WolfeNotes.com

[Update: 2/21/11 – The Atlantic City Press reports on another bomb that went off – and instead of responding and doing theri job, DEP irresponsibly ducked again and dumped the problem in the County’s lap. See: Port Republic officials say oil leak may force teardown of City Hall

The spill occurred in late January when oil leaked into the ground through a small hole in an above-ground tank. A new tank was installed and a cleanup occurred. A week later, the building was shut down after employees who work at the Main Street building complained of nausea and headaches.

Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said the state was alerted about the spill and referred cleanup efforts to Atlantic County. County Emergency Preparedness Director Vincent Jones could not be reached for comment last week.

It’s groundhog day at the nation’s most notorious toxic waste site – Love Canal:[full story]

Contamination related to Love Canal found in LaSalle – ˜Volatile organic compounds” stemming from Love Canal found during routine pipe work

NIAGARA FALLS – A chemical compound found by a contractor working in a LaSalle neighborhood has been connected to Love Canal-era contamination, multiple sources confirmed to the Niagara Gazette on Thursday.

The substance was found last week when a Niagara Falls Water Board contractor, working in the vicinity of the 70-acre Love Canal containment structure, broke into a clay pipe, releasing a chemical compound.

The compound released from the pipe produced an odor which could be smelled blocks away from the site of the excavation, the contractor said.

The fact that history repeated itself at Love Canal came as a shock to many, so I assume that people would be suprised to learn that a technically similar – but far less well known – case was reported this week in a story from the Belleville Times. That story shows that another ticking chemical timebomb has gone off.

For the statewide context for this local story, see: NEW JERSEY CLOSING ITS NOSE TO VAPOR INTRUSION CRISIS – Vapor Intrusion Rules Cast into Regulatory Limbo as Horror Stories Multiply

Belleville urges Walter-Kidde neighbors to take precaution [click for full story]

Homes and businesses near the former Walter Kidde industrial site may be contaminated by a cancer-causing chemical, trichloroethylene, according to Belleville officials.

DALE MINCEY/BELLEVILLE TIMES

TCE, which removes grease from metal parts, can cause nerve, kidney, and liver damage when inhaled for “long periods” of time, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. Clinical studies on mice and rats have further suggested that “high levels” of TCE can result in liver, kidney or lung cancer.

Neighboring property owners believed to be at risk received a letter from the Belleville Department of Health last week. They were invited to attend an information session on Wednesday. About 16 residents showed up, along with several township officials, and the environmental specialist and attorney representing Belleville in a complaint against the site’s current owners.

“Two people in my house had cancer in the last 10 years, and when I read this…” said resident Diane Bruno. “We thought this was said and done,” she added of the issues surrounding the site.

History

The township and the Department of Environmental Protection knew for years that there was some groundwater contamination at the former Walter Kidde site, located at 675 Main St., township officials said. However, DEP officials had said the “chlorinated solvent” in the groundwater was contained to the Walter Kidde land and posed no imminent danger to neighbors.

“Groundwater moves, but as far as we know, it’s currently [staying] on the property,” DEP spokesman Larry Hagna told the Times in October.

Since then, the township has discovered that the current owners “hid” some information pertinent to their property’s contamination, Township Attorney Thomas Murphy said.

This is another example of negligent oversight and borderline criminal incompetence at the DEP cleanup program.

We predicted this and issued warnings almost 5 years ago: MERCURY-LADEN DAY-CARE CENTER IN NEW JERSEY IS NO ANOMALY – Lax State Brownfield Laws Make Tragedy an Accident Waiting to Happen

This is yet another example of “vapor intrusion” –  how chemicals can migrate through groundwater, soil, and along infrastructure to poison people in buildings without their knowledge.

The NJ vapor intrusion poster child is the Dupont site, in Pompton Lakes, where 450 or more homes have been poisoned and elevated cancer rates have been documented by State health officials.

DEP knows exactly where all these potential “vapor intrusion” sites are located.

The sites (i.e. sites with known volatile organic chemicals in groundwater) are mapped in DEP’s  Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers (hit this link – scroll down for “groundwater contamination areas“). (Here is DEP GIS FAQ, which identifies software needed to access these maps)

Despite these known health risks, DEP refuses to act proactively to get control of these sites and warn people who live nearby who are being poisoned.

Again, local officials were unaware of what was going on at a highly contaminated site and forced to act and warn their residents – all because DEP failed to do so.

This DEP failure to act is an outrage (see “A Big Map for Toxic Site Cleanup“).

DEP knows exactly what needs to be done (but is doing the opposite – even weakening groundwater cleanup requirements).

History

Back in 2007, in the wake of the Kiddie Kollege scandal, where 60 toddlers were poisoned by chemical vapors in a daycare center (located in a former industrial mercury battery manufacturing building, which was a known toxic site where that DEP failed to monitor or enforce a cleanup Order) DEP conducted a statewide vapor intrusion investigation.

But that 2007 investigation was very narrowly targeted at daycare centers and schools (see: 60 MORE NEW JERSEY DAY-CARE CENTERS NAMED ON TOXIC WARNINGS – Hundreds of Homes, Schools and Other Facilities May Also Be Vulnerable

Immediate Reforms Needed

DEP must conduct a real statewide vapor intrusion investigation and response, including:

• mapping all potential sites and surrounding homes and buildings;
• warning local officials and surrounding neighbors of the risks;
• sampling building interiors;
• installing vapor mitigation systems; and
• enforcing cleanup requirements adn making polluters pay.

DEP can no longer sit back and wait for polluters to develop cleanup plans – they have shown no interest in cleanups and do everything possible to avoid, delay, or reduce cleanup costs.

Call your legislators and demand a statewide investigation. DEP knows where all these ticking timebombs are located.

Belford, NJ

[Update: 2/21/11 – Sunday’s WaPo echoed the “end of the wild”: Predator fish in oceans on alarming decline, experts say

Over the past 100 years, some two-thirds of the large predator fish in the ocean have been caught and consumed by humans, and in the decades ahead the rest are likely to perish, too.

…  This grim reckoning was presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting Friday during a panel that asked the question: “2050: Will there be fish in the ocean?” [end update]

The Obama Administration’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) yesterday released a new draft policy on aquaculture (e.g. industrial farming of the ocean for sea food and other commercial products). (NY Times story: U.S. Proposes Aquaculture Guidelines

The proposal includes a sad admission: the end of wild fisheries (which aren’t viewed as wild animals, but as “stocks” for commercial harvest to meet economic demand):

“Because wild stocks are not projected to meet increased demand even with rebuilding efforts, future increases in supply are likely to come either from foreign aquaculture or increased domestic aquaculture production, or some combination of both.”

Among the “environmental challenges” NOAA sees are:

Environmental challenges posed by aquaculture, depending upon the type, scope, and location of aquaculture activity, may include nutrient and chemical wastes, water use demands, aquatic animal diseases and invasive species, potential competitive and genetic effects on wild species, effects on endangered or protected species, effects on protected and sensitive marine areas, effects on habitat for other species, and the use of forage fish for aquaculture feeds. Economic and social challenges may include market competition affecting the viability of competition with other uses of the marine environment; degraded habitats and ecosystem services; and impacts to diverse cultural traditions and values.

One would assume that NJ based ocean protection groups that oppose “the industrialization of the ocean” will be aggressively urging the public and Governor Christie to oppose the NOAA policy, as its prime objective is to further  industrialize and commercialize the ocean:

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to enable the development of sustainable marine aquaculture within the context of NOAA’s multiple stewardship missions and broader social and economic goals. Meeting this objective will require NOAA to integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations in management decisions concerning aquaculture. This policy reaffirms that aquaculture is an important component of NOAA’s efforts to maintain healthy and productive marine and coastal ecosystems, protect special marine areas, rebuild overfished wild stocks, restore populations of endangered species, restore and conserve marine and coastal habitat, balance competing uses of the marine environment, create employment and business opportunities in coastal communities, and enable the production of safe and sustainable seafood.

Given Governor Christie’s self-described and highly praised commitments to protect the ocean and NJ fisheries, although he lacks veto power over NOAA, perhaps he can work on a bi-partisan basis with the NJ Congressional delegation to strengthen NOAA’s policy.

From my limited perspective, the proposal amounts to a big punt on the most critical issue of concern, which is whether we have a national, science based oceans policy, or the voluntary, fishing industry dominated chaos at the regional fisheries management councils. Here’s the key language, which is evidence of the big fold:

Regulation  

• Work with Congress, federal agencies, Fishery Management Councils, and federal advisory councils or committees to clarify NOAA’s regulatory authority related to aquaculture in federal waters and to establish a coordinated, comprehensive, transparent, and efficient regulatory program for marine aquaculture in federal waters based on criteria for sustainable marine aquaculture.

• Work with federal, state, local, tribal, and regional agencies and organizations to clarify regulatory requirements and to establish coordinated, comprehensive, science-based, transparent, and efficient processes for permit reviews, permit consultations, and other regulatory and management actions for marine aquaculture in state waters taking into account existing authorities and regional, state, and local goals, policies, and objectives.

The public comment period on the proposal closes on April 11, 2011. We’ll keep you posted.

Republicans as “Last Bastion of Polluters and Science Deniers” (Waxman)

I listened to the new Republican controlled House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing yesterday on a bill to reverse the 2007 Supreme Court’s “Massachusetts” decision and strip EPA of the power to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. (hit link for the hearing testimony)

Taking a page out of Orwell, the Republican bill was titled “The Energy Tax Prevention Act“.

To get a grasp of the broader meaning of what is going on, watch “How Climate Change Became a ‘Liberal Hoax’ “

You really can’t make this stuff up – the Committee’s lead witness was notorious global warming denier Senator Inhoffe, yet NO SCIENTISTS were allowed to testify by the Republican leadership.

In a deeply cynical move, the Republicans invited the National Black Chamber of Commerce to slam the Obama Administration’s regulatory policy, including the temporary off shore drilling moratorium imposed after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. Shamefully, the NBCoC representative blamed departed Energy Czar Carol Browner, not EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, for the problems.

The American Farm Bureau Federation testimony repeatedly lied and fear mongered about the impact of EPA GHG rules, which do not even apply to agriculture.

Mr. Fred T. Harnack of US Steel was the only industry witness to put his cards on the table. Although EPA’s proposed GG rules would not even apply to US steel plants, Harnack attacked other EPA proposed rules, including a proposed new lower NAAQS for ground level ozone and EPA’s “boiler MACT” rule (see below for important details).

Harnack recommended that the Committee ramp up attacks and hold additional hearings to rollback core protections under the Clean Air Act, by focusing on: 1) cumulative economic impacts of EPA rules (citing Obama’snew Executive Order on regulatory review); 2) role of technology; 3) EPA Guidance and testing methods; 4) multi-media and multi-pollutant approaches; and 5) state and federal resource levels and (in)competence.

Republicans on the Committee – dominated by oil producing states Texas and Lousianna – spent their 5 minutes of fame hammering EPA and simply making shit up.

They falsely claimed that EPA rules would: 1) cause rolling blackouts, 2) double food prices, 3) destroy family farms, 4) block $300 billion in economic investments that could create 1.5 million new jobs, 5) close US manufacturing plants, 6) kill thousands of jobs, export jobs, etc.

Republican members did all this while ignoring or denying science and manufacturing fear. Not surprisingly, the same slogans are being used and similar arguments are now being made in NJ.

EPA testimony that independent studies show that Clean Air Act regulations have provided economic benefits that exceed costs by a factor of 30 -1 was ignored (or mocked at one point).

Although the necessary focus of the hearing was on EPA’s Clean Air Act “endangerment finding” – mandated by the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts decision – there was virtually NO TESTIMONY on this finding. EPA found that GHG emissions endanger human health and welfare,

A full discussion of exactly how GHG emissions and global warming interact with existing criteria pollutants to harm public health would have helped deflect Republican claims that their opponents were engaging in “scare tactics” by falsely claiming that the bill would rollback the Clean Air Act standards for criteria pollutants like ozone. The bill is limited to EPA GHG jurisdiction.

Once this endangerment finding is made, EPA is legally required to regulate GHG pollution sources.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson did a pretty good job of defending the Obama Administration’s policy, EPA’s “endangerment finding”, and various other EPA proposed regulations that came under attack during her 2 hour and 20 minute testimony. This was Jackson’s strongest pushback:

 “This bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public“

As is usual, the US media kept the public in the dark [corrrection: at least the NY Times headline was harsh, including another story with a link the the Tea Party] while foreign media did far more in depth and honest coverage. Here’s a teste from the Guardian (of London):

Republicans propose $1.6bn cut to Environmental Protection Agency

After challenging agency’s legal authority over CO2 emissions, cut largest of 70 budgetary measures put forward by party

Republicans have launched an attack on the Obama administration‘s powers to act on climate change, proposing a 17% budget cut to the Environmental Protection Agency.

In a follow-up strike, they repeatedly challenged the legal authority of the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions during a contentious hearing in Congress.

The proposed $1.6bn (£1bn) cut to the EPA was the largest in dollar terms of some 70 budgetary measures put forward by Republicans on Wednesday.

Lisa Jackson, the EPA chief, said the attacks were part of a larger Republican project to roll back years of environmental and safety protections.

“I think this is a serious effort to weaken the clean air act,” she said.

Jackson and the EPA have emerged as prime targets for the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, who have promised to block what they say are “job-killing” regulations.

The energy and commerce committee is now under the control of a Republican, Fred Upton, who told a seminar this week he did not believe in man-made climate change.

Perhaps the ultimate irony – for those with an understanding of regulatory nuance and listening closely to Jackson’s testimony –  is that Jackson was defending a moderate if not weak set of EPA proposed (not yet adopted) regulations. All these EPA proposals are now in the process of being weakened further under Obama’s new “bipartisan” economic development policy.

The Obama global warming policy and proposed EPA regulations at issue are so modest that major players in the energy industry generally support them. Jackson repeatedly advised the Committee of that industry support.

As I’ve previously noted, in response to Republican opposition and corporate attack, EPA is in regulatory retreat across a very broad front.

Previously proposed EPA clean air and global warming related rules being weakened include:

1) The EPA GHG “tailoring rule” applies only to GHG emissions sources greater than 100,000 tons per year. (we wrote about that here).

In contrast, the Clean Air Act defines “major sources” as those with emissions greater than 100 tons per year. EPA simply made up the 100,000 ton threshold out of thin air.

Although this “tailoring” rule is under political attack, ironically it was done to protect industry from over-regulation (there are about 6 million sources above 100 tons, while EPA “tailoring” applies to just 550 of the largest sources).

EPA’s concession in “tailoring” regulatory requirements not only lacks a sound scientific and legal basis, it has had the unintended consequence of inviting political challenge and calls for Congress to amend the Clean Air Act.

In fact, valid legal criticisms of EPA’s tailoring rule were the only intellectually coherent pro-industry arguments made all day. Those arguments tend to support Republican calls for Congress, as the legislative branch – not EPA – to make law and set policy.

2) In December 2010, EPA issued “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT) for GHG source controls . It is limited in scope to energy efficiency measures that will produce marginal emissions reductions, perhaps a maximum of 5%.

Even the Business Roundtable, a conservative business group that strongly opposes EPA regulations did not oppose the EPA BACT. The Roundtable tends to exagerate the impact of EPA rules, yet they understand that EPA could have done far more under the BACT but chose to make small technical changes.

The Roundtable ackowledged this in a January 7, 2011 letter, replying to incoming Republican Chairman Darrel Issa’s request for a business community list of rules to target for rollback:

“On December 23,  2010, EPA  also  indicated  that  it  intended  to promulgate  New  Source  Performance  Standard  (NSPS)  regulations  for major sources.  In general, the  PSD   program  requires  sources  to  apply  the best  available  control  technology (BACT)  to  limit emissions  of  air pollutants,  determined  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  and  the  NSPS  program establishes a  floor - on what this technology  can be.  At this time, there  is  no readily  available  commercial  technology  to  limit  GHG  emissions.  On November 10, 2010, EPA  issued  BACT  guidance  for  the  states  to implement.   In  general,  this  guidance  calls  for  a  reliance  on efficiency  measures,  rather  than  fuel  switching  or entirely  new, unproven  technology  to  control  GHG emissions.”

3. EPA announcement of scheduled proposal of “New Source Performance Standards” for refineries and power plants. EPA is in “listenening mode” and has not proposed anything, and it is not likely that new EPA NSPS will go beyond the December State BACT guidance (I’ve analyzed that plan here).

These complex regulatory issues have been greatly misunderstood as a radical overreach by EPA that will shut down 150 existing coal plants and/or force them to retrofit to “cleaner” natural gas fuel sources.

Even the NY Times is confused, as evidenced by this February 5 editorial “Clean Air Under Siege” which erroneously concluded:

“The modest regulations the agency has already proposed, plus stronger ones it will issue later this year, should lead to the retirement of many of the nation’s older, dirtier coal-fired power plants and a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions.”

As the Business Roundtable noted above, EPA is taking very small and ineffective steps, limited to energy efficiency. EPA will not mandate or induce fuel switching, shutdown, or renewable power.

4) EPA “boiler MACT“

Administrator Jackson testified to the Committee yesterday that EPA’s proposed “boiler MACT” rule would be “substantially changed” (i.e weakened).

Again, let’s rely on the Business Roundtable to describe what is going on (look closley at how they view the nature of the “risks” – certainly not as risks to human health):

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish National  Emissions  Standards  for  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)  for major  (and area)  sources of hazardous  air pollutants (HAPS)  that   are  subject  to  regulation. Pursuant to a consent decree approved by  the  U.S. District  Court  for  the District  of  Columbia,  EPA  is required to issue  a proposed  rule  for the  regulation  of  HAPS  emissions  from  coal and oil-fired utility boilers by March 16, 2011  and to finalize the rule by November 16, 2011.  It is anticipated  that  any  final  rule  will  require  the  installation  of  costly  new [pollution] control  equipment at virtually every existing coal-fired utility boiler.  In addition, it  is  not clear if  technology is available  to  meet  the  anticipated  standards  if EPA  does not  use  its authority  to sub-categorize  or tailor  its  regulations depending  on  coal types.  Regardless  of the  final  form  of  the rule,  it  is  anticipated  that  significant  coal  generating  capacity  will  be  at risk  for  closure  as a  consequence  of   the  rule.

5. Biomass – on January 12, 2011, EPA announced its plan to defer, for three years, greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources.

Is the proposed new ozone standard next to take the political hit?

EPA Superfund cleanup worker – if you believe that NJ private contractors, whose clients are corporate polluters, acting with no government oversight, will design and implement protective (expensive) worker and community health and safety plans, then I have some toxic assets in Florida for you.

interlude (noun): A short farcical entertainment performed between the acts of a medieval mystery or morality play.

Thanks to a last minute heads up by Bob Speigel of Edison Wetlands Association (EWA), last night I sat in on a “public” meeting of the NJ Site Remediation Professionals Licensing Board (SRPLB – or “Board”).

“Our lives are strange dark interludes in the electrical display of God the Father!”

So if you find nothing in the corridors open the doors, if you find nothing behind these doors there are more floors, and if you find nothing up there, don’t worry, just leap up another flight of stairs. As long as you don’t stop climbing, the stairs won’t end, under your climbing feet they will go on growing upwards.

I was allowed to say a few words at the conclusion of the 2 hour meeting, as were folks from EWA and the NJ Chapter of the Sierra Club.

We all share a deep concern that the SRPLB is is implementing a fatally flawed law and is more interested in protecting the reputations and profits of private consultants than in protecting public health and the environment.

That surmise was only enhanced by what I heard last night during the Board’s “deliberations”.

Magritte “The Menaced Assassin” (1927)

So here’s a thumbnail sketch of why that’s the case and what the implications are (see Margritte above for the surreal dynamics at play) .

After Bob Speigel gave me the heads up, I searched for documents to review in preparation for the meeting so I could meaningfully participate.

But not only could I not locate any documents, over 1 year after the Board was created, I could not locate a Board website, the agenda for the meeting, or the time and location.

When I arrived and requested copies of the documents that were to be discussed during the meeting, I was given an agenda and told that no documents are available for public release.

So much for meaningful public comment – “So if you find nothing in the corridors open the doors ….”

The Board was not discussing trivial matters – agenda items included:

Apparently not satisfied with the fact that the toxic site cleanup program has been privatized  and DEP oversight effectively eliminated, the private consultants and engineering firms have also gained control of writing the DEP regulations with which they will have to comply.

One example of how captured DEP is by private interests: DEP recently proposed to eliminate mandatory cleanup timeframes to provide “a safety cushion” for consultants.

Going beyond the absurdity of having the consultants for regulated polluters writing the cleanup regulations that they will have to comply with (the front end), those same private interests also dominate the Board and now they are writing the requirements for their own oversight, enforcement, and auditing (the back end).

The Board’s conception of implementing the “audit” mandated by law was to develop a questionairre to those audited. The Chair of the Audit Committee designing the audit requirements is an LSRP consultant who is subject to audit. The draft questionairre and audit process were not made available for public comment.

Board members explicitly said that the objective of the audit process and questionairre is “not to look at the technical basis and facts supporting the documents” and that they will only conduct a paper review (could you imagine that kind of “audit” from the IRS?). One Board member was highly skeptical of that approach and questioned how the Board could determine if the documents and certifications submitted by the audited consultants were accurate and truthful.

This “pay to play” on steroids system functions as if  Wackenhut Private Security Guards replaced the police; corporate CEO’s replaced prosecutors and judges, and corporate managers replaced juries.

Last night, with no sense of irony or shame, the complaint and disciplinary process was presented by Jorge Berkowitz of Langan Engineering (nominated to the Board by Governor Christie). Talk about an inside job – that’s the same consulting firm that has 9 staff involved in writing the DEP cleanup requirements (for details, see this).

Jorge Berkowitz, Langan Engineering, presents a draft disciplinary process. The Board as cop, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner (Jorge apparently was unaware of OAL appeal rights and indifferent in not hostile to transparency and public accountability.)

Here’s what the Star Ledger editorial board had to say on January 2 about Langan’s $25,000 political contribution to a front group supporting Governor Christie’s legislative agenda (and in even more irony and absurdity, Berkowitz is one of the better Board members!):

a sleazy practice that puts both parties within winking distance of a bribe, and that it engenders widespread mistrust.

Ordinarily, I would urge the public to become involved in the process to improve protections of the public interest.

Sadly, in this case, I am unable to do so in good conscience.

When public policy goes this far off the rails, and when those controlling the process are either oblivious to the consequences or cravenly using it to advance private special interests, then traditional public involvement becomes a sham, fraud, and perverse waste of time.

Unfortunately, it seems like we will have to wait for even worse disasters before any change to this system – and that may be a long time, because the impacts of the decisions that will be made by private cleanup contractors are not clearly visible.

But the consequences include things like poisoned water supplies, needless exposure to toxic chemicals and increased health risks, and more havoc on natural ecosystem functions.

We close with Kafka:

The Court wants nothing of you. It recieves you when you come and dismisses you when you go.

EPA Region 2 Administrator, Judy Enck speaks at Bergen Community College (2/4/11)

I’ll get around to the mountaintop mining issue, via a long and circuitous route. So bear with me as I put a political context around it.

Today, Obama Administration EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck spoke before a large audience at Bergen Community College (for coverage of the event, see co-sponsor Bergen Record story)

I respect Enck, who is the real deal and emerged the old fashioned way: from the NY environmental activist community. She later served with Eliot Spitzer when he was NY Attorney General and NY Governor.

Enck spoke as a warmup speaker for the keynote address by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy did not disappoint – he made the case for the need to manage our planet and shared natural resources and respond to global warming (what Enck called “the gravest threat facing the planet”).

Seemingly contrasting our current challenges and gridlock, Kennedy traced the history of FDR’s leadership in converting the depression era US industrial base into a full employment, jobs producing war machine. He clearly longed – but did not call out Obama – for that kind of leadership to make the transition to a clean energy economy. He linked energy to national security and patriotism (2 arguments I tend to gag on).

As an example of the kind of inexorable change Kennedy claimed is rapidly being driven by market forces, Kennedy touted his own entreprenurial investments in electric car systems in Israel and the Netherlands (which only begged the question of why Kennedy seems unable to secure investments in similar US electric car production and why the US is lagging and missing these opportunities).

But perhaps Kennedy’s strongest remarks were delivered – in just one sentence – when he noted that the war in Iraq cost over $4 trillion. Less than that ($3 trillion) could provide a new alternative energy infrastructure and free energy forever. (I bet you won’t read that quote in the press coverage).

That linkage between war expenditures and domestic neglect evoked the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who famously noted that the obscene costs of the Vietnam War diverted social investments in – and ultimately killed – the Great Society:

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. delivers keynote at Bergen Community College

I was disappointed not only by Kennedy’s neoliberal emphasis on market forces (as opposed to government policy), but that he politically failed to call out Governor Christie or those he referred to as the “troglodytes” and “global warming deniers” in Washington DC.

Kennedy repeatedly criticized what he called the false choice between economic development and environmental protection. He noted that pollution is inefficiency, and that capitalism and “free” markets promote efficiency. He contrasted so called “free markets” with the “crony capitalism” and corporate monoploy we suffer.

But I don’t buy this argument. So called “free markets” are a myth. Basically, it’s only a question of whether the government is intervening in markets to side with the people and the environment, or for the corporations.

Capitalism, markets, individualism, competition,and consumption (and their public policy correlaries: privatization, deregulation, “free trade”, corporate subsidies, and neoliberal economics) are at the root of our ecological, economic, and social crises.

But if you’re going to make an argument, at least back it up politically. Kennedy did not deliver on that front.

Kennedy was speaking in NJ – the belly of the right wing Tea Party backlash beast – where Gov. Christie NOW is aggressively deploying exactly the false choice Kennedy rejected, between economic growth and environmental protection. Christie is using such specious arguments to rollback environmental protections. The Christie backlash model is being replicated in several other states and by the Republicans in the House in Congress.

How could Kennedy not directly challenge Gov. Christie in Christie’s backyard?

Kennedy needs a few basic economic theory courses. No economist on the planet would disagree that pollution and public health, respectively, are examples of “externalities” )costs or benefits not reflected in prices) and “public goods” (a resource for which ownership can not be assigned and access and use can not be excluded). Other public goods include common pool resources include clean air, clean water, oceans, wildlife, etc.

Economists agree that prices, assignment of property rights, and markets fail in these cases- amounting to so called “market failure” in neoclassical economic theory.

These market failures – which are pervasive in the environmental realm – justify government regulatory intervention.

While Kennedy correctly noted that corporations are private profit internalizing and social cost “externalizing machines”, Kennedy incoherently spouted nonsense about the wonders of so called “free markets”. If he doesn’t want to engage the economic theory debate, he at least needs to read fellow New Yorker Eliot Spitzer’s justification for government intervention to address market failure (see this).

But these are long and tendentious arguments, so let’s keep it simple and just post some photos.

I want to focus the photos on one small part of what EPA RA2 Enck said (we posted previously here).

Now we finally get to the mountaintop removal issue!

At the outset of her remarks, Enck highlighted EPA’s major historical contributions, including EPA’s recent decision to revoke a Clean Water Act permit for mountaintop removal coal mining operations in West Virginia.

Enck was careful to credit EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for that decision, and very clearly state that the mining permit was in West Virginia, not under her jurisdiction.

So I thought I’d repost photos of NJ mountaintop removal mining operations that are violating the Clean Water Act, just in case Enck is unaware of what is going on in her region on the mining front – or if she would like to launch EPA investigations or enforcement actions against same.

Traprock Mine – Hopewell, NJ (on Delaware River, off Rt 29)

Traprock Hopewell – Delaware River in background

Traprock Hopewell (about a mile east/SE, just off Rt 31)

Traprock Princeton

Traprock Princeton

Pinelands mine – in the heart of Pinelands forest

Pinelands mining desert on top of major aquifer

a Pinelands mining operation

eastern timber rattlesnake

rattle is going – excellent camouflage, no?

check out that tongue!

the standoff ended after about 10 minutes when snake decided grass was greener.

view from Overlook Mountain (Castkills, NY) – Ashokan reservoir in background

eastern view from Overlook Mountain – Hudson River in background