WolfeNotes.com

DRBC Decision Ignores Science On Climate Impacts of Methane On Water Resources

Commission Leaves Door Open For Future Imports & Exports Of Fracked Water

Climate activists are celebrating a major victory on today’s decision by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to ban fracking in the Delaware River Basin (read the DRBC decision documents here).

I realize that the headline to this post is deeply counter-intuitive. How could a fracking ban help the gas industry? We explain how below.

Before we join the chorus, we like to read the decision documents and understand the rationale and implications of the DRBC decision. These kind of regulatory decisions are scientifically and legally complex and are often spun beyond recognition, particularly by green groups desperate for a win and a media that never gets into the weeds.

As I suspected, review of the documents reveals that it’s not all good. Let’s hope this bad stuff gets reported by the media, because it is highly significant:

1) DRBC’s decision completely IGNORED CLIMATE IMPACTS OF FRACKING AND NATURAL GAS.

While the impact of the DRBC decision geographically applies broadly to the entire basin, the scientific and legal rationale for the DRBC ban is very narrow in scope and limited to traditional water resource issues under long standing notions of DRBC jurisdiction.

It completely ignores the direct and “lifecycle” impacts of fracking, fossil infrastructure, and methane emissions on the climate emergency and even DRBC regulated water resources.

THIS IS SHAM AND A WIN FOR THE GAS INDUSTRY WHO IS DESPERATELY LOBBYING TO DENY THESE IMPACTS.

IT CONTRADICTS DRBC’s OWN SCIENCE ON CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES OF THE BASIN (over a decade old science).

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SHAM THAT ALLOWED DRBC TO APPROVE LNG EXPORT –

IN CONTRAST, NY DEC has built scientific and legal links between GHG emissions and regulated water resources impacts:

DRBC completely ignored that (despite a NY Commissioner). This is what has allowed NY DEC to deny permits for pipelines!

Failure to build that bridge allows the gas industry to continue to exploit loopholes in regulations and avoid regulation of climate impacts.

This also sets a bad precedent for upcoming NJ DEP Climate PACT regulations.  Just what the gas industry ordered!

(DRBC has jurisdiction over a tiny land mass with small gas reserves. But the science and law applies everywhere in the US. That’s why this is a win for the gas industry.)

2) The DRBC kept the door open for future water exports and fracked wastewater imports:

The DRBC punted on critical issues:

“The topics of water exportation and wastewater importation will be addressed as appropriate through one or more separate Commission actions.”

The Commission should have settled those two issues in its fracking ban. This means that the fight is not over, by any means.

3) The DRBC deregulated regional wastewater treatment plants:

The DRBC decision eliminates DRBC’s role in reviewing regional wastewater treatment plants:

“Remove the provision for review of regional wastewater treatment plans developed pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, because the basin states have effective programs for the transparent development and implementation of such plans”

I don’t understand how elimination of the DRBC’s role in reviewing regional wastewater treatment plants has anything to do with a fracking ban.

If anything, the Commission should beef up those reviews, because of the importation of fracking wastewater issue and because State’s have not adequately enforced the Clean Water Act’s NPDES permit program.

States have done an absolutely awful job in implementing the regional water quality planning provisions of the Clean Water Act. Because DRBC is a regional planning entity, they are well suited to address these State regional planning failures. It’s a very bad policy decision for DRBC to abdicate their regional role.

4) The DRBC recent LNG export decision may result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, despite the fracking ban

The DRBC recently approved a massive LNG export plant on the Delaware River. That plant will export huge quantities of Marcellus shale gas from Pennsylvania and adjacent states. There is a huge glut in gas and huge gas reserves.

LNG export also will increase the market price of fracked gas by creating export markets, and thereby stimulate even more investment and fracking and more methane and greenhouse gas emissions.

It is very likely that the GHG emissions from this vast expansion in fracking in the huge Marcellus shale formation will greatly exceed any GHG emissions reductions associated with the fracking ban in the tiny Delaware River watershed.

New York State already banned fracking and there is no economically recoverable gas in New Jersey.

I don’t have the data, but, compared to Marcellus shale formation gas reserves that will be exported by the LNG plant, there is not a lot of recoverable fracked gas in the rest of the DRBC basin.

So, with these serious shortcomings in mind, the climate activists should not be spiking the football.

[End Note – I do not mean to imply that this was not a huge win for activists (I’ve been working against fracking for well over a decade, I worked on southern Tier NY groundwater quality issue 35 years ago in graduate school at Cornell (my thesis topic), and attended the first DEC DEIS fracking hearings in October 2009). Nor do I claim that there’s are not solid regulatory decisions by DRBC, especially including these findings, which destroy the gas industry’s arguments that industry practices and regulation can adequately protect the environment: (DRBC findings)

• As the scientific and technical literature and the reports, studies, findings and conclusions of other government agencies reviewed by the Commission have documented, and as the more than a decade of experience with HVHF in regions outside the Delaware River Basin have evidenced, despite the dissemination of industry best practices and government regulation, HVHF and related activities have adversely impacted surface water and groundwater resources, including sources of drinking water, and have harmed aquatic life in some regions where these activities have been performed.

Actual Corporate Background Of DEP Acting Commissioner Contradicts Murphy’s Appointment Press Release

Gov.’s Office Downplays Erosion of DEP Integrity And Public Trust

This Is Worse Than Bad Optics

Today, NJ Spotlight wrote the story I gave them about the corporate background – including legal work that secured critical government regulatory approvals (including DEP permits) for a controversial huge regional Delaware River fracked gas LNG export facility known ominously as “Fortress Energy” – of NJ Gov. Murphy’s recently appointed Acting DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette, see:

• DEP head recuses himself from permitting decisions for South Jersey LNG terminal

Aside from the awful headline (which makes it appear that Acting Commissioner LaTourette took some kind of noble action instead of the minimum in compliance with legal requirements), substantively it’s a pretty good story.

But, Spotlight left a few important stones un-turned and serious issues unclear in the story, which I feel obligated to note, as follows:

1. The timing raises significant concerns

Mr. Latourette was appointed Acting DEP Commissioner by Gov. Murphy. That appointment was announced via Murphy tweet on January 13, 2021.

That Friday, January 15, 2021, was Commissioner McCabe’s final day in Office. So, because of the Martin Luther King holiday on Monday, his first official day in office was Tuesday January 19, 2021.

I electronically filed my OPRA request for LaTourettte’s ethics documents – specifically including any recusal documents – on Saturday January 16, 2021. Curiously – despite the fact that DEP OPRA electronic filing always responds to confirm receipt within moments and start the 7 day response clock  – I didn’t receive confirmation of the OPRA filing until Tuesday Jan. 19. That could have been a result of the Saturday filing or the Monday holiday. Giving DEP the benefit of the doubt, the DEP’s OPRA reply deadlines was 7 days later, or January 26.

I filed the OPRA after reading the January 13, 2021 Insider NJ story.  That story (which has been updated since with Murphy’s Tweet) was based on Gov. Murphy’s Jan. 13 Tweet and a statement by the Murphy press office.

Mr. Latourette’s recusal memo was not submitted until January 25, 2021, almost a week after his official assumption of duties and my Jan 16 OPRA request for his recusal documents.

Is it a coincidence that LaTourette wrote that recusal memo exactly 1 day BEFORE my OPRA response was due?

So, it appears that LaTourette could have been prompted to write that recusal memo in response to my OPRA request and that DEP intentionally delayed response to my OPRA to provide time for him to write it. (On Jan. 28, DEP denied my request allegedly due to COVID. I objected, twice. DEP didn’t provide the documents until February 9.)

He should have written it well before his appointment by Gov. Murphy and before assuming  Office.

But far worse, it raises questions about what LaTourette disclosed to the Governor and the Governor’s press office, which takes me to my next point.

2. LaTourette’s recusal document grossly contradicts Gov. Murphy’s press office statement about his appointment

Was Gov. Murphy and the Murphy Press Office aware of Mr. LaTourette’s extensive corporate legal background BEFORE the Gov. made the appointment and the press office issued a statement?

I have first hand knowledge of the vetting process by the Gov.’s Office for political appointees at DEP. After 10 years in an open competitive civil service professional environmental planner’s position at DEP (1985 – 1995), I once served as a DEP political appointee (2002 – 2004 “confidential assistant” and policy advisor to Commissioner Campbell). My prior professional career and political background had to be reviewed by the Gov.’s office and my appointment had to be approved by Gov. McGreevey. So I have personal knowledge of how DEP political appointments are vetted by the Gov.’s Office.

Was Gov. Murphy aware of LaTourette’s corporate legal background – including work on permitting the controversial Delaware River LNG plant championed by NJ Senate President Sweeney – BEFORE he appointed him Acting DEP Commissioner?  Is that WHY the Gov. appointed him?

If so, Murphy made a serious mistake.

Is Gov. Murphy now having buyer’s remorse and trying to back away from the LNG project? (Spotlight)

Despite New Jersey’s vote in favor of the project at the DRBC meeting, Murphy said in late December he would try to “prevent” the transportation of LNG at the port.

Documenting Senator Sweeney’s long time 15 year support of that LNG port, as I wrote, back on July 24, 2016, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

Plan to revive old South Jersey industrial site draws fans and fears

[…]

State and local leaders are confident the new port will be a positive presence in the township and county.

“This will be a big job generator,” said Senate President Stephen Sweeney, whose Third Legislative District includes Gibbstown, also known as Greenwich Township. “We’ve been working on this since 2005.”

Mr. LaTourette’s ethics documents and his recusal memo reveal an extensive corporate legal background, including representing the highly controversial Delaware LNG export plant. There is just one example of pro-bono legal work, and that work appears to be a challenge to DEP restrictions imposed after Sandy – hardly work in the public interest.

Given LaTourette’s extensive corporate career and pitiful pro-bono public interest work, how could Gov. Murphy’s press office possibly issue a statement that not only failed to mention this corporate work, but created the impression of significant public interest work?

How could they think that LaTourette’s background would remain secret?

Let’s repeat that Gov. Office press statement.

The Gov. press release claimed (emphases mine):

With twenty years of environmental experience, LaTourette began his career partnering with the Erin Brockovich law firm to organize and defend New Jersey communities whose drinking water was contaminated by petrochemicals. … . Before entering public service, LaTourette specialized in protecting the rights of victims of toxic injuries while also advising infrastructure, transportation, energy, and other industries on compliance with state and federal environmental laws and policies.

How can you square LaTourette’s corporate background with that press statement? It doesn’t pass the straight face test.

3. Gov. Press Office downplays revolving door, corporate capture, & public trust in DEP 

Given these facts – and prior concerns by environmental groups that there was a coverup on the LNG plant permit process at DEP – one would think the Gov. press office would want to tread lightly and be sensitive to legitimate  public concerns with DEP’s independence and  integrity once this cat is out of the bag. One would be wrong.

The Gov.’s Office is quoted in the NJ Spotlight story:

Acting Commissioner LaTourette was required to observe a one-year cooling off period related to his former employer,” Alfaro said in a statement. “In addition, he was required to permanently recuse from client matters, which he effectuated and has maintained since September 2018 when he joined the DEP.”

“Cooling off period”? What?

Delaware Riverkeeper gets it right:

Critics said the disclosure that LaTourette previously worked for clients that are now seeking permits from the agency he heads may raise questions in the public mind about the integrity of the DEP’s decisions.

“There certainly should never be any appearance of a tainted review of a project due to a conflict of interest within the permitting agency,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network, an environmental group that has led opposition to the LNG project. “It leads to the questioning of the agency’s decision-making process. In this case, the leader of NJDEP needs to be head and shoulders above any whisper of impropriety — if there is any question at all, the public’s trust is eroded and that is unforgiveable.”

Spotlight should have mentioned the fact that the NJ ethics laws are based on and include a public appearance standard for triggering an ethics violation. Clearly, LaTourette may have violated that standard.

As I wrote:

The State Uniform Ethics Code has a very broad standard regarding potential conflicting interests:

So, this is far more than an “optics” issue.

4. Will Gov. Murphy submit LaTourette’s appointment for Senate Confirmation?

The DEP Commissioner must be reviewed and confirmed by the NJ Senate. The Senate’s confirmation review includes a public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

NJ Senate President Sweeney – by his own words – has championed and secured millions of dollars in State subsidy funding for the Delaware River LNG project.

In addition to Senate President Sweeney’s support for Fortress LNG, Gov. Murphy might have prior links to Fortress, while he was at Goldman Sachs and Ambassador to Germany.

Does Gov. Murphy want to open this can of worms in a public hearing before the NJ Senate Judiciary Committee?

As I wrote:

II.  Twisted Tales Of Wall Street Finance Could Link Gov. Murphy to the Project

Before the 2016 Philadelphia Inquirer story, back on 3/20/15, NJ.Com wrote a story with Sweeney praising Fortress Investment Group:

• Shuttered DuPont gunpowder plant to ‘rise from the ashes’, become newest port along Delaware River

State Sen. President Steve Sweeney led a press conference in Greenwich Township to announce the sale of the township’s former DuPont Repauno plant to Fortress Investment Group, which aims to turn the dormant 1,800-acre property into a port-related industrial park for imports and exports.

[…]

Now here’s where the links between Fortress and Gov. Murphy get murky and hypothetical, but good investigative journalism could connect these dots:

1. Veteran NJ environmental reporter Kirk Moore confirmed the story on the stealth LNG aspect of this project, where he also noted:

Delaware River Partners LLC, a subsidiary of New York City-based Fortress Investment Group.

2. Who is Fortress Investment Group? Wikipedia reports that they have strong links to Goldman Sachs:

When Fortress launched on the NYSE on February 9, 2007 with Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers underwriting the IPO.

3. More recently, Fortress was acquired by a politically wired firm called SoftBank Group Corp, as reported by Institutional Investor:

Last December business executives from around the globe made their way to Manhattan’s Trump Tower to meet with president-­elect Donald Trump. But few made as big of a splash as Masayoshi Son, head of SoftBank Group Corp., who had Trump crowing on Twitter about the Japanese mogul’s pledge to invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 American jobs.

… on February 14 [2017], SoftBank agreed to pay $3.3 billion to buy Fortress Investment Group, the struggling alternative-­investment firm that went public to great fanfare ten years ago but whose shares have since lost 74 percent of their market value.

4. SoftBank has some interesting relationships:

Fortress’s $3.3 billion deal with SoftBank was driven by Rajeev Misra, a former Deutsche Bank derivatives expert who is now in charge of investment strategy.

Gov. Murphy was former US Ambassador to Germany, where, particularly given his Goldman Sachs finance background, one assumes he had relationships with Deutsche Bank “experts” on investment strategy.

5. Now look who Mr. Misra, who drove the Fortress deal, formed a relationship with and where that individual previously worked:

A few years ago Misra worked briefly at Fortress, where he developed a relationship with Edens and Peter Briger Jr., who cochair the board of directors. (Briger also has ties to Japan, where he previously worked for Goldman Sachs Group.)

6. Briger and Phil Murphy are both Goldman Sachs diaspora, see NY Times.

So, a few questions emerge:

• Did Phil Murphy have any involvement with the Fortress deal when he was at Goldman?
• Did Phil Murphy have any relationship with SoftBank or Peter Briger?
• Was Gov. Phil Murphy aware of the Fortress role?
• As Gov. of NJ, Murphy sits on the DRBC Board and has executive control over DEP.
• Did Murphy  in any way intervene in DRBC and/or DEP regulatory review processes?
• Who were the players behind the scenes that pushed this project through DRBC and DEP reviews, without disclosing the LNG aspects?

Paraphrasing recently deceased journalist Bill Greider, Who will tell the people about all this?

[End Note: Mr. Latourette’s delegation to Sean Moriarty also raises revolving door, regulatory capture, corporate influence, and conflict of interest ethics concerns.

Moriarty began his legal career at a private law firm Archer & Greiner, P.C. in 2010 and worked for over 5 years for corporate clients. He was hired into the AG’s Office in 2011 during the Christie Administration and worked on regulatory affairs. Christie Administration and DEP were extremely hostile to regulations. He then went to DEP under Commissioner Bob Martin, who was hostile to regulations and pro-business.

A lawyer’s first job out of law school is revealing on important things, including expertise, values, ethics, ideology and priorities.

THIS IS A HORRIBLE BACKGROUND.

Acting DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s Recusal Shows He Worked For Corporate Interests

Egregious Revolving Door And “Regulatory Capture” Abuse

This Is What “Progressive Neoliberalism” Looks Like

NJ Gov. Murphy’s appointed Acting DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette was a corporate lawyer for Fortress Energy, the corporate interest behind the controversial LNG export facility recently approved by the DRBC amid the opposition of a 4 state climate activist campaign and thousands of public opponents.

According to DEP documents, Mr. LaTourette legally (and politically?) represented the Fortress Energy LNG project on successful regulatory approvals before the DEP, DRBC, USACOE, and NMFS/NOAA. (DEP documents provided upon request).

Masking the relationship, LaTourette claims that he worked for Delaware River Partners, LLC, a firm he claims is an “affiliate” of Fortress Energy. So let me put a finer point on the real relationship: (source: US DOE energy export application)

Importantly, prior to the DRBC controversy, the DEP quietly approved Fortress land use permits, Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act, and Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification – with virtually no public awareness – including during LaTourette’s tenure at DEP as Deputy Commissioner and Chief Of Staff.

Additionally, on top of representing Fortress Energy on the LNG plant, Mr. LaTourette’s ethics disclosure forms reveal that he previously represented numerous other corporate clients.

LaTourette’s own ethics disclosure forms blatantly contradict claims in Gov. Murphy’s press release issued upon appointing LaTourette Acting DEP Commissioner.

In that press release, Gov. Murphy failed to mention ANY prior specific corporate clients and instead created a false impression that Mr. LaTourette worked on behalf of community groups and in the public interest.

The Gov. press release claimed (emphases mine):

With twenty years of environmental experience, LaTourette began his career partnering with the Erin Brockovich law firm to organize and defend New Jersey communities whose drinking water was contaminated by petrochemicals. … . Before entering public service, LaTourette specialized in protecting the rights of victims of toxic injuries while also advising infrastructure, transportation, energy, and other industries on compliance with state and federal environmental laws and policies.

But here are the corporate clients Mr. LaTourette actually represented: (These documents were obtained via an OPRA request, which DEP dragged its feet for weeks in responding to. Source: Attachment A from LaTourette’s own DEP ethics recusal forms. Note that there is only ONE pro bono client, and it looks like LaTourette was helping them rebuild where they should not have rebuilt post Sandy):

This is a classic example of both the revolving door and corporate capture of government regulatory agencies.

No wonder Gov. Murphy touted the identity politics supporting LaTourette.

Check out this diversion (a casebook example of “Progressive Neoliberalism”) from Gov. Murphy’s press release:

A devoted advocate for equality of all people, LaTourette was elected to serve as Chair of the LGBTQ Rights Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, completing his term in 2020, and will be the first openly gay Commissioner of Environmental Protection in the nation. A Middlesex County native, he resides in Highland Park with his partner and twin daughters.

Gay men can be corporate whores too.

We are not aware of whether or when the Senate will take up confirmation of LaTourette’s temporary appointment.

But we will be sure to make Senate President Sweeney (who OBVIOUSLY knew and has worked with LaTourette on Fortress LNG) and Senate Environment (Smith) and Judiciary (Scutari) Committee Chairmen aware of these facts.

We gave a heads up to NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle – who has done a lot of work on the Fortress LNG project. Let’s hope this outrage gets the media attention it deserves.

A bait and switch at Rutgers to dodge tough critical questions for the Gov.

[Update below – favorable response from Rutgers on disabling YouTube comments]

I received an email last week on Friday from Rutgers that provided notice and requested that I submit questions for Gov. Murphy at Rutgers on a Jan 22 (today) webinar impressively titled:

• What’s on the Horizon for Implementing New Jersey’s Climate Agenda?

I immediately sent Rutgers 18 questions for the Gov. I copied NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle in the hope that he would ask those kind of tough questions.

But, buried in my email this morning, I found this confusing and evasive email from Rutgers (sent late Wednesday afternoon) advising that my questions were not accepted and had to be resubmitted during the webinar!

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your interest in our upcoming webinar. I apologize for the confusion, the automatic confirmation that came from Zoom is intended for technical questions for help with accessing the webinar. The wording has since been clarified, but anyone who registered before a certain date received the less clear wording in their confirmation. Questions for panelists will need to be submitted during the webinar via the chat box.

Thanks, -Matt

I found the explanation, at best, sketchy and evasive. I received an email directly from Rutgers asking for questions, to which I replied. The email exchange had nothing to do with any Zoom invitation. So, the explanation is also factually false.

[*** and Rutgers turned off comments on the YouTube of the event. Obviously, that’s a way to suppress criticism and democratic dialogue. I also just learned that the event was sponsored by, among others, PSE&G! – See Update below]

Perhaps the folks at Rutgers didn’t want to be affiliated with these kind of critical questions. Or perhaps the Gov. Office changed the format for submitting questions to better control them.

So, here are the questions I posed which I hope someone asked – some of the questions explore important regulatory issues that the media and environmental groups have ignored: (those unasked questions are in boldface below)

Hi Matt – here are a few questions for Gov. Murphy and Acting DEP Commissioner Latourette off the top of my head. I’ll get a more through set to you on Monday:

1) Why did the “environmental justice” legislation you signed fail to include climate?

2) Why did your representative on the DRBC vote in favor of the LNG terminal on the Delaware River?

3) Why is DEP pushing out scores of major air pollution control permits for major sources of greenhouse gas emissions without any consideration of climate impacts?

4) Same question (#3) for fossil infrastructure projects and land use permits.

5) Given the fact that DEP regulations do not address climate, and that hundreds of DEP permits are being issued for major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil infrastructure, why didn’t you impose a moratorium on such DEP approvals pending adoption of climate regulations? (e.g. like pending DEP Climate PACT)?

6) Have you read DEP’s “80/50” Report pursuant to the Global Warming Response Act? If so, how, specifically, will you meet the science based GHG emissions reductions and timetables in that Report?

7) Have you read the Global Warming Response Act? Are you aware that the goals of the Act are aspirational and the Act does not provide regulatory authority to DEP to meet the goals of the Act or mandate that DEP does so?

8) Are you aware of the recent IPCC Report that suggested we have about a decade to make deep GHG emissions reductions to avoid potentially catastrophic warming in excess of Paris Accords 1.5 degree C?

If so, why is your Energy Master Plan based on and the DEP PACT regulatory initiative driven by the GWRA 2050 timeframe?

9) Why does BPU EMP postpone initiation of electrification of the building sector until 2030?

10) How will you ramp up the current paltry EV and others transportation sector programs to meet science based emissions reductions?

11) Do you support extension of the $300 million/year subsidy to PSEG nukes?

12) Do you support a new modular nuke plant at the Oyster Creek site in Lacey Township?

13) How will you deal with major fossil infrastructure projects in the DEP regulatory pipeline (pun intended?)

14) Do you support a “strategic retreat” from flood hazard and coast hazard zones? If not why not?

15) Do you support the current DEP regulatory policy that provides a “right to rebuild” storm damaged property?

That policy is one of the main reason why NJ is among the top 4 States for repeat flooding claims under the federal flood insurance program.

16) when will the DEP environmental justice regulations be proposed? Will they be adopted before the election?

17) Same question for climate PACT regulations.

18) What does an individual’s sexual preferences have to do with qualifications for a DEP Commissioner?

Why did you mention sexual preference in Acting Commissioner LaTourette’s press release?

All for now. Let me know if you need backup documentation for these questions.

Wolfe

[Update – 1/18/21 – I reached out to Rutgers to complain about the disabling of the YouTube comments. I just received this favorable reply:

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your feedback. When the channel was set up, I was concerned about spam and inappropriate comments, so I set the channel’s default to just disabling comments.

However, I see your point, and now that the channel has become more popular especially now that we host recordings for NJ Climate Change Alliance/NJ Climate Change Resource Center, I agree it would be productive to allow viewers to comment and discuss their views on the content.

I went ahead and enabled comments for all of the NJ Climate Change Alliance and NJ Climate Change Resource Center recordings, and will work through the older recordings as time permits.

-Matt

A Classic Case of “Progressive Neoliberalism” In Action

Revolving Door Appointment Is Praised By “Progressives”

[Update: 2/2/21 – Chris Hedges writes powerfully on a similar topic:

• Papering Over The Rot 

Bill Clinton and his two treasury secretary enablers, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, instituted a system of unregulated capitalism that has resulted in financial anarchy. This anarchic form of capitalism, where everything, including human beings and the natural world, is a commodity to exploit until exhaustion or collapse, is justified by identity politics. It is sold as “enlightened liberalism” as opposed to the old pro-union class politics that saw the Democrats heed the voices of the working class. Financial anarchy and short-term plunder have destroyed long-term financial and political stability. It has also pushed the human species, along with most other species, closer and closer towards extinction.  ~~~ end update]

Gov. Murphy once again has demonstrated that he fits the profile of what professor Nancy Fraser calls a “Progressive Neoliberal”.

Professor Fraser describes “progressive neoliberalism”:

This may sound to some like an oxymoron, but it is a real, if perverse, political alignment that holds the key to understanding the U.S. election results and perhaps some developments elsewhere too. In its U.S. form, progressive neoliberalism is an alliance of mainstream currents of new social movements (feminism, anti-racism, multiculturalism, and LGBTQ rights), on the one side, and high-end “symbolic” and service-based business sectors (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood), on the other. In this alliance, progressive forces are effectively joined with the forces of cognitive capitalism, especially financialization. However unwittingly, the former lend their charisma to the latter. Ideals like diversity and empowerment, which could in principle serve different ends, now gloss policies that have devastated manufacturing and what were once middle-class lives.

See also Fraser’s superb essay “From Progressive Neoliberalism To Trump – And Beyond”:

Progressive neoliberals did not dream up this political economy. That honor belongs to the Right: to its intellectual luminaries Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan; to its visionary politicians, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan; and to their deep-pocketed enablers, Charles and David Koch, among others. But the right-wing “fundamentalist” version of neoliberalism could not become hegemonic in a country whose common sense was still shaped by New Deal thinking, the “rights revolution,” and a slew of social movements descended from the New Left. For the neoliberal project to triumph, it had to be repackaged, given a broader appeal, linked to other, noneconomic aspirations for emancipation. Only when decked out as progressive could a deeply regressive political economy become the dynamic center of a new hegemonic bloc.

It fell, accordingly, to the “New Democrats” to contribute the essential ingredient: a progressive politics of recognition. Drawing on progressive forces from civil society, they diffused a recognition ethos that was superficially egalitarian and emancipatory. At the core of this ethos were ideals of “diversity,” women’s “empowerment,” and LGBTQ rights; post-racialism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. These ideals were interpreted in a specific, limited way that was fully compatible with the Goldman Sachsification of the U.S. economy. Protecting the environment meant carbon trading. Promoting home ownership meant subprime loans bundled together and resold as mortgage-backed securities. Equality meant meritocracy.

Perfectly illustrating Fraser’s “progressive neoliberalism” paradigm, Gov. Murphy – a former Wall Street Goldman Sachs executive – just announced that Shawn LaTourette – a former corporate lawyer – will assume leadership of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in the wake of the retirement of DEP Commissioner McCabe.

Gov. Murphy’s press release that announced the appointment of LaTourette as Acting Commissioner downplayed his corporate legal background, instead creating the misleading impression that LaTourette was a public interest lawyer:

With twenty years of environmental experience, LaTourette began his career partnering with the Erin Brockovich law firm to organize and defend New Jersey communities whose drinking water was contaminated by petrochemicals. Born and raised in New Jersey, LaTourette graduated magna cum laude from Rutgers University and earned his law degree summa cum laude from Rutgers Law School, where he was the class salutatorian and the recipient of multiple environmental and governance awards, and published scholarship on environmental law, natural resource damage, and climate issues. Before entering public service, LaTourette specialized in protecting the rights of victims of toxic injuries while also advising infrastructure, transportation, energy, and other industries on compliance with state and federal environmental laws and policies. Prior to joining the Murphy Administration, he was most recently a Director of the Environmental Law Department at Gibbons PC, where he focused on brownfields redevelopment projects and litigated environmental cases in state and federal court.

Note that the Gov. fails to name LaTourette’s corporate clients or the projects he provided compliance assistance to.

 (which raises an important question for the intrepid journalists out there: Did LaTourette name these corporate clients in his ethics disclosure form and has he filed recusals? OPRA is your friend. So is Google of literature on “revolving door” and “corporate capture”. The story writes itself.)

Gov. Murphy went on to tout the fact that “he will be the first openly gay Commissioner of Environmental Protection in the nation”:

A devoted advocate for equality of all people, LaTourette was elected to serve as Chair of the LGBTQ Rights Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, completing his term in 2020, and will be the first openly gay Commissioner of Environmental Protection in the nation.

We’ve called out LaTourette several times – on his record, not his sexual preference – particularly for his involvement and how he lied about the DEP’s role in a Trump EPA toxic experiment at the Union County incinerator in Rahway, a DEP designated EJ community.

In response to public outrage over this, DEP Commissioner McCabe and Mr. Latourette blamed the public. (NJ Spotlight)

LaTourette said protesters, particularly in New Jersey’s environmental justice communities, had “misperceptions” about what the incineration would consist of, and misplaced fears that the experiment posed a risk to public health.

“Bad information can sow mistrust, and it can sow a misunderstanding of the facts that can lead folks to think that they are in danger of being harmed, and that’s the last thing we want,” he told reporters.

Those lies were so serious that we documented them and called for his resignation, see:

• Murphy DEP Secretly Approved A Trump EPA Chemical Experiment In an EJ Community, Then They Attacked The Public For Objecting

• This Is What Lip Service, Public Relations, And Co-Optation Look Like

LaTourette not only lied to cover his ass, he has attacked his critics and community activists, who correctly had criticized LaTourette’s misguided and ideological statements about DEP climate adaptation regulations, see:

• In Walking Back Absurd Climate Remarks, Murphy DEP Goes From The Frying Pan To The Fire

LaTourette also revealed his corporate finance and real estate background and Neoliberal economic ideology in recent media coverage of upcoming DEP climate adaptation and environmental justice regulations, see:

• Murphy DEP Official Defends Climate Adaptation Regulations As A Real Estate “Value Proposition”

• During “Environmental Justice” Panel, NJ Gov. Murphy’s DEP Rep. Brags About Corporate Investment Background

LaTourette also proved his willingness to shamelessly spin to defend the Governor and mislead the public, see:

• After Announcing Retreat On Climate Regulations, The Murphy DEP Is In Damage Control Mode And Trying To Change The Subject

We hope that LaTourette’s Acting Commissioner tenure will be short and that Gov. Murphy is in the process of conducting a national search for a true environmental leader to take the helm at DEP.

[End Note #1: LaTourette’s appointment was praised by Garden State Equality – again validating Fraser’s “Progressive Neoliberalism” paradigm.

Which reminds me that Paul Street has a good essay running over at CounterPunch laying out his 9 reasons why the left fails. In addition to his point on “ excessive identitarianism “, I thought this point of critique about silos was also very relevant to the LaTourette situation:

No Real Left

Eighth, the continuing and longtime absence of any sophisticated, powerful, and relevant, many-sided Left of significance in late Neoliberal America is a significant part of the tragic equation. No such movement would have met the rise of Trump and Trumpism-fascism with four years of avoidance, denial, passivity, and diversion. There are many factors in play behind this pathetic portside weakness but two that have struck this writer and activist as particularly relevant alongside excessive localism and excessive identitarianism in the last four years are (i) the crippling holds of sectarianism (an almost pathological refusal to reach across tribal-ideological and organizational lines to form a united anti-fascist front) and (ii) single-issue silo politics whereby group A cares about the climate, group B cares about reproductive rights, group C cares about a higher minimum wages, group D cares about teachers’ working conditions and so on.

Someone’s gotta call out this bullshit.

[End Note #2 – Here’s the OPRA request to DEP I just filed – please file one yourself!

I request copies of the: 1) ethics disclosure forms, 2) ethics officer review guidance to LaTourette, and 3) recusals filed by Shawn LaTourette.

I request the initial disclosure, guidance, and recusals filed in 2018 and the updated disclosures, guidance, and recusals filed upon his appointment b y Gov. Murphy as Acting Commissioner on 1/16/21