Archive

Archive for April, 2010

Clean Air Council Looks Forward – Ignores Elephant in the Room

April 14th, 2010 No comments

The New Jersey Clean Air Council held it’s annual public hearing today – this year’s topic was “Vision for the Next Decade: Air Quality and Air Pollution Control in NJ”.

The Clean Air Council, since its creation in 1954, serves in an advisory capacity to make recommendations to the DEP regarding air matters. It consists of eighteen members, fourteen of which are appointed by the Governor. Members serve four-year terms, and include the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, Commissioner of Community Affairs, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of Board of Directors, NJ Commerce Commission, ex-officio.

The Council heard some good testimony about the need for DEP to develop more effective air pollution control strategies, especially to protect public health, address global warming, and promote environmental justice.

Policy experts and scientists traced NJ’s history and enormous progress by NJ DEP in reducing air pollution. This progress was a result of enforcing strong Clean Air Act mandated State Implementation Plans (SIP’s) via traditional regulatory controls. Scientists provided specific recommendations, urging DEP to do far more to address global warming, ratchet down on emissions of hazardous air pollution, incorporate environmental justice in DEP permit reviews, and strengthen regulations, monitoring, and pollution emissions inventories.

Arthur Marin, Ex. Director, NESCAUM

Arthur Marin, Ex. Director, NESCAUM

Arthur Marin, Director of NESCAUM (Northeast States For Coordinated Air Use Management) had the boldest vision, his talk was titled: “Planning for transformative change in an incremental world“.

Highlighting the growing scientific understanding of serious negative public health effects of small particles and hazardous air pollutants, for which there is no “safe” exposure level, he stressed the need to “eliminate pollutants to zero levels, not just reduce emissions”. He emphasized that the urgency of global warming required that we must “fundamentally change the way we produce and use energy, plan our built environment, and live our lives.”

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin briefly addressed the Council. Let’s be generous and just say he failed the test of the transformative vision thing.

And there was a universal reluctance to note the policy elephant in the room.

So, with absolutely no sense of irony, Martin touted NJ’s leadership on clean air by noting that that the 1954 NJ Air Pollution Control Act was enacted and NJ was regulating air pollution almost 20 years before the federal Clean Air Act.

But it seems Martin forgot all about Governor Christie’s Executive Order #2, which stands 56 years of NJ clean air leadership on its head by seeking to rollback NJ state standards to federal minimums. Oops!

NJ DEP Commissioner Bob Martin talks to Clean Air Council

NJ DEP Commissioner Bob Martin talks to Clean Air Council

Martin also pledged his strong support for “green energy” and wind, shamelessly ignoring the contradiction that Governor Christie’s budget cuts over $300 million from renewable energy funding. Oops!

Martin repeated his stale talking point that DEP decisions should be made based on science, yet he conveniently forgot that just weeks ago he reversed and over-rode the recommendations of his own scientists in killing the perchlorate drinking water standard. So much for science. Oops!

In a flurry of rapid fire talking points, without any recognition that there might be competing policy objectives, Martin also stressed the importance of cost benefit analysis, seemingly unaware that the science almost always conflicts with the economics (and politics). Oops!

Martin also said he would appoint a Science Advisory Board in the “next few weeks”, but he didn’t say anything about the Court Order requiring he disclose SAB candidates. Martin also said that the SAB would include not only academic (Rutgers) scientists,  but “real world experience” – the latter being code for putting regulated industry scientists and private consultants on the SAB, thereby raising troubling issues of potential conflicts of interest, bias, balance, objectivity, and lack of fidelity to the public interest. Oops!

Martin said that clean air would be a priority. Yet he somehow forgot about the facts that in his first 10 weeks in office, he already killed DEP’s proposed Green House gas monitoring rule, eliminated funding of the DEP Office of Climate Change at the critical moment when they need MORE resources to develop programs to implement the Global Warming Response Act plan, and provided the oil industry with another opportunity to kill the sulfur in fuel oil rule. Oops!

Of course, Martin failed to tell the Council about his wrecking ball role on the Christie “Red Tape Review Group“. Oops!

In direct contradiction of the recommendation of most air quality experts of the need for more integrated planning to move beyong single pollutant “silos”, Martin ignored the fact that he decapitated the DEP Office of Policy and Planning, the small group in DEP tasked with doing integrated, multi-objective planning. Instead, he will replace this Office with an Assistant Commissioner for Economic Development. Following the “know nothing”  recommendation of the Christie Transition Team, Martin seeks to return planning functions back to individual DEP regulatory programs, where they can operate in silos.

It was as if I were in the Twilight Zone – the sense of denial was surreal.

Of course, I tried to bring these contradictions out in my testimony -  but this time Martin was unable to deploy the State Police to shut me up!

I briefed the Council and urged them to review and make recommendations to DEP Commissioner Martin on:

1) the Paterson air toxics study; especially the recommendations on reforming the air permit program, emissions inventory, risk screening, and addressing cumulative risks and disproportionate burdens;

2) the Global Warming Response Act Plan including a request that DEP develop a workload analysis, staffing, resources, and implementation time frames;

3) Executive Order #2- specifically federal consistency policy and cost-benefit analysis methodology;

4) Assembly bills A-2464 and A-2486;

5) support adoption of the sulfur in fuel rule as proposed – oil companies are seeking to kill it;

6) the Environmental Justice Advisory Council cumulative impact report;

7) and support a State level FACA law to assure that all DEP advisory groups operate openly, transparently, objectively, ethically, and provide access to the public.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

DEP Commissioner Martin Uses State Police To Eject Environmentalist From Polluter’s Advisory Group Meeting

April 13th, 2010 5 comments
"New World Order" at DEP

“New World Order” at DEP (Source: NJ DEP powerpoint slide displayed at meeting)

Ironically, the DEP PowerPoint briefing title was “New World Order”

DEP held an important meeting today to brief consultants and environmental groups about implementation plans for the new privatized controversial toxic site cleanup Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRP) program. Here is the DEP’s April 5 email public announcement and agenda:

A Site Remediation Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for April 13, 2010 at 1:30 in the Public Hearing Room at the Department of Environmental Protection Headquarters.  The agenda will be as follows:

1.Update from each of the Site Remedation Reform Act teams
a. Measures of Success
b. Near-term Priorities
c. Technical Regulations
d. Guidance Documents
2. Presentation of the draft Remedial Priority System
3. Open forum

I was forwarded this email by an environmental colleague (See below for email and those on the email, primarily folks like Dupont, the Chemistry Council and Petroleum Council lobbyists, and consultants). I have gone to SRAG meetings in the past, which have been open to the public and included a public comment opportunity. Given the importance of the agenda items, particularly the DEP’s new draft Remedial Priority System, I decided to attend and report to the public about these issues via this blog.

[Update: for an analysis of the flaws with DEP’s “Remedial Priority System” see: NEW JERSEY TOXIC CLEAN-UP PRIORITIES MISS PUBLIC HEALTH MARK ~~~ end update]

I arrived at the DEP building, signed in, and entered the meeting in DEP’s public meeting room. There were well over 50 people in attendance, mostly consultants and LSRPs.

While I was having an informal conversation with Deputy Attorney General George Schlosser, DEP Security advised me that Commissioner Martin directed me to leave the meeting. I asked him on what basis this Order was issued and was told the meeting was by invitation only. I replied that if this were the case, then Martin should try to enforce that restriction, as I was under the impression the meeting was open, and not by invitation, having attended open SRAG meetings before. Other  NJ environmentalist were invited, so this was not a private confidential industry only meeting.

Shortly thereafter, 3 state police officers showed up, directed me out of the public hearing room, told me that Martin had asked them to eject me, and took my personal identification information for their police action report.

Today’s over the top use of State Police is part of a troubling an unacceptable pattern by Martin to shut down public involvement in DEP decisions.

New World Order indeed!

Dear Commissioner Martin:

I am writing to condemn your decision to ask the State Police to eject me from the Site Remediation Advisory Group (SRAG) briefing by DEP staff, which was held today at DEP’s public hearing room.

Such heavy handed tactics are un-American, and have no place in state government.

I have attended SRAG meetings in the past.

I testified throughout the legislative debate on the Licensed Site Remediation Professional bill, the subject of today’s briefing.

I testified in the legislature specifically on the topic of the risk based priority system, which also was on today’s briefing agenda.

I received the DEP’s email invitation last week, which was forwarded to me by an environmental colleague. So the meeting was open to other environmental and public interest advocates.

There were dozens of people in the room. No DEP staffer requested identification at the door to assure that all in attendance were on an invitation list. So it is obvious that I was targeted for removal.

It is also obvious why I was targeted, because I am an intense, vocal, and visible advocate of the public interest and transparent government.

In light of this episode, I ask for your support towards reforms to make all DEP advisory group deliberations are open and accessible to the public, transparent, accountable, objective, and subject to ethical standards, as provided by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

Sincerely

Bill Wolfe, Director
NJ PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)
609-397-4861

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Maria Cardona” <Maria.Cardona@dep.state.nj.us>
To: scook@aglresources.com, “Stephen posten” <Stephen.posten@amec.com>, sdudley@anjec.org, AMorresi@aol.com, AnneLB@aol.com, mmoggull@aol.com, pecinc@aol.com, raritan1@aol.com, “Simpson anjec” <Simpson.anjec@aol.com>, Maxwellj@api.org, “David Stout” <David.Stout@arcadis-us.com>, “brian diepeveen” <brian.diepeveen@basf.com>, “Joseph McKeon” <Joseph.McKeon@basf.com>, cfuchiyama@bei-env.com, jbrennan@bei-env.com, Dbackman@birdsall.com, Mbaba@birdsall.com, pcalvert@birdsall.com, “gregory miller2” <gregory.miller2@bp.com>, wfriedman@bracheichler.com, jlisko@brownfield-assoc.com, hbozarth@chemistrycouncilnj.org, TRusso@chemistrycouncilnj.org, janogaki@cleanwater.org, dhouston@colliershouston.com, “bruce amos” <bruce.amos@comcast.net>, karldelaney@comcast.net, “sandra stiles” <sandra.stiles@comcast.net>, SBarnett@connellfoley.com, “warrenw ” <warrenw.@dbr.com>, lbrunt@dewberry.com, “George Schlosser” <George.Schlosser@dol.lps.state.nj.us>, gforrest@dresdnerrobin.com, calilabs@earthlink.net, djoneja@ecctoday.com, Dmoskowitz@ecoIsciences.com, Sward@ensr.aecom.com, jmoran@environcorp.com, Mpotts@environcorp.com, krenninger@envstd.com, “Rick Konkowski” <Rick.Konkowski@ERM.com>, “brent b archibald” <brent.b.archibald@exxonmobil.com>, “john hannig” <john.hannig@exxonmobil.com>, flawson@firstenergycorp.com, edegesero@fmanj.org, “Lisa Hamilton” <Lisa.Hamilton@ge.com>, sboyle@geiconsultants.com, DZailik@gesonline.com, Arobins@ghclaw.com, “benjamin alter” <benjamin.alter@gza.com>, ominnicks@h2m.com, jld@haleyaldrich.com, sgupta@haleyaldrich.com, Sthadigiri@haleyaldrich.com, “christine togno” <christine.togno@hatchmott.com>, SFreeman@hess.com, cmcgowan@ispcorp.com, tborden@kinoy.rutgers.edu, bmontag@kl.com, whyatt@kl.com, “gail conenello” <gail.conenello@klgates.com>, “john spinello” <john.spinello@klgates.com>, cbarnes@Langan.com, nderose@Langan.com, nrivers@Langan.com, gcoscia@Langn.com, gdanis@lindabury.com, nspindel@lowenstein.com, “megan keeper” <megan_keeper@netlabs.net>, jgrasso@njar.com, egcheniara@njba.org, jsinclair@njbia.org, michael@njchamber.com, jconstance@njeda.com, bdressel@njslom.com, eichliNL@obg.com, JMaund@ocdus.jnj.com, jdonohue@peca.net, Jclaypoole@pirnie.com, jjohnston@pmkgroup.com, wberk@ps&s.com, “Bruce Preston” <Bruce.Preston@pseg.com>, “Michael Hornsby” <Michael.Hornsby@pseg.com>, kennethg@ransomenv.com, mgreenberg@riker.com, ssenior@riker.com, kstetser@rouxinc.com, mgonglik@secor.com, “leroy bealer” <leroy.bealer@shell.com>, mnovak@solutionsenvironmental.com, JDavies@sovcon.com, rjc@spsk.com, “Andrew Thomas” <Andrew.Thomas@stantec.com>, “Chris McCardell” <Chris.McCardell@stantec.com>, “Denise Waite” <Denise.Waite@stantec.com>, “John Bolakas” <John.Bolakas@stantec.com>, “Michael Gonglik” <Michael.Gonglik@stantec.com>, “Mike Malone” <Mike.Malone@stantec.com>, FCLivingston@sunocoinc.com, jlceleste@sunocoinc.com, gtyler@tcglaw.com, “gary shelby” <gary.shelby@total.com>, dpompeo@trcsolutions.com, rlippencott@trcsolutions.com, “edward j lutz” <edward.j.lutz@usa.dupont.com>, “Jenny Liu” <Jenny.Liu@usa.dupont.com>, “Sheryl a telford” <Sheryl.a.telford@usa.dupont.com>, “saile eng” <saile_eng@verizon.net>, iwhitman@whitmanco.com, rbritton@whitmanco.com
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2010 2:27:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Site Remediation Advisory Group Meeting

A Site Remediation Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for April 13, 2010 at 1:30 in the Public Hearing Room at the Department of Environmental Protection Headquarters. The agenda will be as follows:

1.Update from each of the Site Remedation Reform Act teams
a. Measures of Success
b. Near-term Priorities
c. Technical Regulations
d. Guidance Documents
2. Presentation of the draft Remedial Priority System
3. Open forum

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Dems Give Christie A Pass On Environmental Cuts and Rollbacks

April 12th, 2010 No comments

[Update: NJNewsroom: Christie cutting $65 million for global warming prevention

[Note: The headline and story are misleading. The $65 million is only the RGGI cut from DEP account – there is $240+million more cut from BPU Clean Energy Fund.]

Bipartisan Scapegoating of DEP at Budget Hearing

I don’t know where to begin. How can a conservative anti-environmental Governor propose to eliminate the DEP Office of Climate Change and cut over $300 million in energy conservation and renewable energy money and get no political pushback from Democrats?

For those interested in the official documents, for DEP Commissioner Martin’s testimony and the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services (OLS) analysis see this. To listen to the hearing, click this.

This was hardly the first time in my 25 year career that I had to sit though a DEP budget hearing. They tend to be annual ceremonies for Legislators to posture and bash DEP for some failure or other, while the DEP Commissioner spins and tries to pull the wool over their eyes.

But still, today was very different – even more hollow. It was difficult to sit through 3 hours and now write about the Assembly Budget Committee’s hearing on DEP’s FY 2010-2011 budget without ridiculing what went on, expressing despair about the state of our democracy, and ranting about the abject failure of the Trenton environmental lobby in educating legislators on the Committee.

A set of falsehoods propagated by the business community permeated the hearing: DEP is “broken”; permit delays are causing significant negative impacts on the depressed economy; and DEP and environmental regulations must be streamlined and reformed to stimulate the economy.

Chairman Greenwald tried to skirt a lack of evidence supporting this myth by distinguishing between negative perception of DEP and the reality (e.g perceptions are reality). Commissioner Martin also tried to play this game, with anecdotes, but he went even further than Greenwald and conceded the point:

“While a certain amount of this reputation can be attributed to hyperbole put forward by select members of the regulated community, much of the criticism is warranted”

Instead of adopting the traditional stance of his predecessors to diplomatically defuse and dispel these convenient myths while stroking a legislator’s ego, today DEP Commissioner Martin strongly reinforced these myths in his testimony.

While caving to the political pressures of legislators, Martin produced no evidence to support a diagnosis of what had caused the financial recession afflicting NJ, the United States, and the global economy. In fact, contrary to these myths, almost all credible professional economists attribute the causes to the financial sector and virtually none target environmental regulation and permit delays – the exclusive focus of today’s scapegoating of DEP for killing the economy.

Since 1993, DEP is required to submit annual “Doria” Reports to the legislature on permit processing actions. These reports indicate that DEP approves over 99% of permits and that backlogs in permit approvals are almost exclusively for currently operating facilities. When delay occurs, these facilities continue to operate under the old permits. Therefore, contrary to the myths that DEP permit backlogs are somehow harming the economy, the data suggest that DEP is not delaying economic development of new projects.

In fact, just the opposite is true: DEP has issued thousands of permits to projects that have not been built. That is why the Legislature recently enacted the Permit Extension Act. There are a glut of DEP approved permits for projects that lack financing and/or demand due to the financial collapse. Solutions lie on Wall Street, the banking industry, and creating Main Street demand. Streamlining DEP approvals will do absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs.

Despite these facts and economic realities, Martin openly expressed “skepticism” of the data in DEP Reports submitted to the Legislature on permit backlogs, but provided not one fact to justify his skepticism. How can an Agency head smear his own Department’s data so casually and without evidence?

Martin gave no evidence that DEP had any impact whatsoever on the depressed economy, or any facts to support the harshly negative assessment of DEP performance he offered in his testimony:

The DEP is broken and needs to be fixed. We must and will make dramatic changes to how we fundamentally do business at the DEP. We need to make permitting and inspections timely and predictable. We need to play a key role in the economic growth of the state. All regulations need to be based on science, data, facts, and cost benefit analysis. Individuals and businesses coming to DEP for permits must be treated like customer (sic).

This is the same tired fact free rhetoric Martin used 3 months ago at his press conference announcement as Christie DEP Commissioner.

In keeping with the fact free Martin testimony, note that OLS stated the following unprecedented caveat:

“OLS presents its analysis of the NJ Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 in truncated form due to extraordinary time constraints. Unlike those of previous years, this year’s analysis is confined to a review of significant changes in appropriations and language provisions recommended by the governor. Discussion points, long a feature of annual OLS budget analyses, will be made under separate cover and on the internet, together with agency responses, from time to time as they are received”

Let’s hope the Senate gets a more thorough OLS analysis and more honest DEP testimony, and conducts substantive oversight accordingly.

So, before I get to today’s bad and the ugly, let me first report the few relatively positive things said (that these are “positive” suggest how truly bad things are):

1) Commissioner Martin said that the DEP Office of Climate Change would not be eliminated totally. He said its budget was zeroed because it was funded by the $65 million RGGI program revenues diverted by the Governor. Martin said that most of the staff will remain and continue developing NJ DEP’s green house gas reduction program. But Martin did not provide (and was not asked to produce) a workload estimate of the staff and resource required to actually implement the ambitious program outlined in the final Global Warming Response Act (GWRA) Plan released by DEP on December 24, 2009. In order to implement the GWRA, a huge increase in DEP staff and resources would be required.

Furthermore, Martin’s testimony stated that these were one time cuts made necessary by the fiscal crisis. However, DEP’s Response to OLS questions states that the 4 FTE staff cuts in that small office (about 50% reduction of the current staffing) is NOT a one shot deal but “represents a continuing savings“. Let’s hope that the Senate probes this flat out contradiction between Martin’s testimony and DEP written materials.

The context here is that Governor Christie is diverting over $300 million of Clean Energy Funds and destroying thousands of good jobs dependent upon that investment.

2) Commissioner Martin acknowledged that many permit applications submitted to the DEP are technically deficient. Yet DEP gets blamed as the bad guy for rejecting those applications and causing permit processing delays;

3) DEP, relative to other state Departments, saw the smallest percentage cuts.

If that is the good stuff, I don’t think you want me to go into the bad and the ugly right now –

So I will hold off in hopes of more serious deliberations in the Senate Budget Committee on April 27.

Bottom Line: in terms of stupid, irresponsible rhetoric, it’s a toss-up between Assemblymen Mallone or O’Scanlon.

Despite the fact that O’Scanlon said he personally would donate to a Fund to pave and recreate the parking lot being converted to an urban riverfront State Park along banks of the Delaware River behind the State House, I’ll go with Mallone, because he gets his briefings from Hal Bozarth of the Chemistry Council (gentleman that he is, my good friend Hal said “Fuck you!” when I suggested this after the hearing!).

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

The Role of Economics At DEP

April 11th, 2010 No comments

[Update #2 – 4/16/10 – strong Asbury Park Press editorial: “Aiding economy not DEP’s job

Update #1 below]

Todd Bates of the Asbury Park Press has written an important story about the role of economics at the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): “Push for DEP to weigh economic impacts creates a stir”.

For now, I want to emphasize two key issues brought out in quotes in Todd’s story, both of which I have written about in depth previously (e.g. see this and this):

1. The DEP was NOT created and authorized by the Legislature to promote economic development. Commissioner Martin’s push to have DEP “play a major role in economic development” is not only a radical departure from practices for over 40 years at DEP, but it is not legally authorized and actually conflicts with many environmental laws.

Martin’s most recent plan to create an Assistant Commissioner for Economic Development and Governor Christie’s Executive Order #2 mandate that DEP consider cost-benefit analysis in regulations should be blocked by the Legislature:

Should New Jersey’s environmental agency play a key role in economic development?

New Jersey Environmental Commissioner Bob Martin thinks so, and soon he will appoint an assistant commissioner for economic development – believed to be a first in the agency’s nearly 40-year history. But the Department of Environmental Protection’s job is to protect the environment and public health, not the economy, some environmental law experts and activists said.

“I don’t see anything in (the state law detailing the DEP’s powers) that has to do with promoting the economy,” said Jeff Climpson, environment section chief in the state Office of Legislative Services, which drafts state legislation.

2. The role of economics in setting environmental and public health standards is strictly limited under most federal and virtually all NJ environmental laws.

The economic impacts of regulations must be analyzed and described, and may be considered in how some standards are implemented.

But economic impacts may not be considered as factors that form the basis of decisions on regulatory standards, e.g. the level at which, or how strictly health and environmental standards are set (see below example of factors that may be considered in setting NJ drinking water standards).

Commissioner Martin completely fails to even recognize these very basic legal and policy distinctions:

Martin also recently delayed adopting a proposed limit on perchlorate –  a rocket fuel ingredient linked to thyroid problems – in drinking water, partly because of the potential economic impact. The proposed limit had been in the works for years.

Under state law, the DEP commissioner is charged with adopting drinking water standards “within the limits of medical, scientific and technological feasibility.”

Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst who directs the nonprofit New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said considering the economic costs of drinking water limits is “blatantly illegal” and his group is considering a lawsuit on the issue.

DEP’s budget is up before the Assembly Budget Committee tomorrow at 2 pm – Let’s hope Commissioner Martin faces some oversight on these two key issues.

PS – Here is the legal basis for NJ drinking water standards – they do not include cost factors – as I wrote on March 12:

The [Drinking Water Quality] Institute considers three factors when recommending MCLs: health effects, technological ability to measure the contaminant level, and ability of existing treatment technologies to meet the MCL. For chemicals causing effects other than cancer (noncarcinogens), the goal is the elimination of all adverse health effects resulting from ingestion, within the limits of practicability and feasibility. The Federal standard-setting process considers these factors and an additional economic factor. (perchlorate proposal at page 19-20)

We will be writing much more on this topic – for the policy wonks out there interested in in depth analysis and critique of cost benefit analysis, check out this paper, from the Harvard Environmental Law Journal – “Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Pragmatic Reorientation” – it provides an outstanding analysis and includes very relevant case studies of mercury (clean air) and arsenic (drinking water) standards: (key excerpts)

3. Regulatory Relief

While economic theory provided the rationale for using CBA to assess proposed regulation, there was also a political motivation in the adoption of regulatory analysis. In the 1980s, the business community seized on the economic and think-tank literature to lobby for regulatory reform.94 The objective, however, was “regulatory relief” the reduction of regulatory costs no matter how this might affect the public interest.95 The Reagan Administration had a foot in both the regulatory reform and relief camps. It established a “Task Force on Regulatory Relief” chaired by Vice President George H.W. Bush, and made it responsible for supervising OIRA’s review of regulations.96 This double agenda opened the door for a politicization of the regulatory review process. As discussed in the next Part, the door is still open.

1. Politicization

The record of the White House’s administration of regulatory analysis in several administrations indicates that CBA has not significantly mitigated the politicization of policy-making. Anecdotal and empirical evidence indicates that White House review tilts in the direction of reducing the stringency of proposed regulations. Scholars have identified dozens of instances in which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) slowed strong regulatory initiatives and/or sought to reduce their stringency.97

2. Accuracy

The inability of CBA to measure regulatory costs and benefits accurately in many situations is well known. This obviously limits the usefulness of CBA in determining the economic efficiency of proposed regulations.111 CBA as practiced by regulatory agencies and OIRA is imprecise for a number of methodological reasons. On the cost side, as just discussed, agencies are dependent on regulated entities for estimates and this information is unreliable. 112 There are a number of significant difficulties on the benefit side, but four problems stand out.

3. Bias

The results of CBA are not only inaccurate, they are often biased by the analyst’s policy preferences or the value judgments that are implicit in rational choice methodologies. It is therefore no accident that regulatory opponents often come up with benefit estimates that are far lower than the agency’s estimates or those of pro-regulatory sources.142 CBA is open to such manipulation because it attempts to resolve “trans-scientific” issues. Trans-scientific issues are questions that can be stated in the language of science, but are not answerable in purely scientific terms.143

[…]

(values and ethics)

CBA’s critics have made two arguments that reflect this post-empiricist perspective. They object that CBA only addresses the value of economic efficiency even though other values like altruism, dignity, equity, fairness (in both procedural and substantive senses), decency, mutuality, tolerance, and empathy . . . are highly valued in a civilized society.158 They also object to analyzing regulatory options on the basis of economic efficiency at all. This objection is to CBA’s utilitarian basis. Under CBA, the protection of individuals is treated as a “good”, like any other commodity, that can be bought and sold. As a result, people have no claim to protection from harm if their lives do not have sufficient economic value.159 A significant purpose of post-empiricism is to understand and explain the assumptions that underlie social theories and the linkage between these assumptions and empirical outcomes.

Update #1 – in advance of Martin’s confirmation hearing, on Feb. 27, I wrote:

5. Martin wants DEP “to play a key role in the economic growth of the state”. For now, I would just like to remind Martin and Senate Judiciary Committee members that promoting economic growth is NOT the statutory mission of DEP. Because so few seem to know what the DEP is supposed to do, here is DEP’s mission and powers, as established in DEP’s enabling legislation (note especially the lack of economic development powers):

These issues were not even discussed during confirmation. Today is DEP’s budget hearing in Assembly Cmte – will they be ignored again?

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Howell Living History Farm

April 11th, 2010 No comments

A Great Place for Kids of All Ages

IMG_9238

[Update: 7/18/10 – good Asbury Park Press story: Young NJ farmers are cultivating a future ~~~ end update]

Saturday morning was spectacular, but a little too cool and windy for a bike ride, so I went for a combined “local walk” at the new D&R Greenway Dry Creek Trail (trail guide) and visit to nearby Howell Living History Farm. I ended up at Goat Hill. Howell Farm is an amazing place where history, nature, families, work, technology, discovery and fun come together.

Take a look (good info from the Mercer County Park Commission:

Howell Living History Farm is a time machine that takes you back to the year 1900 – a time when horses and buggies traveled the lanes of Pleasant Valley, and when farms were bordered by snake fences and Osage orange trees.

You were a farmer, then the kind that could drive a team of horses and plow a furrow with a walking plow. You could build a barn, or deliver a lamb, or bake a loaf of bread from wheat that you grew yourself. And you may have been remembered for the time you canned 200 quarts of tomatoes in a day, or the May Day you went to town in a one-horse sleigh.

Today, if it is time to harvest corn, you can ride up into a field in a horse drawn wagon, help us shock and pick corn, and return to the barnyard to help shell it, grind it, and bake it into cornbread. We invite you to help us plant, cultivate and harvest our crops, to care for our animals, to sweep our barn, to make soap, butter and ice cream, and of course to sit under the maple tree and talk about the future. (The future looks good, by the way. There are rumors of “combines”, horseless buggies and automatic ice cream makers.)

Stop by on Saturday – That’s when most of the neighbors do

IMG_9236

IMG_9242

IMG_9241

IMG_9243

IMG_9245

IMG_9280

IMG_9250

IMG_9255

IMG_9281

IMG_9262

IMG_9266

IMG_9272

IMG_9276

IMG_9275

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: