WolfeNotes.com

Shortly After Pandora’s Box Is Opened, PSE&G Shuts It

More Misleading Spin On “Resilience” and DEP Regulatory Failures

Last week, I noted that NJ Spotlight reporter David Cruz had opened Pandora’s Box with his question to Jersey City Mayor Fulop about a failed “resilience” project, see:

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

NJ Spotlight then published a followup Ida article. That story did not engage what I wrote, but it did provide mild criticism of Gov. Murphy’s climate record.

But the next day, NJ Spotlight published a story that supported exactly the opposite claims they had reported just the day before!

It praised Gov. Murphy administration’s performance on climate and renewable energy. The story relied on supporting quotes from two of Gov. Murphy’s most consistent political supporters, the same individuals that the Gov.’s press office quotes in Gov. Murphy’s own press releases (and that have politically endorsed the Governor).

These same two individuals are funded by Foundations that also are major donors to NJ Spotlight.

There is no way that these two sources are expert, objective, independent, or credible, while many other sources not quoted by NJ Spotlight are.

Of course, I criticized that. As I noted, NJ Spotlight published a highly misleading story that relied exclusively on known political supporters of the Gov., both of whom are funded by the same Foundations that fund NJ Spotlight (funding that was not disclosed in the body of the story itself, but generic and buried on Spotlight’s webpage).

It is not the first time that this has happened or that I have called it out.

Now today, just days after their own reporter Dave Cruz opened Pandora’s Box  and I questioned the wisdom of spending billions of dollars on “resilience” and noted the failure of DEP to update regulatory standards to incorporate climate science, NJ Spotlight went even further and defended PSE&G and – implicitly – denied the DEP failures I noted, see:

• Lessons from Irene and Sandy helped PSE&G during Ida

Let me be specific about what’s so wrong with this PSE&G story.

The story presents as unquestionable fact two highly misleading arguments:

1) that PSE&G’s $1.47 billion “resilience” program was a huge success; and

2) current regulatory standards are adequate. Let’s take them one at a time.

1. Was PSE&G Resilience Program What Kept the Power On?

NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle leaves no doubt that PSE&G’s resilience program was a huge success. You don’t even have to read the story to reach that conclusion, the glaring unequivocal headline will suffice.

But the evidence for that conclusion is provided exclusively from statements by PSE&G’s President, Kim Hanemann.

Does anyone else find it highly unusual that PSE&G trotted out the PRESIDENT of the Corporation to basically serve as PSE&G’s press office?

Obviously, PSE&G has a huge interest in putting a positive spin on how they spent $1.47 billion in ratepayer money, especially days after NJ Spotlight reporter Dave Cruz opened Pandora’s Box on that question.

Given: a) PSE&G’s huge interest, b) the fact that PSE&G trotted out the President of the corporation to respond, and c) PSE&G’s funding of NJ Spotlight, one would think that Spotlight would be both skeptical and rigorous in independently and multi-source documenting PSE&G claims (if only to protect their own credibility and reputation, if not out of some ethical commitment to quality journalism).

One would be wrong.

NJ Spotlight relied exclusively on PSE&G’s statements. Those claims were not verified by field data or by independent expert sources, and many competing and conflicting critical facts were ignored.

NJ Spotlight attempts to present a veneer of a factual basis for their story by citing PSE&G’s cherry picked data on electric substations.

Spotlight makes no effort whatsoever to pierce the PSE&G spin and get to the relevant facts.

For example, there are other possible explanations for little loss of power. For example, PSE&G could have redistributed power to offset electric substations that were flooded out.

Instead, Spotlight reported this, unqualified and unchallenged:

Public Service Electric & Gas said it had “almost no” flooding of electric substations during the storm last week, and credited its ‘Energy Strong’ program of raising or rebuilding those facilities since Hurricane Irene in 2011 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

Since those major storms, the utility has raised, rebuilt, or eliminated 26 substations, and plans to increase that number to 46 by 2023, along with 14 gas-metering stations and storage facilities, all at a cost of $1.47 billion.

During Irene and Sandy, 29 of the utility’s substations were flooded. Of those, 26 serving about 320,000 customers were modified in the current program, and none of them were flooded during Ida, said Kim Hanemann, the new president of the utility.

What does “almost no flooding” mean? Where specifically were substations flooded? What were the flood elevations at these locations? What were the FEMA flood elevations at these specific locations? Where these flood substations knocked out?

What are the causes of power outages in extreme weather, e.g. wind blowing down power lines versus flooded substations knocked out? Ida was a flood event. Other storms came with wind or snow and ice. PSE&G has data on this. If they spend $1.47 billion on 5% of the power outages, then surely that is relevant.

Substations that were “raised, rebuilt, or eliminated” are group together. How many were raised? How many were just eliminated? That fact makes a HUGE difference and it is not reported. For example, suppose 25 of the 26 substations that were not flooded were simply eliminated? That would completely change the conclusion that the PSE&G resilience program was a huge success or that current regulatory standards are protective.

Irene and Sandy impacted very different locations, compared with Ida. The 29 substations that were flooded by Irene and Sandy were likely located along those coast, which saw far less flooding than Ida’s primarily inland flooding.

It is highly misleading to report this information this way, without specific locations and flood elevations identified.

The NJ Spotlight reporter Dave Cruz, who opened Pandora’s Box – and whose reporting I praised – reached out to me about a followup story.

After reading Mr. Hurdle’s propaganda piece today, I sent him this note:

David – after Jon Hurdle’s piece today, there’s really no reason to talk.

Maybe Hurdle (or you) could ask PSE&G about 1) the actual elevations of the “hardened” substations; 2) what the actual elevations of the floodwaters were at those locations; and 3) whether the substations were knocked out. Or just go out in the field and look at them.

It is possible – if not likely – that many substations flooded and PSE&G avoided power outages by redistributing power. So power outages are not a reliable indicator.

It would also be important to know what the FEMA flood elevations were (they are outdated and based on 100 year flood event) and compare the FEMA elevations to the actual elevations that occurred during Irene, Sandy and Ida. Arbitrarily building 1 foot about FEMA elevations is not a panacea. I guarantee that flood elevations were greater than 1 foot about FEMA in many places.

Hurdle writes stories off of claims in DEP press rerelease and PSE&G spin, never facts. I worked at DEP and I know they spin. I assume PSE&G is as bad or worse. Hurdle should use actual regulatory standards and actual field data (with numbers), but he is clueless and ALWAYS writes the spin as fact without proper interrogation or supporting facts.

This is shoddy, at best, journalism and it really hurts NJ Spotlight’s credibility, especially with such a rosy depiction of the performance of a major donor like PSE&G – without an explicit disclosure that PSE&G is a major donor.

If I were in your shoes – and I’m a former bureaucrat who was at one time loyal to my institution and defended its integrity – I’d talk to Hurdle or editors. I’ve tried.

Given that I’ve raised this with your editors,, I can only assume the worst – that you are writing a big donors press release – surely you understand that PSE&G has very strong interests in defending how they spent over $1 billion of ratepayers money.

Wolfe

2. Why Cite FEMA Flood Elevation Standards and Not DEP NJ Specific Standards?

Are FEMA Flood Elevation Standards Adequate And Do They Reflect Climate Science?

As I wrote, current regulatory standards that drive the engineering designs of resilience projects do NOT reflect climate science and are not protective.

That is a fact. It is a fact for BOTH federal (FEMA and NOAA) and State DEP standards and technical methods.

I focused on NJ DEP stormwater standards, some of which rely on federal standards and methods, including agencies such as FEMA or NOAA standards, including flood elevations and rainfall intensity. Regardless, the federal standards use the same storm and rainfall/runoff methodologies.

I focused on DEP standards, because under NJ State laws, DEP is the lead agency and DEP is authorized to adopt standards that are more stringent than their federal counterparts. Why would DEP rely on lax federal standards? Why is this reliance not a major issue and controversy? The policy goes back to Gov. Whitman’s rollback to minimum federal standards.

I focused on DEP standards because DEP reports to Gov. Murphy and Gov. Murphy is parading around like a leader on these issues and therefore should be held accountable to facts.

Why would NJ Spotlight ignore and obscure DEP’s role and responsibility? (especially after writing so many favorable stories about DEP and GOv. Murphy’s performance).

NJ Spotlight reported this – which ignores DEP standards and mentions only FEMA

Applying Sandy’s lessons

Across the state, the affected substations are chosen because of their presence in flood-zone maps updated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency after Sandy, Hanemann said. Substations that are raised are elevated to 1 foot above FEMA’s flood projection for that location.

It is accurate to say that FEMA adopts flood-zone maps.

It is correct to say that those maps were “updated” after Sandy.

And it is correct to say that PSE&G raised substations 1 foot above FEMA elevations. (BTW, Gov. Christie falsely bragged that he raised DEP CAFRA 1 foot standard after Sandy. But the Corzine DEP raised that 1 foot standard years before Sandy).

But, those FEMA maps, their updates, and the PSE&G 1 foot elevation are not based on climate science and they are not protective.

It is also likely that the actual flood elevations of Ida exposed these standards as inadequate.

It is also likely that the FEMA and Ida flood elevations expose failure in the DEP’s various flood mapping and stormwater management standards and technical methods.

But NJ Spotlight ignores these issues and prints PSE&G propaganda.

The key fact questions to ask are:

a) Are FEMA flood maps – and the rainfall events and runoff volumes that they are based on – based on climate science and do they incorporate the conditions that climate scientists project? (or protective concepts like then 500 year flood).

b) whether and by how much the actual flood elevations of Ida exceeded those FEMA flood elevations.

Prior to Sandy, DEP coastal regulations required one foot of “freeboard” elevation above FEMA elevations.

How did that work out?

Climate science says that the future will not be based on the past.

The federal and DEP standards are based on historical data. They are no longer protective and merely going 1 foot above them is not protective either.

Powerful economic interests are preventing DEP from updating regulatory standards to reflect climate science.

Those kind of updates would place thousands of NJ homes and commercial buildings in flood hazard zones.

They would block billions of dollars in new development.

They would require billions of dollars in flood management and adaptation programs.

They would completely change the cost-benefit regarding the alleged high costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But you won’t read any of that at NJ Spotlight.

After 4 Years, The Murphy Administration Has Adopted Zero Climate Regulations And Increased GHG Emissions

Murphy DEP Has Abdicated, Outsourced, & Privatized Climate Adaptation Responsibility

“Resilience” Projects Are Outdated and Fail To Address Climate Science

The Murphy DEP Press Office Is Flat Out Lying

In the wake of another climate emergency driven extreme weather event that wiped out NJ, before the floodwaters receded, the Murphy DEP congratulated themselves: (NJ Spotlight)

The Murphy administration strongly defended its efforts to both reduce carbon emissions — “mitigation” — and to prepare the state for a changing climate — “adaptation.”

“The Murphy administration has been working tirelessly to reduce and respond to climate change, as is evidenced by multiple climate executive orders, ambitious clean energy goals and aggressive environmental regulatory reform,” said Kelley Heck, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, on Friday.

That is a “Heck” of a lie. Let’s take them one by one.

1. Yes, there have been “multiple climate executive orders” issued by the Gov.

But Executive Orders do not have the force and effect of law, they are are not binding on the private sector or enforceable in any way. They have not reduced any greenhouse gas emissions. These are facts that the public does not understand and NJ Spotlight never tells readers. Worse, each Executive Order was accompanied by a self congratulatory and grossly exaggerated and misleading press release, with the same sycophants cheerleading and being quoted by NJ Spotlight, a former news outlet that has become an arm of the administration’s propaganda.

2. Yes, there have been somewhat ambitious clean energy goals – for off shore wind (the Murphy administration nearly killed the solar industry).

But Wall Street friendly off shore wind goals have not reduced greenhouse gas emissions and the wind industry and the Murphy BPU Energy Master Plan embrace a policy that wind is compatible with and reliant on natural gas (a fossil fuel). This is an obvious fact that my friend Jeff Tittel makes clear: (NJ Spotlight)

“Just building windmills and solar panels does not necessarily reduce greenhouse gases because you still have gas-fired power plants and pipelines being built, and automobiles, so we’re not really doing the mitigation to the level that is absolutely necessary to mitigate the damage from climate impacts,” he said.

3. But the third misleading claim is a flat out lie.

There has been no “aggressive environmental regulatory reform”.

In fact, there has been NO regulatory reform at all. NONE.

After almost 4 years of press releases and window dressing, DEP has adopted absolutely no climate regulations. Take a look for yourself at DEP rule adoption website.

The Murphy DEP has not even rescinded the Christie DEP regulatory rollbacks (unlike the Biden administration, who at least has acknowledged and begun to rescind and strengthen over 100 Trump EPA regulatory rollbacks. Where is Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order directing DEP to rescind and strengthen Christie DEP rollbacks?)

But, while doing absolutely nothing to adopt DEP climate regulations, the DEP has issued hundreds of permits to multiple massive new and/or expanded sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including pipelines, power plants, LNG export facilities,  industrial air polluters, roads, buildings, and logging NJ forests – all without even considering the GHG emissions, relationship to climate goals, or climate impacts.

(and let’s not forget the Gov.’s multi-billion dollar nuke bailout).

With respect to “adaptation” and “resilience” – based on DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s own words – the DEP has largely delegated those responsibilities to local government and/or relied on or assumed that market forces would respond to information disclosure of climate risks and current climate science. DEP has also relied on and/or funded and outsourced programs to private groups – e.g. NJ Future, Sustainable NJ, American Littoral Society, et al – to plan for and develop “resilience” plans and projects.

[Update: 9/19/21 – asa prime example of outsourcing, consider this from Hoboken, a “resilience” project that like Jersey City, also failed: (Fund For A Better Waterfront)

Hoboken was just one of ten sites impacted by Sandy to be selected for the federal River Rebuild by Design program. The Dutch design firm OMA assembled a team of engineers, planners and experts that came up with a comprehensive flood mitigation plan dubbed Resist Delay Store Discharge.

Most of the $230 million Rebuild by Design grant, now managed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, is dedicated to building the Resist segment. ~~~ end update]

Worse, as I recently wrote, those projects are designed to fail because they were designed to meet outdated DEP regulatory standards that do not reflect climate science.

So, to put it mildly, this horrible record does not deserve praise.

But, just one day after Jon Hurdle published a story with mild criticism of the Murphy administration’s climate record, the Murphy sycophants immediately responded with another boatload of bullshit: (Tom Johnson)

Asked Thursday whether the state needs to accelerate its clean-energy goals, Gov. Phil Murphy, while inspecting a portion of Mullica Hill in Harrison Township devastated by a tornado, quickly answered, “Unequivocally, yes.’’ He did not elaborate.

“I think he’s spot on,’’ said Ed Potosnak, executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, a group that called for meeting the state’s 100% clean-energy goals by 2035 in a report issued last month. “This is an opportunity for our elected officials to meet the challenge.

Gov. Murphy’s other main cheerleader also immediately manned the pom-poms and ignored the Murphy record, the facts, and the science:

“The most important [off shore wind] ones are the building over the next five years,’’ said Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey. Building those projects will help create a supply chain for future projects, he said. “We are going to see offshore wind expand in the 2030s.

Potosnak and O’Malley should be ashamed of themselves.

How do their members and donors put up with this crap?

[End Note – a knowledgeable reader expanded on the lies:

The lies are unreal. The 100 % clean energy 2035 goal is a lie – its  2050. The definition of clean is 30 % nuclear- 12 GW bio gas (wind is 11 GW )  plus incinerators , bio mass ,CCS And off sets  – its at least 20% natural gas in 2035

Doug lies on wind the 2009 EMP called 3000 mw by 2020 –

so this bs of 1200 to 2400 mw as increases-Biden calling for 15GW for NJ ~~~ end]

Strategy Memo Reveals That Groups Will Not Mobilize ANY Direct Action or Protest

Groups Will Support Dems & “Boldly Negotiate”

“Progressives” Will Play Inside Baseball On Infrastructure & Reconciliation Bills

[Update: 9/7/21 – At least someone gets it (Washington Post Op-Ed):

• To stop abortion opponents, the only solution is mass mobilization

Maybe Ms. vanden Heuvel can talk to climate activists?  ~~~ end update]

Today, The People’s Party is holding a Labor Day protest event to “Occupy Congress”, in response to a host of issues that the Progressive Democrats have failed to respond to, including the end of federal unemployment insurance supplement – on Labor Day! – and Congress’ and the Biden administration’s failure to act to extend the eviction moratorium, or provide a living wage, medicare for all (during a deadly pandemic!), student debt relief, or house the homeless, among other things.

As Howard Zinn’s “People’s History” documents, all progressive change comes from the bottom up, in response to Movement protest and direct action tactics: strikes, protests, and direct street action (going back to the beginning and including violence).

We didn’t get the original New Deal – the model for the Green New Deal – by “supporting democrats” and “boldly negotiating”.

I preface this post in mentioning that Occupation tactic – which I strongly support – in order to contrast it with the lame strategy and tactics of the “progressive groups” working on climate and Green New Deal issues.

We are now facing a critical political moment in Congress as a result of the September 27 legislative deadline created by Speaker Pelosi’s surrender to right wing Democrats on the so called “bi-partisan Senate infrastructure bill”.

Biden and the Democrats have not been bold. Many others have written about that. Everyone knows that Senators Manchin and Sinema oppose the reconciliation bill and have effective veto power, while progressive Democrats and even House Speaker Pelosi have pledged to link the two bills together as a package.

A showdown is clear. Something has got to give. Here’s the progressive media setup:

• Facing Corporate Blitz, Progressives Urge Unity to Defend $3.5 Trillion Package

Under these political conditions, it should seem obvious that progressives, climate activists, and Green New Dal supporters should be mobilizing their millions of members and supporters and descending en mass on Washington DC – like the People’s Party Occupation.

But that is not going to happen. There will be no “People’s Climate March 2.0”: Remember that?

And we know it’s not going to happened because of the strategy memo of the so called “progressive groups, specifically: Indivisible, Working Families Party, People’s Action, Sunrise Movement, Justice Democrats, United We Dream, Center for Popular Democracy, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Our Revolution, Social Security Works

That strategy memo is written to “Progressive movement organizations and progressive Members of Congress” and it is curiously titled: “ Moving Forward: Passing an Inclusive Reconciliation Bill

“Inclusive”? Identity politics – aka “Progressive Neoliberalism” – is now driving the climate movement wagon?

The memo lays out the battle over the next month leading up to the September 27 vote on both the infrastructure bill and much larger $3.5 trillion “budget reconciliation” bill.

The infrastructure bill is a traditional highway pork bill, loaded up with many billions of new subsidies to fossil and privatization and deregulation and cover for more forest logging.

Progressives are supposed to swallow this crap in exchange for the so called “budget reconciliation bill” which supposedly has the climate and Green New Deal elements. But that bill has not even been drafted and “progressive Democrats” have not made their demands clear.

What does “No Climate – No Deal” mean?

• Democrats Promised “No Climate, No Deal.” But They Haven’t Decided What That Means.

Wow.

The progressive strategy memo obscures all this.

The progressive groups – despite Congress’ and Democrats’ repeated prior failures – feel that progressives in Congress “have done an incredible job” – while they celebrate passage of an empty and meaningless budget reconciliation Resolution!

After these delusional platitudes, the strategy memo sets the political stage thusly:

Now, all eyes are on the reconciliation bill and progressives need to up their game. We are in a powerful, but precarious place—we passed the budget resolution with all our progressive priorities still on the table, but still have a race to the finish line as major corporations invest millions in a major lobbying blitz. In order to continue the success progressives have seen so far we must:

The “must do” elements include:

• Resist the urge to cannibalize other priorities
• Support progressives to hold their bloc
• Keep up the pressure on conservative Democrats
• Support progressives in policy negotiations with committees and leadership
• Start preparing for amendments NOW.

I see absolutely no strategy with respect to mobilizing public support – it’s all inside baseball.

Just as bad, the memo’s political analysis begins with a false premise: “money is tight”:

There is no way around it–money is tight, and it’s going to take work to make sure that all our priorities are funded sufficiently to be set up for success.

In other words, Progressives remain beholden to austerity Neoliberal politics.

The “pay-go” financing issue, which AOC claimed to have negotiated and eliminated (a false claim, it only applied to COVID relief), is now disguised with the term “pay-for” – pure Orwell.

Leadership will start pitting priorities against one another in an attempt to whittle down the package or compensate for some committees with jurisdiction over payfors failing to deliver. We must not let this happen. Instead, we should hold onto cross-issue solidarity as one of our most important assets in this fight, and be bold in demanding payfors that begin making the rich pay their fair share.

Any “political pressure” the progressive groups may mount is targeted on “conservative democrats”, not the progressive democrats (doing an “incredible job”) who have repeatedly caved in prior negotiations.

And the final bullet assume that that House will pass the Reconciliation bill BEFORE the Senate.

We must execute on sharp strategy to improve the bill before it goes to the Senate.

Before it goes to the Senate? What?

That’s not how I understood the procedure: I thought the Senate – where it is much tougher to hold a majority – was supposed to go first and Pelosi would not move the House bill until the Senate passed Bernie’s reconciliation bill (whatever that is).

Am I missing something? By having the House go first, they are surrendering to Manchin and Sinema!

The memo concludes on an optimistic note:

This is a winnable fight, but it will take strong alignment, sharp interventions, and bold negotiations to get our progressive priorities across the finish line.

Yes, this is a “winnable fight”, but you have surrendered your leverage and chosen to lose without even mobilizing your troops and having that fight.

Murphy DEP Continues Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild Madness”

DEP Remains In Denial On The Need For Strategic Retreat

Just last Sunday, NJ Spotlight reporter Andrew Lewis wrote a major Sunday NY Times magazine story – it’s unusually lengthy title pretty much summed things up:

• The Long, Slow Drowning of the New Jersey Shore: Billions have been spent to protect the beachfront.  But inch by inch, water is winning the war (behind a paywall)

Buried 10 long paragraphs into the story, it included these astonishing previously reported facts:

You could be forgiven for thinking the Jersey Shore’s local governments are not terribly concerned by such warnings. According to a report from Climate Central and Zillow, some 4,500 homes, worth $4.6 billion, were built in New Jersey between 2010 and 2016 in areas where, even if global greenhouse gas emissions decrease moderately, there will be a risk of flooding once per decade, at a minimum, starting in 2050. The report also notes that no state has built new homes in a risk zone at a faster pace — not even Florida, with far more shoreline. And that was before the pandemic and the resulting urban exodus and real estate boom. Houses built 15 years ago are being torn down and replaced with bigger ones that occupy as much square footage as zoning rules allow, Martin Pagliughi, Avalon’s eight-term mayor, told me. In the last two years, the median price of the homes sold in the borough climbed by $700,000. The era of the quaint fishing cottage is dead.

Note the exclusive focus on local government, to the exclusion of State government and DEP coastal planning and regulatory programs.

Note that the timeframe (2010-2016) is the Christie Administration, conveniently ignoring at risk development approved by the Murphy administration. The Climate Central/Zillow Report Lewis cites was updated on July 31, 2019, so some of that data should be available.

In reporting on a US Army Corps of Engineers study on back bay flooding, the NYT story cited this important finding by the Corps:

The study’s authors concede that “in some cases, just as ecosystems migrate and change functions, human systems may have to relocate in a responsible manner.”

Let’s repeat that recommendation:

human systems may have to relocate in a responsible manner.

That has been described in DEP’s own federally approved coastal management strategy as “strategic retreat”, a planning policy they have run away from for years.

Here are specific directly on point examples of that I’ve written about:

• Back Bay Flooding – In The Face of Climate Change – Highlights Imperative of Strategic Retreat
• Christie Killed Corzine Shore Protection Initiatives
• The Dr. Strangelove of Beach Replenishment and Fear of “Retreat”
• “Strategic Adjustment” – Or Rebuild Madness?

Curious, the NYT story then mentioned the “New Jersey’s home-buyout program, Blue Acres” – the State level program that NYT readers can only assume is responsible for the “relocation in a responsible manner” recommended by the Corps – but failed to note that the Blue Acres program is part of the DEP or report critically on the performance of that program.

The story also failed to mention that DEP is legally responsible for coastal zone management and regulating coastal land use and infrastructure under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the NJ Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA).

I submitted the following reader comment, pointing out the flaws and omissions in the NYT reporting by Mr. Lewis:

Astonishing for this story to fail to mention the fact that NJ has a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program, adopted under federal and NJ State laws. It includes State DEP review of certain developments, including all major infrastucture like water, sewer, roads, and beach and coastal engineering.

Under these laws, the DEP has adopted land use regulations, including flood elevation and building standards – that’s why houses are built on stilts! Gov. Christie championed a Sandy recovery policy I dubbed “rebuild madness” that that put all that new development at risk.

Additionally, under the NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan, the DEP and State Planning Commission have mapped coastal “centers” for intense growth, under relaxed DEP coastal regulations.

Your source, Professor Stu Farrell has been a longtime cheerleader for beach replenishment and failed engineering solutions. He  is not going to tell a NYT reporter about this. Nor are local Mayors and Mr. Farrell going to brief the NYT on State DEP coastal plans and regulations.

The DEP implements the “Blue Acres” program, and it is a failure. There is no planning whatsoever: acquisitions are scattershot and based on willing sellers, not risk. There is no DEP plan to “relocate in a responsible manner” and certainly no policy for “strategic retreat”.

NJ leads the nation in repeat flood claims. That is a result of the State’s failure to plan for and regulate land use in the coastal zone.

But the State of NJ and DEP are not alone in their irresponsible neglect.

President Obama issued an Executive Order on climate adaptation and coastal resilience.

Federal agencies were directed to coordinate their federal authorities, which include approval of State coastal zone management plans and allocation of federal FEMA and other recovery, infrastructure, and resilience money.

That Order was never seriously implemented. Federal taxpayer funds subsidized all that at risk development. Federal regulators approved State funding and coastal plans and policies that allowed it to happen.

The Obama HUD approved and provided billions of dollars of federal funding to Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild madness” program, that failure is what contributed to the huge at risk new development referenced in this article. Obama HUD – and the federal agencies – have ignored Obama’s own Executive Order.

Mr. Andrew Lewis somehow missed more of the story than he covered – in the process letting DEP, Gov. Murphy, and State officials completely off the hook.

But, it gets worse.

While ignoring critical issues, the NYT story at least reported facts that showed how irresponsible NJ was in actually increasing development in high risk areas along the shore and cited the US Army Corps recommendation on the need for a “strategic retreat”.

Just days later, on August 20 NJ Spotlight jumped into the fray, with a closely related story by the same reporter, Andrew Lewis, see:

• No easy fix for flooding in NJ’s back bays

The Spotlight story did mention some of the comments I filed on the NYT omissions (Lewis reads reader comments, I’m sure) but focused primarily on the US Army Corps back bay flooding Report. But surely Lewis knows that the any USACOE recommendations must be approved by NJ DEP.

Ignoring the role of DEP in implementing any USACOE recommendation, Mr. Lewis also repeated many of the same errors and omissions in his NY Times story, but went a step further and made his neglect even worse.

Recall that Lewis’s NYT story failed to report on DEP’s coastal management responsibilities or that the Blue Acres program was managed by DEP.

But for his NJ Spotlight story. Mr. Lewis fixed that error by finally mentioned DEP, at the very end of a long story.

But in doing so, he managed to ignore all the critical facts and findings in his prior reporting for the NYT (i.e. NJ is leading the country in number of new units of housing at risk, the need for strategic retreat, et al) and instead provided a platform for DEP Commissioner LaTourette to flat out lie, with zero pushback or context.

Lewis wrote this bullshit that flat out contradicts his own prior reporting for The NY Times:

In an interview with NJ Spotlight News in May, Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Shawn LaTourette was asked about the massive scale of the back bays study. He recalled an analogy that one of his counterparts in the Pacific Northwest had recently made.

“She said, ‘There’s no silver bullet, it’s silver buckshot,’” LaTourette said. “We’ve got to look at this as some types of solutions in one place and other types of solutions in another. It’s not going to be the case that we pick up whole communities and move them inland. That won’t be necessary in all spaces, but we need to consider where it will and won’t be with what we’re building today, because we know better.”

Are you kidding me? DEP knows better? What is the evidence for that?

Why didn’t’ Lewis push back with facts or the lack of DEP regulations? Why didn’t Lewis include a critical source or context to expose LaTourette’s lies?

For 4 years, the Murphy DEP has done nothing to regulate shore development or plan for strategic retreat.

Instead, DEP has abdicated its legal responsibility under federal and State laws and delegated the problem to local governments (those same local governments Mr. Lewis essentially ridiculed for ignoring scientific warnings in his prior NY Times story).

The Murphy administration and DEP have replicated Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild Madness” and engaged in a very similar form of irresponsible climate denial by failing to act.

The Democrats in the Legislature have either ignored all this through lack of critical legislative oversight or affirmatively supported it by approving DEP’s budget and confirming DEP Commissioner LaTourette without extracting any policy concessions.

Of course, the public doesn’t know about any of this, because NJ Spotlight – like NJ environmental groups – have abdicated too.

Carbon Capture Is A Sham

Biden’s “All Of The Above” Climate Policy Is Obama 2.0

[Update: in addition to the billion dollar subsidies, Biden just installed a carbon capture scientist in the White House as head of climate policy, Sally benson from Standford, friend of Obama’s John Holdren, see:

• White House creates new energy division to help craft climate change policies

Update 10/22/21 – this important report documents the “exemptions and loopholes for logging” I flagged below:

• LOGGING PROVISIONS IN INFRASTRUCTURE & BUDGET RECONCILIATION PACKAGES WOULD WORSEN THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND THREATEN PUBLIC HEALTH ~~~ end update]

When it was released a few weeks ago, I actually read a couple of hundred pages of the 2,702 page Senate “bi-partisan” infrastructure bill, including all the provisions on and billions of dollars in subsidies to the so called “carbon capture” technology.

That is one piece of the Biden infrastructure and climate plans, the other being the much larger Senate budget reconciliation framework Resolution, which isn’t even a bill yet, never mind proceeding on a parallel track with the infrastructure bill, as promised by the Democrats.

But just reading the table of contents of the bi-partisan infrastructure bill reveals lots of bad stuff. There are NEPA categorical exclusions to “streamline” regulatory review (and something called “one federal approval”), several exemptions & loopholes for logging, and privatization and deregulation.

The tradition highway construction funding will result in huge new greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps the Congressional Budget Office might produce a “score” on this bill, not in terms of spending and effects on the deficit, but on quantifying the new carbon emissions the bill would create.

The Biden Neoliberal approach amounts to all carrots and no sticks (the bill has been dubbed “false solutions” – and “apocalypse soon”)

I immediately recalled NJ’s failed “carbon capture” coal plant with the Orwellian name “PurGen”, defeated by activists in Linden, NJ. For links to media reports on that project, see:

• A Green New Deal for the People of Linden

I was planning to write something about the carbon capture provisions in the Senate bill at the time, focused on how the Biden infrastructure and climate plans could revive that NJ “PurGen” project, but got derailed by disappointment in learning that the climate movement was split on this issue.

Virtually no major national “green” groups signed on to a powerful letter to the Biden Administration, strongly opposing inclusion of “carbon capture” in the administration’s infrastructure and climate plans. I looked for NJ groups. Amazingly, the NJ Industrial Union Council signed on to that letter, but not NJ’s largest environmental and climate groups. WTF?

I read that the Biden White House is openly touting a “all of the above” approach (no kidding, that’s the language they are using), and hiding regulatory rollbacks behind the slogan of “flexibility”:  (from Inside Climate News)

“The President is interested in all-of-the-above-strategy,” said White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy earlier this month, at a summit hosted by Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “We’re going to do a lot of things, and invest in a clean energy future, and make sure we have the flexibility to use the technologies that are going to get there.”

Biden is Obama “All of the Above” 2.0

On top of all this, the huge subsidies to the CCS projects are linked to Biden’s “Buy American” policy (which Biden will use for cover), but that’s a joke because there is a standardless and broad waiver from those “Buy American” requirements!

And, of course there is a long forebearance loan repayment program that is effectively loan forgiveness (but college kids can’t get debt relief).

This is so insane I really find it hard to believe that the climate groups are not in the street (or maybe they are planning direct actions and I’m just out of the lop on all this).

So, instead of writing something myself, I’ll be lazy and just except this piece today by Wenonah Hauter of Food And Water Watch, one of the few groups that focuses on corporate accountability and does not pull punches for Democrats:

the climate movement is grappling with both a sense of urgency and profound disappointment with the Biden administration. It was bad enough that the administration backed a bipartisan infrastructure proposal that jettisoned many key clean energy provisions, but it’s even worse that the infrastructure plan includes billions of dollars in new fossil fuel subsidies.

That spending would support “carbon capture,” a category of technologies that are misleadingly categorized as climate-friendly.

So, with all these new subsidies and regulatory relief for carbon capture, will the Zombie “PurGen” coal plant be revived?

Will anyone in NJ media or activist circles inquire about that possibility and use it to criticize the Biden carbon capture and billions of other fossil and nuke subsidies?

I won’t hold my breath.