence”.

Such a practice came harshly to my personal attention back in 1994, when I leaked memoranda from then DEP Commissioner Shinn to Gov. Whitman that exposed a totally corrupt strategy to suppress science and mount a PR campaign to avoid public disclosure of and DEP regulatory actions on high levels of mercury in NJ freshwater fish.

My Whitman memo leak story led the NJ Network TV News evening segment the same day I leaked it  (including dramatic graphics showing the DEP Letterhead memo to Whitman – it was covered by Ed Rogers before he was forced out of NJ media. I can still recall the look on my X wife’s face as we watched that segment!). The leak story was a page one above the fold lead story the next day in the Trenton Times (covered by Peter Page, another good reporter driven out of NJ media).

But none of the other major papers, particularly the Star Ledger (where Tom Johnson was the environmental reporter), covered the leak story. Not at all. Several days later, Johnson wrote a very small story, which was buried in the back of the paper, that mentioned the controversy, but didn’t emphasize the leak.

I was always curious about that.

Until I got the real explanation from the horses mouth.

The author of the DEP Commissioner Shinn memo to Whitman I leaked was Florio administration holdover DEP Assistant Commissioner Richard Sinding. I guess Sinding liked the job and wanted to stay on.

I subpoenaed Sinding, who was compelled to testify at my Civil Service administrative hearing. DEP Commissioner Shinn sought to fire me for insubordination.

Shinn was advised by then DEP Chief Counsel Michael Hogan, who would later become notorious as the Judge who ruled to approve the Christie Administration’s $225 million pennies on the dollar corrupt deal in the $8 BILLION Exxon “natural resource damage” settlement.

(I wrote at the time that Hogan’s prior DEP political hack work should have precluded his hearing the case. Hogan is a right wing Federalist Society type. I know that first hand from personal experience. In my first professional encounter with him at DEP, he angrily denounced me personally and rejected longstanding DEP policy by denying the federal Supremacy Clause in the Constitution in a matter involving a federal/state settlement agreement on the closure of the Cape May landfill. The Shinn/Hogan DEP later went on to totally flout this federal settlement by approving Cape May County’s revised solid waste plan:

Later, to settle the case with DEP and preserve my reputation and employment opportunities, my lawyer coerced me into signing a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the State. My lawyer was required to surrender all documents. But I retained a copy of the hearing transcript and still have Sinding’s testimony (and the memo’s and new clips, etc).

Among many other damning things – including the fact that Sinding testified under oath that he knowingly falsified the science at the direction of Commissioner Shinn – Sinding testified about numerous phone calls he got about my leak from State House press corps and environmental reporters.

They called him, not to report the story and his lies and DEP corruption, but to assure him that they would not run the story.

I always assumed that Tom Johnson was one of those lackeys. (Side note: Ironically, just weeks before my leak, Tom Johnson quoted me in a page one Star Ledger story directly contradicting incoming Commissioner Shinn on important then pending legislation regarding toxic chemicals in consumer products and what was called “household hazardous waste” (A-973, sponsored by Maureen Ogden). I had just worked successfully on and the NJ legislature had just passed “The Toxic Packaging Reduction Act” and “The Dry Cell Battery Management Act” designed to reduce toxic chemical in products, and the consumer products industry was the next target for DEP regulation. The corporate community and NJ’s consumer products industry vehemently opposed that legislation. No way would new “Open For Business” EO 27 rollback Governor Whitman support it).

Since then, over almost 30 years, I’ve broken scores of environmental stories in NJ, been an expert source in NJ media,  and my blogging work has frequently crossed over into the main stream media. But more recently I’ve become a pariah.

For example, here’s a short list of important stories I’ve written about in just the last weeks that illustrate NJ media’s “propaganda of silence”. The common thread flowing through these stories is that they criticize and expose the abuses of powerful corporate economic and political interests:

• Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette Re-Appoints Dupont (1) And Corporate Hired Guns To DEP Science Advisory Board

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

• NJ Flood Law Is Flawed And Murphy DEP Is Abdicating Its Regulatory Role In Flood Protection

• Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette Gaslights On Environmental Justice

• Murphy DEP Punts On Climate Emergency Rule Petition Seeking Deep Reductions In Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Murphy DEP Approves PSE&G Request To Eliminate Protections For Wetlands At Salem Nuclear Plant Site

• The Murphy DEP Perpetuates The Christie DEP’s Abdication

• Delaware River Basin Commission Urged To Remove Dupont Representative And Restrict Chemical Industry Influence On Toxics Advisory Committee

• What Ever Happened To The NJ Coastal And Ocean Protection Council?

• NJ Residents Are Still Drinking Rocket Fuel In Tap Water

• Endocrine Disruptor Study Buried At The Pinelands Commission

• What A Difference A State (Law) Makes

• NJ Senate Committee Will Hear A Weak Resolution Urging Gov. Murphy To Impose A Moratorium On Fossil Projects

• At Least 50 NJ Schools, Public Water Supply Systems, Healthcare Facilities, Developments, And Daycare Centers Violate Drinking Water Standards For “Forever Chemicals”

• DEP Increases Air Pollution Fees – But Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Exempt

• DEP Response to Climate Impacts From Massive New Fossil Infrastructure: “Beyond the scope of the applicable regulations”

Here are other significant stories that the public has been manipulated on because the media is not reporting accurately and/or ignoring important DEP policies, regulations, facts, science, and/or perspectives:

• Flawed $10 Million Lake Funding Bill Now On Gov. Murphy’s Desk Diverts Money From Highlands And Pinelands
• Mansfield NJ – Corruption In Plain Sight
• After Murphy DEP Scales Back Logging, NJ Audubon Seeks To Promote Sparta Mountain Logging
• Will The Biden Climate Plan Revive NJ’s Failed “PurGen” $5 Billion Coal Project?
• Murphy DEP Provides “Consultant Services” To Corporate Polluters
• NJ Audubon Hires Former Exxon-Mobil Hack As Head Of “Stewardship”
• NJ State Planners Issue Local Government “Climate Resilience” Guidance Document
• Murphy DEP Spins Allocation of Green Acres Funds To Cover For Failure To Implement “Historic” Environmental Justice Law
• The Biden “Bipartisan” Infrastructure Bill Is A Climate Disaster

Who will tell the people all this? Certainly not the cowards and hacks at NJ Spotlight.

Joe’s Not Playing Hardball With The Green New Deal

Talk stupidly and carry a limp stick

Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun of your hand?
Hey Joe, I said, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand? ~~~ Hey Joe, Hendrix

I just learned that yesterday, Joe Manchin used his chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee to hold a hearing on “rising energy prices” (thanks Schumer, for installing Manchin as the Chair of that vitally important Committee!)

Manchin explicitly supported more coal, carbon capture, and natural gas exports, while providing a platform for oil industry interests and Republicans to savage the Biden climate, energy, and “Build Back Better” agenda, based on a manufactured rising energy price crisis.

The Washington Post did not report that extraordinary – and perhaps unprecedented – sabotage by Manchin.

Instead, the WaPo reports that the Biden White House is going on offense on rising energy prices:

• White House takes aim at oil industry as gas prices create economic and politics rifts

Meanwhile, the WaPo reported that Biden went to Detroit today to talk about EV manufacturing and jobs. The people’s air and water are poisoned; schools, parks, libraries, and housing suck; the place heats up like a hellscape during summer heat waves and old people drop like flies; and militarized cops kill them with impunity – but Joe knows that all good democrats want to either work in car factories or drive Tesla’s (and all those shade trees, parks, and libraries are for the suburban folks, amirite?)

“Bipartisan Joe” kicked off his infrastructure victory campaign by barnstorming New Hampshire (“Live Free Or Die!”) and talking about such burning local issues as replacing public transit vehicles that had served their useful life and reducing the time for bridge repair by 1 year! Really! I heard Joe actually mouth these hard hitting talking points on NPR! (snark).

If Biden were really going on offense – since Manchin is sandbagging not only his “Build Back Better” initiative but his Presidency – Biden would have gone to West Virginia and talked about a “just transition” and guaranteed every single coal miner and gas industry worker a better job with 100%+ pay and benefits and job security – for life.

He would have done a series of events in poor West Virginia mining towns with local officials and mine union workers.

He would have said he’s ready to allocate billions of federal dollars to local renewable energy projects (wind, solar); energy efficiency projects to lower people’s residential energy bills (home insulation, heat pumps, solar panels, new refrigerator, AC, etc); health benefits to mining caused diseases; new schools, parks, and community healthcare centers; new drinking water treatment facilities; community colleges; affordable housing; and creation of thousands of union jobs (starting at $25/hour) in planting millions of trees and environmental restoration of the mountaintop mining removal and devastation of 100 years of coal and gas industry exploitation.

He would have then said Manchin was blocking all that.

Manchin would fold, believe me.

That’s what a competent White House would do. But Biden is a fraud. He’s not even trying.

Bobby Kennedy showed the way when he went to Appalachia to talk about poverty in 1968.

LBJ knew how to deal with small obstructionist punks like Manchin and Sinema.

But Sleepy Joe somehow missed all that history, while he spent his political life shilling for the banks and credit card companies out of Delaware.