Search Results

Keyword: ‘infrastructure’

Bernie Sanders’ Climate Plan Is Superb – The Program And Politics Of The Green New Deal

August 22nd, 2019 No comments
Green New Deal in Wisdom Montana - what a great juxtaposition!

Green New Deal in Wisdom Montana – what a great juxtaposition!

Bernie Sanders just released his climate plan, and it is truly superb. Hit this link and read the whole thing!

I am hugely impressed by the obvious scientific, policy, and political expertise, vision, commitment to justice, and sense of history that informed that plan.

A few bulleted thoughts, on what is both an extremely comprehensive and detailed roadmap.

The Plan begins with critically important observations and principles that ground a vision of the future in the Green New Deal, with a look back to continuity with and building upon the original New Deal.

That historical recognition – and the plan’s future focus and programmatic framework – can help build the movements and political coalitions necessary to make the Plan a reality. In that sense, the Plan will survive regardless of whether Bernie Sanders is elected President.

I was slightly put off with how the plan initially mentions the FDR crisis as of “the 1940’s” (not the 1930’s depression) and legacy in light of the mobilization for WW II – while of course we need a national mobilization driven by the leadership, resources, and regulatory power of the federal government, I dislike war metaphors.

But that shortcoming is overcome by extensive arguments that are framed in light of the original New Deal and the outline of modernized programs that are based on New Deal, like the CCC.

Importantly, the Sanders Plan openly acknowledges and confronts the shortcomings and racial injustices of the original New Deal, by making a commitment to an “explicit choice to include black, indigenous, and other minority communities”. Multiple program elements of the plan explicitly recognize historic injustice, disproportionate burdens, and the need to incorporate justice in everything from the design of the programs to the allocation of resources and hiring of people.

If these commitments are communicated properly, they can go a long way to advancing the objectives of the reparations, Black Lives Matter, and environmental justice advocates, while maintaining a universalist philosophy that is insulated from attacks as just more divisive “identity politics”.

Similarly, the plan does not break down on urban versus rural grounds – there is plenty in the plan that benefits rural and agricultural regions and economies. This is not an elite coastal urban plan.

The Plan avoids and resolves contradictions between economic policy and cultural policy – for a superb discussion of that dilemma, see: The End of Progressive Neoliberalism and From Progressive Neoliberalism to Trump—and Beyond. This is a political minefield, but the Sanders plan brilliantly navigates these issues.

The Sanders plan recognizes that we are in a climate crisis, but that crisis provides a huge opportunity “to build a just and equitable future”.   The plan declares a “climate emergency” and emphasizes that we must “act immediately”.

The plan’s focus on the future invites democratic dialogue and inspires imagination, ideals, hopes, the public interest, solidarity and collective action over fear, resentment, despair, alienation, and private individual competition and economic self interest.

These are democratic socialist values of particular importance to the younger generation, who will be more heavily impacted by climate chaos. This is the essence, internationally, of Extinction Rebellion and domestically, the Sunrise Movement, the youth group who we all owe a great debt of gratitude to for putting the Green New Deal on the political agenda. (The Green Party first released a “Green New Deal” program over a decade ago.)

Programmatically, the plan is comprehensive and it synthesizes multiple climate, economic and social problems and outlines concrete solutions. The plan is very detailed – as Sanders has said, it “puts meat on the bones of the Green New Deal”

And there is a lot of meat there!

The plan would “transform the energy system” to 100% renewable energy – publicly generated , profit free and democratically controlled.

The Plan seeks a carbon free economy, would create 20 million union jobs with good pay and benefits, phase out fossil fuels and nukes, regulate greenhouse gas emissions, fully electrify and decarbonize the transportation sector, greatly expand public transportation and high speed rail, pledge a world leadership role, invest in justice, rebuild crumbling infrastructure, create a national material recycling program based on corporate “buy back” (this could be better presented as source reduction), build publicly owned broadband, build 7.4 million units of affordable housing, conserve public lands, including creating a new CCC, hold fossil polluters accountable and make them pay for pollution, eliminate fossil subsidies, keep fossil fuels in the ground (but this is limited in scope to public lands), end fossil infrastructure permits, ban fracking and mountaintop removal coal mining, ban imports and exports of fossil fuel, fair transition: guarantee incomes and jobs for displaced fossil workers,  ensure justice for frontline communities, extend civil rights protections to environmental justice communities in recognition of disproportionate burden and cumulative impact, invest in urban parks, empower and provide incentives to farmers, foresters and ranchers, transition to organic agriculture, regulate factory farm pollution, invest in family farms while breaking up huge corporate farms, ensure justice for dispossessed black farmers (reparations would have been a better thrust), promote local based farms/markets, and promote co-operatives and community owned land! Whew!

And that’s just some of the program. A discussion is far too much for a Wolfenotes post – we are, after all, merely “notes”. That’s why we suggest you read the plan yourself – and pass it on.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

NJ Gov. Murphy’s Statement On Signing Climate Bill Into Law Recalls George W. Bush’s Controversial Signing Statements

August 20th, 2019 No comments

Legislative amendments jeopardize DEP’s authority to regulate methane

Gov. Murphy Invites Legislative Veto of DEP Climate Regulations

In my prior post, I explained how DEP’s recent renewal of a natural gas power plant’s air permit completely ignored climate change, perpetuated fossil energy infrastructure, and belied Gov. Murphy’s purported commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But, the situation is actually far worse than that.

Today, I’d like to raise some troubling questions about Gov. Murphy’s recent signature of climate legislation.

Before I get to that set of issues, however, I’ll start off by linking the Gov.s signature of that law with DEP’s recent approval of the natural gas power plant permit. My intent is to expose a long running campaign of deception – which we have dubbed an “elite charade” – by illustrating how the recent DEP natural gas plant permit also contradicts Gov. Murphy’s recent approval of legislation alleged to accelerate the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act.

NJ Spotlight reported on the Governor’s signing of that law on July 24, 2019, see:

The Spotlight story highlighted a strong difference of opinion on the bill:

One activist calls measure to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in New Jersey ‘really significant’ while another says it falls far short of efforts by other states

The one “activist” who finds the law “really significant” is Tom Gilbert of Rethink NJ and the other is Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club.

I wouldn’t call Gilbert an “activist”. He’s a timid, compromised, corporate styled insider political dealer.

And Spotlight obfuscates the issues and went easy on both the Gov. and Gilbert in framing the disagreement. They always go easy on Gilbert, because he is part of the “cool corporate kids” funded by the same Foundations that fund Spotlight.

Tittel didn’t say the law “falls far short”. He actually said it  is “just spin without any substance”. And Tittel was NOT referring to “efforts by other states”. He was referring to NJ and Gov. Murphy.

There is a huge gulf between “really significant” and “just spin without any substance“. What explains that?

NJ Spotlight – funded by the same corporate dominated foundations paying Gilbert’s salary –  won’t go there, but we will.

We previously called that legislation a “fake solution” and prior to that we blasted Tom Gilbert of Rethink NJ for his incompetence and dishonesty (see: Tom Gilbert of Rethink NJ Is Lying About Climate Change Legislation), so its pretty clear where we stand.

But let’s look at what Tom Gilbert actually said about the critical issue of DEP’s regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in light of the DEP’s most recent permit that fails to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

When the Senate passed the bill, Gilbert said this: (NJ Spotlight)

Other environmental advocates were more optimistic. “This is much needed legislation to ensure the state takes meaningful steps to reduce emissions,’’ said Tom Gilbert, campaign director of Rethink Energy NJ.

He cited provisions requiring the DEP to set benchmarks between now and 2050 for curbing carbon pollution and requiring actions to reduce emissions to achieve the targets if monitoring shows the state will fall short.

When the Governor signed the bill, Gilbert said this: (NJ Spotlight)

Gilbert argued the legislation makes clear the administration plans to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions before the end of Murphy’s term. Clean-energy advocates have long argued the DEP has the legal authority to do so but that the department has been reluctant to do so.

“We are going to see the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions before the completion of the Governor’s first term,’’ Gilbert said. “There couldn’t be any more urgency for us to get it done.’’

Notice how Gilbert uses the word “us”, as if he’s part of and speaking for the Murphy administration.

Notice how Gilbert moved the goalposts: from now to the end of the Gov.’s first term. That’s “urgency”?

By then, DEP will have issued permits to all the pending natural gas pipelines and power plants.

The PennEast pipeline just submitted permit applications to DEP. Other pipelines and power plant permit applications are under DEP review. Under longstanding legal principles of administrative law, permits are reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of permit application is deemed complete. 

The PennEast and other pipeline and power plant permits will be reviewed under current DEP regulations, not those adopted at the end of Gov. Murphy’s first term. 

They will be reviewed and issued under current federal EPA rules, not Trump’s EPA’s proposed changes to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act that Gilbert and others are focused on.

How stupid and/or incompetent is Gilbert?

I went into great detail in my “Fake Solution” post to explain why Gilbert’s assessment was false and to outline what a “real solution” would look like:

Regarding actual GHG emissions, Smith’s bill merely requires DEP to develop a “strategy”.

A strategy is NOT an authority to adopt regulations to limit GHG emissions or impose emissions fees on GHG emissions. … (and “benchmarks” and “targets” are not enforceable regulatory standards)

A real solution would be to repeal those 2005 [DEP regulatory] exemptions, close those loopholes, and direct DEP to regulate GHG emissions like other major pollutants (in addition to there policy tools I outlined in that post).

Chairman Smith’s bill does not do any of that and instead proposes the same failed non-regulatory policies of the 2007 GWRA, while diverting attention from real solutions.

Now follow the sequence of events:

Governor Murphy signed the bill on July 23, 2019.

And just days later, on August 5, 2019 – in a move that flat out contradicts the purported intent of the legislation the Gov. signed – DEP issued the permit renewal to the Eagle Point Power Generation LLC plant.

As I’ve written, that permit completely ignored climate change and imposed no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions (as CO2 or methane).

Yet, Tom Gilbert seems to be the only fool in NJ who can’t seem to understand that he’s been screwed and that he’s been exposed as – at best a cheerleader – and at worst a flat out liar.

On top of all that, Gov. Murphy issued a highly unusual signing statement with that bill:

Today I am pleased to sign Senate Bill No. 3207 (Second Reprint) into law, establishing new timeframes and requirements for the implementation of the Global Warming Response Act. I commend the sponsors of this bill for providing the Department of Environmental Protection with the tools necessary to ensure the State meets our greenhouse gas emission reduction goals by 2050. ….

Although this bill was amended to remove black carbon as a greenhouse gas, black carbon continues to be a short-lived climate pollutant, and will be a part of the State’s comprehensive emissions reduction strategy. Furthermore, I am directing the Department of Environmental Protection to use its existing legal authority, in addition to the authority provided by this bill, to administratively address the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants such as black carbon, which will provide short-term air quality benefits while also reducing climate warming pollutants.

First of all, it is absurd to issue a signing statement regarding a substantive policy disagreement with the Legislature. If Gov. Murphy were serious (instead of spinning) he would have conditionally vetoed the bill and specified language to amend it to satisfy his policy. He didn’t do that (avoiding a legislative battle or expending any political capital).

In essence, what Gov. Murphy is saying to the legislature here is “screw you, I’ll do what I want via executive authority”.

That was a very bad move – both politically and legally – particularly given the fact that the Legislature has power to veto any agency regulation.

Now that Gov. Murphy has stuck his finger in their eye,  the Legislature would be justified in exercising that veto power, should DEP propose future regulations on “short lived climate pollutants”, importantly which are not just “black carbon” but also include methane.

Here is why DEP’s authority to regulate methane is now in jeopardy.

The introduced version of the bill defined methane as a “greenhouse gas” and applied to methane as a part of a program governing “short lived climate pollutant” in Section 6.

Section 6 “short lived climate pollutant” DEP authority and program was deleted in its entirely. That section also included a provision preserving DEP’s “existing authority”.  Elimination of those provisions creates a very strong legislative intent argument that the DEP doesn’t have any “existing authority” and now lacks statutory authority and legislative intent to regulate methane.

(Recall that the introduced version of the Global Warming Response Act also included authority to DEP to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That provision also was stripped from the final version of the bill passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Corzine. Under the GWRA, DEP is not provided authority to regulate all GHG emissions, not just black carbon and methane.

A standard method of statutory interpretation is to look at what legislatures do after courts decide or regulatory agencies act on a specific issue. If the legislature passes laws that narrow, restrict, or revoke an agency’s regulatory powers – or not recognize or affirm those powers – or establish alternatives to those powers – after the agency has asserted those powers, that is concrete legislative intent that the agency does not in fact possess those powers.

There are now 3 laws on the books – all passed after DEP asserted regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions back in 2005 – that limited DEP authority, or stripped DEP authority, or established alternative policies to DEP regulation with respect to DEP authority to regulate GHG emissions. Therefore, that strongly suggests that DEP lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and that NJ’s sole policy approach to reducing these emissions is the joint DEP-BPU RGGI allowance trading program or BPU GHG emission portfolio standards (which BPU has NOT implemented.) 

The Gov. signing statement doesn’t change these legal facts – it only makes it all worse by providing a political impetus to legislators to defend the integrity and power of the legislative branch. (and Senate President Sweeney opposes DEP regulatory authority on greenhouse gas emissions and would love to embarrass the Gov.)

So, Tom Gilbert is cheerleading for a law that may have crippled DEP’s power to regulate methane, including from pipelines like PennEast. What a damn dangerous fool.

In issuing that signing statement, Gov. Murphy is redolent of George Bush’s signing statements and a warped theory of Executive Power (AKA “The Unitary Executive”).

Here’s what the Brookings Institution concluded about Bush’s signing statements (see: The Threat of Bush’s Signing Statements):

This use of presidential signing statements seems to us clearly to violate the Constitution. Article I of our founding document gives Congress, not the president, the power to make the laws. Article II requires the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution also gives the president the authority to veto laws that he finds objectionable. And if he does, the Constitution states that Congress may either “override” the veto, in which case it becomes law, or it may sustain it, and the bill will fail.

By signing a particular bill into law and then issuing a signing statement that declares that he will not give effect to it, or to a provision of it, the president effectively circumvents these constitutional requirements, as well as displaces the courts as the final expositor of the Constitution.

Of course, all of this went over the head of the lame NJ press corps and environmental activist, who have serious competence issues.

But, I would have thought that a so called progressive liberal democratic governor acting like a right wing imperial republican in the exercise of this executive power would have attracted the attention of the political press corps or republican legislators.

Guess I expect too much. Ignorance, opportunism, and cowardice rule.

PS – and Tom Gilbert is not the only useful idiot. Here’s another, in a more ritual Bergen Record  story:

“These are all important moves, but we need to make sure that DEP develops rules to regulate black carbon,” Goldsmith said. “They have the power to do this. They need to do this.”

[End Note – another legal factor supporting these concerns is the failure of a RGGI bill introduced this session – which would have reformed the program – to be enacted into law. That bill seems to have fallen into a black hole. I’ll track down the details and update this post when I do.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Murphy DEP Renews Air Pollution Permit For Major Fossil Gas Power Plant – Permit Has No Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions

August 19th, 2019 No comments

Facility Emits Over 1 MILLION TONS Of Greenhouse Gases – Emissions Increasing

DEP Permit extends reliance on fossil power

old closed Sunoco Coastal Eagle Refinery, site of power plant

old closed Sunoco Eagle Point Refinery

The Murphy DEP just renewed the air pollution permit for Eagle Point Power Generation LLC plant, located at 1250 Crown Point Rd, Westville, NJ 08093 (Gloucester County). The 237 MW plant consists of two cogeneration gas turbines (the plant is owned by politicly connected Rockland Capital, who also owns the BL England fossil plant, where DEP also ignored climate change and failed to impose any GHG emission limits. An April 29, 2013 BPU Order exempted the BL England from RGGI requirements to purchase allowances – multi-million dollar subsidy).

[Note: 8/20/19 – Cogeneration plants were exempted from the RGGI GHG emissions trading program under the RGGI law. The exemption was sponsored by Senator Sweeney. That giveaway and other loopholes prompted environmental groups to oppose the bill and many NJ newspaper editorials in opposition to the bill]

[Note: 8/22/19 – Jeff Tittel writes that the plant is no longer a licensed cogeneration plant.]

According to the basis for the DEP permit:

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from this facility are 1,028,070 TPY CO2e and the GHG emissions increase is less than 75,000 TPY CO2e.

Despite Gov. Murphy’s repeated public statements about his commitment to address climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the DEP rejected this opportunity to ratchet down on or phase out greenhouse gas emissions from fossil power plants. The Murphy DEP permit made no changes from the Christie DEP permit, with respect to reducing GHG emissions. Just the opposite: the Murphy DEP permit actually allows GHG emissions to increase 75,000 tons per year.

Despite emissions of over 1 million TONS of greenhouse gases – which are allowed to increase under the Murphy DEP permit renewal – the Murphy DEP permit does not regulate greenhouse emissions (see: NJ Environmental Regulations Ignore Climate Change)

The DEP adopted a regulation back in 2005 that classified greenhouse gas emissions as regulated “air contaminants” (air pollutants) under NJ State law. Despite this regulatory authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the DEP has refused to impose any restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

The NJ Global Warming Response Act, adopted back in 2007, mandates an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. DEP continues to ignore this law.

The DEP permit includes a “shield”, which protects the polluter from challenges for failure to control or reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

This operating permit also includes a permit shield, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.17. A permit shield provides that compliance with the relevant conditions of the operating permit shall be deemed compliance with the specific applicable requirements that are in effect on the date of issuance of the draft operating permit, and which form the basis for the conditions in the operating permit.

The Eagle Point plant is also a major polluter for other traditional “criteria” and “hazardous air pollutants”:

The facility is classified as a major facility based on its potential to emit 247 tons per year of nitrogen oxide (NOx).

This permit allows individual hazardous air pollutant to be emitted at a rate to not exceed: 152 pounds per year of benzene, 73 pounds year of acrolein, 8071 pounds per year of formaldehyde and 36 pounds per year of polycyclic organic matter (POM).

Despite significant hazardous air pollutant emissions and the proximity of dense population – including sensitive receptors like schools and hospitals – the DEP found that health risks were “negligible”:

Health Risk Assessment was conducted as part of the review of this permit application and health risk was determined to be negligible consistent with NJDEP Technical Manual 1003.

Red Bank Elementary School, nearby Eagle Point

Red Bank Elementary School, about 1/2 mile away

The Murphy DEP permit actually weakens the Christie permit conditions, including these “significant modifications”:

  • DEP extend the deadline for compliance with performance testing requirements
  • DEP weakened the restrictions on TSP by allowing averaging of stack emission tests
  • DEP weakened the carbon monoxide emissions monitoring by allowing averaging
  • DEP allowed the polluter to add NEW FOSSIL (oil) backup power fuel
  • DEP allowed the polluter to install a second steam generator

DEP also made minor improvements to the permit, reducing the allowable NOx and particulate emissions.

I have not adequately researched the permit process, but I would bet that (readers, please correct me if I’m wrong):

1) the DEP didn’t not hold a public hearing in the community and the community was not made aware of the opportunity to comment on and force changes to this permit;

2)  NJ environmental groups did not submit comments opposing this permit renewal or otherwise pressure the Murphy DEP to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the plant;

[Update: this comes at a time when the “Empower NJ” campaign is pressing Gov. Murphy to impose a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure. This DEP permit exposes key flaws in that campaign, i.e. 1) a failure to address existing fossil infrastructure. which must be phased out; and 2) failure to understand and follow the regulatory arena and hold the Murphy DEP accountable. ~~~ end update]

3) there was no media coverage of the permit or the regulatory issues and missed opportunities I highlight above; and

4) there was no legislative oversight or concerns expressed about allowable GHG emissions.

The regulatory system in totally broken.

We warned legislators about that and urged that they conduct oversight during DEP Commissioner McCabe’s Senate confirmation hearing:

… 11. Will Gov. Murphy & DEP incorporate climate change reviews, backed by enforceable standards, retrofit requirements, and offsets, to meet the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act in all land use, infrastructure, air quality, and water resource permits? ”’ […]

31. Will the Murphy DEP adopt new rules to mandate risk assessment – based on cumulative risk to the most vulnerable populations – and more stringent “advances in the art” (NJ’s legal standard) air pollution controls for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

We again explained that and called for reforms at the outset of the Murphy administration (see: Murphy DEP Again Maintains Continuity With Christie DEP Policy):

The Murphy administration reforms must inform and involve the public, ratchet down on greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce public health risks of hazardous air pollutants and catastrophic chemical risks (and what ever happened to toxics use reduction through the Pollution Prevention Act? )

The DEP is broken, perhaps beyond repair.

Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner McCabe are not serious about addressing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid climate catastrophe.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

NJ Conservation Groups Helped The Right Hijack The Lake Hopatcong Toxic Algae Bloom Issue

August 7th, 2019 No comments

“Rain Tax” Reframes A Traditional Land Use & Water Quality Issue

Algae Blooms Are Exacerbated By Climate Chaos

Conservation groups provide cover for Gov. Murphy & DEP 

The NY Times finally weighed in on the Lake Hopatcong toxic algae bloom crisis on Monday, and amazingly they somehow managed to allow insane paranoid right wing anti-government Republicans to try to reframe the debate as about a “rain tax”, see:

And some Republican politicians have even accused state agencies of ginning up the threat as a scare tactic to promote what they call a “rain tax.”

Environment and planning advocates say that is an incorrect description of a potential solution: stormwater utilities. The utilities exist in 1,716 localities in 40 states and will be an option for New Jersey municipalities starting next month under a law signed by the Democratic governor, Philip D. Murphy.

(Is that you again death tax Frank Luntz?)

Part of the reason that these crazies have been allowed to hijack the debate lies in how the NJ conservation groups responded and narrowly and self interestedly framed the “solution” to the problem, while ignoring DEP’s failure to enforce the Clean Water Act and restrict land use to protect water quality.

At the outset, we predicted that NJ conservation groups would focus exclusively on stormwater utilities and infrastructure, while ignoring talking about climate change and traditional land use and water quality policy and DEP regulation and DEP’s numerous failures.

The conservation groups ignored DEP planning and regulatory tools and framed the solution to the issue this way narrowly – and they did so for corrupt & political reasons (not based on science and law):

  • a) they had worked on the weak stormwater utility bill – it is merely enabling and requires local County Freeholders to adopt it – and wanted to blow their own horn, while effectively praising Democrats and the Governor for doing virtually nothing;
  • b) they wanted to let their friends Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner McCabe off the hook for blatant failures to enforce the Clean Water Act and adopt protective regulations (including failing to restore Gov. Christie DEP rollbacks);
  • c) like virtually all Republicans and many corporate Democrats, they are anti-regulatory and don’t know about or like to talk about regulatory policy tools or climate change; and
  • they are all funded by the same corporate oriented Foundations and rely on the same corporate communication consultants and lobbyists.

Painfully aware that all this was happening, over a month ago, we warned folks and laid out a real agenda:

Before we get the lame attempts at suggesting weak “reforms” (e.g. stormwater utilities) from the usual lame suspects (e.g. Highlands Coalition), we thought we’d lay out a serious reform package.

So, here’s a short to do list for DEP to respond to the current crisis and prevent or reduce the likelihood of future disasters:

We pulled no punches and named names:

The algae bloom is caused by a combination of climate change, excessive nutrient & sediment pollution loads, and failed DEP regulatory policies.

DEP lacks adequate regulations governing land use, development, stormwater, water quality, septic systems, agriculture, and forestry.

Worse, DEP lacks any strategy, comprehensive plan, or enforceable regulations to address climate change, that we know will impact water resources (i.e. DEP rules mandating greenhouse gas emissions reductions or methods to adapt to climate change).

The Christie DEP not only denied climate change, but actually rolled back DEP regulations that were designed to protect water quality, including Highlands septic density, stormwater management, flood hazard, and stream buffer protections.

After the Legislature vetoed the Christie DEP septic density rollback, the Murphy DEP effectively revoked that already invalidated rule, but has yet to address other significant Christie DEP rollbacks.

Of course the greedy green weenies wanted no part of any debate about DEP regulating forestry and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Foundations don’t pay for that kind of stuff and their corporate Boards, funders, and elite members don’t support it either. They want politically safe, market oriented, individual, voluntary, local, private property sensitive no tax increase,, and largely symbolic gestures. Nothing with any regulatory teeth that could cost corporations and the wealthy real money or stifle their economic development plans.

For a perfect example of validation of my prediction, along comes an Op-Ed by Michele Byers of NJ Conservation Foundation, see:

Note how Byers’ Op-Ed is exclusively focused on what individuals can do – not what government can do. That is right wing framing. It is no accident. It is ideological warfare.

Byers’ Op-Ed undermines a prior far stronger Op-Ed by Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club.

Byers is following the same cynical green cover playbook of a prior NJCF Op-Ed that also undercut Tittel on holding the Murphy administration accountable on climate change.

Byers desperately wants to change the subject and divert attention away from controversial real solutions.

And Byers is willing to throw Lake Hopatcong and water quality under the bus to avoid criticizing the Gov. in hopes that he will respond to NJCF’s real priority, which is keeping the Penn East pipeline out of their elite backyards in Hunterdon County.

That’s the weeny way – we call it what it is – Fake Solutions and sabotage

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Toxic Lakes And Institutional Racism

July 26th, 2019 No comments

NJ State Parks and Open Space Programs Recall The Racist Practices of Robert Moses

[Updates below – McCabe Op-Ed response]

My good friend and former colleague Jeff Tittel has a brilliant Op-Ed running in today’s Bergen Record – read the whole thing:

Tittel connects the dots between toxic algae blooms that have closed major NJ recreational lakes, regulatory failures at the NJ DEP, and disinvestment in State parks.

I want to discuss briefly Tittel’s key conclusion:

Under Gov. Christie Whitman the focus of Green Acres went from parks and people to buying open space like farms and forests. As part of that change, she cut DEP’s parks staff from 1,000 to 400, where it still remains. I believe that was part of their plan because they didn’t want more people from urban areas coming out to recreate in wealthy suburban and rural areas. Those policies continue. …

Too many legislators with houses on Long Beach Island aren’t worried about swimming areas in North Jersey. Too many environmental groups cater to the country-club set, not parks and people.

Ouch!! (Is Senator Bob Smith, Chairman of the Environment Committee, the only legislator with a house on LBI? I don’t think so!).

[Update: In an email, Tittel adds:

Whitman also eliminated summer time bus service to our state parks from urban areas – Paterson to shepards pond – Perth Amboy to spruce run also eliminated the Warwick bus summer stop at Ringwood state park. ~~~ end update

I’ve written about how NJ’s “Green Acres” program is biased towards protecting the backyards of the wealthy elites, serving many of the same exclusionary and racist objectives as primitive private “restrictive covenants” and public municipal zoning struck down by NJ Courts, (and the US Supreme Court, , see Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948); )see:

I’ve also written about how open space advocates, such as the Keep It Green Coalition (KIG), are funded by those same wealthy elites and Foundations, who are dues paying members and serve on the Boards of Directors and set policy that biases open space efforts, see:

KIG not only biases the open space program in favor of wealthy elites and against urban, poor and minority neighborhoods, but they stole public funds that were constitutionally dedicated to State parks and shifted them to acquisition of lands in the backyards of their elite Boards, members, and funders, see:

As Tittel notes, that has resulted in disinvestment in State parks – and lack of an urban parks program.

NJ’s open space and parks program priorities are a more sophisticated version of a very old form of anti-urbanism and institutional racism.

There are lots of ways elites keep out the riff-raff – institutional and structural, e.g. public investments, private covenants, disinvestment, “redlining”, zoning and land use restrictions, and even pure neglect that leads to toxic algae blooms.

NJ’s policies Tittel criticizes, i.e. those to prevent “more people from urban areas coming out to recreate in wealthy suburban and rural areas” – remind me of those practiced by Robert Moses.

Many people are aware of why Moses designed the bridge heights on the Long Island parkways: (How Low Did He Go?)

This summer, as New Yorkers head out to Long Island’s beach towns and parks on the Southern State Parkway, they’ll pass beneath a series of overpass bridges made infamous in Robert A. Caro’s monumental 1974 biography of Robert Moses, The Power Broker.

In one of the book’s most memorable passages, Caro reveals that Moses ordered his engineers to build the bridges low over the parkway to keep buses from the city away from Jones Beach—buses presumably filled with the poor blacks and Puerto Ricans Moses despised. The story was told to Caro by Sidney M. Shapiro, a close Moses associate and former chief engineer and general manager of the Long Island State Park Commission.

As Marta Gutman notes, Robert Caro also wrote about Moses and segregation in public swimming pools:

The man’s (Moses) passion for extending New Deal benefits to New Yorkers of color was less clear. Moses had no qualms about manipulating public policy to imprint his values, including antidemocratic ones, on liberal reform programs. In 1938 he eviscerated an amendment to the New York State Constitution that Martha Biondi has shown would have allowed the state government to battle racial discrimination in the private sector.13 Robert Caro underscores other ugly outcomes of Moses’s public work, ascribing them to the commissioner’s personal antipathy for people of color. This assessment leads to the serious charge that Moses not only tolerated race prejudice in the WPA swimming pools, but deliberately segregated them. Caro targets pools in Thomas Jefferson Park in East Harlem and Colonial (now Jackie Robinson) Park in Central Harlem, arguing the former was sited in a white and the latter in a black neighborhood, so each would be racially segregated. At Jefferson Park Pool, Caro asserts that decisions were taken about design and staffing to assure that only white people swam there.14

(see: Race, Place, and Play – Robert Moses and the WPA Swimming Pools in New York City – by Marta Gutman, The City College of New York)

Gutman tells a more nuanced and complex story than Caro:

Moses was a racial conservative, but the sweeping charges do not hold up under close scrutiny of the physical city and evidence uncovered since the publication of my research in Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transfor- mation of New York. In this article, I argue that framing the discussion of race in terms of individual prejudice has dis- tracted attention from the more powerful political, spatial, and structural dynamics of racism, forces of which Moses was fully aware, and the actions some New Yorkers took to counteract them. As Biondi has argued, emphasizing per- sonal prejudice obscures the relationship of the man to the trajectory of reform liberalism in American politics. Biondi insists liberalism was rendered tragic by compromise with racial segregation—tainted by its appearance during the Jim Crow era and the ensuing unholy alliance forged during the New Deal between southern segregationists and northern politicians. The result, public policy deeply ingrained with the effects of race prejudice, proved devastating for blacks and cities.15 However, the outcome was not set in stone in New York during the 1930s. After a race riot exploded in Harlem in 1935, Moses constructed a stellar modern facility for public recreation in Central Harlem that challenged the unequal treatment of black and white Americans, widespread during the New Deal.16

Tittel’s arguments – in light of the New Deal era history Robert Caro and Gutman write about – are particularly relevant as the discussion of the Green New Deal emerges in the current context of Black Lives Matter and a focus on institutional racism.

[Update: 7/27/19 – DEP gets hammered in a Tittel Bergen Record Op-Ed for neglect and elitism. How do they respond?

The next day, they lift the advisory on a tiny portion of lake Hopatcong that is accessible to the public only by boat!

Indian Harbor, which is only accessible by boat, is near beaches that will not be accessible due to continued high bacteria levels, including 24,750 at Pebble Beach, 24,500 at Sand Harbor and 26,750 as Bass Rock Beach.

Talk about tone deaf political malpractice! How do you double down on the kind of charges Tittel made?  Just what does it take to get fired?

And Commissioner McCabe is not only tone deaf. She is a coward – her statement runs away from the DEP advisory, dodging “blame” for effectively closing the lake to recreation:

An advisory is not a ban or an order for lake closure. An advisory is a form of guidance. No one would be ticketed or removed from the water if they choose to swim or engage in watersports when an advisory is issued. An advisory is meant to provide the public with information to help people make choices for themselves.

Not only is this statement cowardly, but it sends the wrong message to the public, virtually inviting people into the water.

Finally, it abdicates DEP’s responsibility to protect public health by relying on an ideological stance: i.e. “people make choices for themselves”. 

Some risks are too great to allow individual choice to govern decision-making. In such cases, Government must step up and assume responsibility.  

McCabe is a coward – she fears Mulshine’s attack on “Nanny State” grounds.

Finally, DEP’s statement misleads the public about DEP’s overall lake management program – science and regulatory oversight. DEP brags about how wonderful they are::

From Lake to Lab: New Jersey’s Advanced Process for Monitoring Harmful Algal Blooms

New Jersey has one of the most advanced monitoring processes and protective standards to reduce the risk to public health. DEP’s aggressive monitoring program on Lake Hopatcong includes daily monitoring and detailed scientific analysis of several water quality parameters related to harmful algal blooms.

But that statement documents ONLY DEP’s EMERGENCY REACTION to the HAB.

It says NOTHING about prevention, routine water quality monitoring and assessment, program staffing and funding, and the adequacy of DEP’s regulatory actions (i.e. Lake TMDL for nutrients).

It says NOTHING about solutions, e.g. mandatory septic pumpouts, investments in infrastructure upgrades, stricter regulations, etc

DEP has failed miserably on those matters. ~~~ end update]

[Update #2 – 7/29/19 – DEP Commissioner McCabe wrote an Op-Ed in today’s NJ.com.

It’s almost as if she read my prior posts and update above and confirmed my criticism.

First of all, McCabe blamed “mother nature” (which is a blatant form of denial of climate change and DEP regulatory responsibilities)

DEP will lift the advisories, as soon as the testing indicates that bacteria cell counts are trending reliably below the health advisory level. Unfortunately, control of those conditions at this point is in the hands of Mother Nature, who has not been kind lately as we have experienced heavy rains and elevated heat levels.

Second, it finally outlining solutions to the problem, she ignores DEP’s regulatory responsibilities and enforcement powers, instead pointing the finger at local governments and individuals:

In the long-term, we know the steps we must take to prevent future algal blooms. Algal blooms are fed by nutrients, most notably phosphorus, from septic tanks, surface runoff, and stormwater that flows into the lakes, either directly or through the lakes’ many feeder streams. Nutrients in lawn fertilizers and animal droppings readily flow into the lake when it rains.

The solutions are not necessarily difficult or expensive. Much can be accomplished through simple methods – residents in the watershed should routinely clean out septic systems, communities should sweep streets and clean stormwater catch basins ahead of the summer season. Property owners can reduce or forego fertilizer application, and install green infrastructure.

Has McCabe even read the DEP’s TMDL for Lake Hopatcong? Does she know it says THIS:

“eutrophic lakes & aquatic life impairments are ranked as Low Priority in the 2002 Integrated List of Waterbodies because they are not directly related to human health issues” @ p.9

Is she aware of DEP’s voluntary provisions of the Water Quality Management Planning rules (NJAC 7:15-1 et seq) – that apply to septics, septic districts and pump-outs?

Does McCabe know of DEP powers to reduce nutrients under numerous regulations, including stormwater, stream encroachment, freshwater wetlands, water quality standards, septic design, and Highlands Act?

Does McCsbe know that the DEP’s Wetlands Strategy is weak? (wetlands cycle and store nutrients)

Is she aware of significant gaps and loopholes in DEP regulations, such as forestry management BMP’s?

Has McCabe read DEP’s Nutrient Management Strategy?

How could McCabe IGNORE ALL THAT? Awful Op-Ed.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: