WolfeNotes.com

Christie Blames Environmental Protections For Wall Street’s Bubble Driven Economic Recession

Christie’s “State’s Rights” Neshoba County Speech

Gov. Christie - Green Backdrop A Prop & Visual Ploy to Mask environmental attack (Terhune Orchards, 8/17/11)

Maybe now the media won’t have to hedge or qualify “claims” by environmentalists or “harsh critics” that the Governor is hell bent on rolling back environmental and public health protections in order to promote economic development.

Governor Christie just bragged about it – so now they can use his own words.

How’s this for a headline? (see Press of Atlantic City story)

Gov. Christie pitches his re-election to real estate developers

The Governor delivered his red meat attack before a crowd of commercial real estate developers in Edison, a sprawled out toxic post industrial wasteland that serves as a poster child for why NJ needs stronger land use and environmental regulations.

The Governor is so out of touch that he could not remotely perceive the warped irony of his choice of audience or location as the forum to deliver an attack on environmental and public health protections.

The chutzpa recalls Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 Presidential campaign with a “State’s Rights” speech in the racist deep south, Neshoba County Mississippi, just a few miles from the notorious 1964 murders of civil rights workers.

Message received Ronald Reagan – Message received Chris Christie. 

The essence of a Demagogue is to appeal to ignorance and resentment and – with a grain of truth – to present the Big Lie with a straight face.

The Governor succeeded spectacularly:

He was on stage less than two minutes before disparaging the record of his predecessor, Gov. Jon S. Corzine, and Corzine’s DEP chief, Lisa Jackson, who went on to lead the federal Environmental Protection Agency under President Barack Obama.

“We had a situation where things in our state had ground to a halt, and in fact in many ways were moving backward,” Christie said. “We had a regulatory system which was running amok. A DEP which was the most business-unfriendly environmental protection department in America. Of course, the person who ran that department then went to make the EPA the most business-unfriendly organization in America.”

By “ground to a halt”, we presume the Gov. was referring to the economic recession.

Virtually all credible economists attribute the recession to the collapse of Wall Street and the bursting of the greed and fraud driven real estate bubble.

Not one single credible independent economists attributes the economic recession to environmental and public health protections.

In fact, a rich body of literature demonstrates that environmental and public health protection regulations have huge net economic benefits that dwarf their costs to industry, and that they stimulate innovation and create net jobs.

So, there is NO DOUBT that the Gov. was blatenly lying when he blamed environmental regulations and DEP for the economic recession.

Will PolitiFact and media call him out for that Big Lie?

Best Available Science Shows Flaws in FEMA Advisory maps

Why Is DEP Ignoring Best Available Science?

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is directing homeowners rebuilding after Sandy to consult with FEMA’s flood maps—which don’t account for sea-level rise—not the Rutgers map. But DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said the Rutgers tool could help residents affected by Sandy visualize “why it’s important to rebuild to the highest elevation possible.” ~~~ Wall Street Journal, 3/5/13

From day one, we have warned that the FEMA “Advisory Base Flood Elevation” (ABFE) maps do not consider the effects of projected sea level rise or climate change.

The FEMA ABFE maps also do not formally reflect the actual elevations we experienced during Sandy either, because they were developed prior to Sandy.

I believe that we were the first to break this story, (see this December 19, 2012 NJ PEER report:

NEW JERSEY YET TO COME TO GRIPS WITH POST-SANDY FLOOD RISKS – Coastal Maps Do Not Account for Climate Change Effects; Inland Maps Decades Old

[Note: this set of issues also involves maps based on data and statistics of past and current conditions, versus maps based on projected conditions. FEMA Climate Adaptation policy calls for maps to incorporate projected conditions, but historical FEMA practices were based on prior and current conditions. Projections are made more complex due to climate change, which involves sea level rise and the probability of more intense storms surge. Some argue that the historical data and statistical methods are not reliable, given climate change, e.g. the past will not be like the future, which violates a key assumption of the current statistical methods. I hope I don’t botch that too badly – I am no statistician!]

But now, flood elevation maps released last week by Rutgers University prove our criticisms.

Those Rutgers maps (view interactive maps) now put the NJ DEP and Governor Christie is an extremely embarrassing spot, given the fact that the Gov. ordered DEP to adopt the FEMA ADVISORY ABFE maps by emergency regulation.

The FEMA maps and the DEP adoption of them have come under fire, mostly from economic and political interests that want to rebuild as fast and cheaply as possible and kill the FEMA maps completely, not those, like myself, who want to retain and strengthen the FEMA maps to discourage development in dangerous locations.

Some NJ legislators even called the DEP decision to adopt these FEMA maps “insane”. They have hidden this attack on science and sound policy behind defending poor and middle income constituents, who can’t afford to rebuild to costly FEMA requirements.

This debate will boil over tomorrow night in Long Branch, starting at 5:30 pm, in an “after the fact” pro forma public hearing on DEP’s Emergency Rule that adopted the FEMA ABFE maps.

Another negative news story is sure to stoke this debate.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal – no friend of climate change or  limiting highly profitable shore development – reported on the failure of FEMA maps to reflect climate change and sea level rise (see the Wall Street Journal report):

SURF CITY, N.J.—While superstorm Sandy revealed the Northeast’s vulnerability, a new map by New Jersey scientists suggests how rising seas could make future storms even worse.

The map shows ocean waters surging more than a mile into communities along Raritan Bay, engulfing nearly all of New Jersey’s barrier islands and covering northern sections of the New Jersey Turnpike and land surrounding the Port Newark Container Terminal.

Such damage could occur under a scenario in which sea levels rise 6 feet—or a 3-foot rise in tandem with a powerful coastal storm, according to the map produced by Rutgers University researchers.

It’s Groundhog Day at the Jersey Shore

Still Crazy After All These Years

My opinion is to think regional, and think big. … Clearing the barrier island of people will never be realized even if a major storm did 100 million dollars in damage each and every year.  ~~~ Dr. Stewart C. Farrell, Stockton State College (1980)

So, catching up to that huge increase in scientific knowledge I cited previously, let’s fast forward 32 years to November 5, 2012, where that paper of record, the NY Times informs us: ( see: Costs of Shoring Up Coastal Communities)

But even as these towns clamor for sand, scientists are warning that rising seas will make maintaining artificial beaches prohibitively expensive or simply impossible. Even some advocates of artificial beach nourishment now urge new approaches to the issue, especially in New Jersey.

The practice has long been controversial.

Opponents of beach nourishment argue that undeveloped beaches deal well with storms. Their sands shift; barrier islands may even migrate toward the mainland. But the beach itself survives, because buildings and roads do not pin it down.

By contrast, replenishment projects often wash away far sooner than expected. The critics say the best answer to coastal storms is to move people and buildings away from the water, a tactic some call strategic retreat.

Supporters of these projects counter that beaches are infrastructure — just like roads, bridges and sewer systems — that must be maintained. They say beaches attract tourists and summer residents, conferring immense economic benefits that more than outweigh the costs of the projects. Also, they argue, these beaches absorb storm energy, sparing buildings inland.

New Jersey has embraced this approach with gusto. Stewart C. Farrell, a professor of marine geology at Stockton College of New Jersey, said that since 1985 80 million cubic yards of sand had been applied on 54 of the state’s 97 miles of developed coastline: a truckload of sand for every foot of beach. […]

But as the climate warms, sea levels are rising and bad storms may come more frequently. And New Jersey is particularly vulnerable because of tectonic forces and changes in ocean currents. …

“We cannot sustain the shoreline in the future as we have in the past,” said Mr. Williams, of the Geological Survey. “Particularly from a beach nourishment standpoint.”

Right.

Brendan Byrne (Princeton, 3/3/13)

NJ Pinelands preservation supporters turned out in large numbers for a panel discussion at Princeton last Sunday to pay homage to former Gov. Brendan Byrne for his leadership in saving the Pinelands and forcing the legislature to enact the 1979 Pinelands Protection Act.

The well attended event featured a panel discussion among former Governors Byrne and Florio, writer John McPhee, Carleton Montgomery of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, and Michele Byers of NJ Conservation Foundation.

Panelists agreed that without Byrne’s leadership – which led to the passage of the Pinelands Protection Act and the Comprehensive Management Plan –  the 1 million acre Pinelands region would be paved over and look like the wasteland that is most of the rest of NJ.

Panelists also agreed that threats remain unabated, and there is constant political pressure to rollback and exploit loopholes and weaknesses in the Act and CMP.

Governor Florio (who served in Congress from 1975 – 1990) shared his national perspective, noting that the Carter Administration and many in Congress – just like today – were concerned about the Nixon Administration’s energy policy, impacts of off shore drilling, and plans to run pipelines across the Pines to refineries along the Delaware River. This prompted Congress in 1978 to create the nation’s first National Reserve in the Pinelands.

In addition to noting parallels to today’s energy debates, Florio also connected the Pines to regional water issues and climate change, including land subsidence from over-pumping of aquifers, salt water intrusion, and exacerbation of climate change impacts associated with sea level rise.

Florio ran circles around the rest of the panel, in terms of policy and vision, but I was surprised at the relative lack of emphasis on the history and practice of regional planning [and it was interesting that this group chose to highlight Florio’s bio of signing of the Clean Water Enforcement Act, but not his Pollution Prevention Act or Source Reduction/Recycling policy and nationally progressive Solid waste plan, which arguably had far greater positive impact.]

Gov. Byrne retold the history of how, after reading John  McPhee’s 1968 book on the Pinelands, he directed his DEP Commissioner David Bardin to stop issuing permits in the Pinelands. Showing a respect for the rule of law, Commissioner Bardin told him that he couldn’t do that because it was unconstitutional.

So Byrne issued an Executive Order establishing a moratorium on DEP permits.

The moratorium was challenged legally.

In contrast with the myth of an independent, insulated, apolitical judicial branch focsued on the legal merits, Byrne recalled receiving a phone call from Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Hughes, who, Byrne said, asked him when he’d sign legislation to end the moratorium. Byrne recalled that Hughes agreed to hold off hearing the case until legislation was passed.

In these days of failed leadership and constant attacks on government, “job killing red tape” regulations, and environmental protection, it is hard for our current leaders to even imagine Gov. Byrne’s bold move.

Illustrating how far we’ve fallen, instead of that kind of bold, visionary leadership, today we have the irresponsible, short sighted dithering of Gov. Christie, who has issued a series of Executive Orders rolling back environmental protections, under the guise of promoting economic development.

It’s hard to imagine Gov. Christie – the Boardwalk Bully, prancing around  in his Fleece – even reading an environmental book, never mind being moved to take action by one!

Christie’ DEP Commissioner, unlike his predecessor David Bardin, has no knowledge of or respect for environmental laws, and is not seeking to deny permits or thinking about leveraging economic interests in the legislature, but is instead working to deregulate and privatize the DEP permit review process.

What has remained constant since Byrne was in Office, however, are the powerful economic special interests that dominate the Legislature and block progress.

Instead of expanding land preservation and environmental regulation, Gov. Christie is the first Governor since Byrne with absolutely no environmmental legacy or major achievement.

In addition to his regulatory dismantling policies, Christie is presiding over the bankruptcy and failure to reauthorize the Green Acres open space funding program (while diverting over $800 million in clean energy funds).

Even Gov. Whitman didn’t go that far and was able to replenish the Garden State Trust.

Given the demographic and socio-economic profile of the audience (my guess is that average age was over 60, 100% white, and income/wealth in the top 2%), I was disappointed but not surprised that the panel discussion and questions from the audience ignored these Christie gorillas all around the room.

I’m no spring chicken and don’t generally get out among the Pinelands preservation crowd, and yes the place was packed, but I was really surprised by the audience profile, which strongly suggests the need for new blood.

Photos:

John McPhee

Candace Ashmun, longtime Pinelands Commissioner.

Dave Moore

Carleton Montgomery, PPA

Brendan Byrne

Jim Florio, former Governor

Michele Byers, Executive Director, NJCF

Byrne and Florio

An Open Letter to Christie Loyalist Senator Beck

Yesterday, there was an unusual joint meeting of the NJ Senate and Assembly Environment Committees to consider a package of 8 bills regarding Sandy recovery, and to solicit public testimony on other needed legislative efforts.

See the legislative agenda here and listen to the testimony here.

That intervention is an important positive signal that Sandy reform legislative initiatives will be coming out of the environment committees, and not exclusively the Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee oversight process.

I encourage readers to listen to the testimony of former DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello, he was the first to testify and did a superb job. Tim Dillingham of ALS also did a good job [as did NY/NJ Baykeeper!]

Press reports on this important hearing follow the familiar disappointing pattern –

First, it is hard to believe that the Star Ledger reporter was at the same hearing I was, with a story that focused on just one beach maintenance bill, perhaps the least significant issue raised all day.

The Asbury Park Press also ran with that beach story, but at least posted a broader capital quickie.

NJ Spotlight did their typical nice job.

[Update: press better than initially thought. AP story is good, as is Newsworks. and Sarah Watson of the Press Of Atlantic City did the best job – h/t Jeff T.]

It seems like anything that is policy oriented or remotely critical of Gov. Christie’s handling of the issue is perceived as “esoteric”, “partisan sniping” or simply blacked out of NJ news coverage.

So, let’s get back to the hearing.

After being denied the opportunity to testify during the Senate Budget & Appropriations Committees’s series of hearings, I finally got the opportunity to testify.

Regular readers here probably have a pretty good idea what I said, but it took most folks by surprise, especially Senator Beck (R-Monmouth).

Beck has been the Administration’s point person on this set of issues, and she took strong exception to my criticism.

After I had left the microphone and was unable to respond, Beck suggested that I “haven’t taken the time to meet with Mark Ferzan or DEP Commissioner Martin”!.

So, this morning I banged out this reply to Senator Back:

Chairwoman Spencer, Chairman Smith, and Senator Beck – 

Please allow me to provide documents in support of my testimony yesterday, supplement recommendations, and, through the Chairs, respond to Senator Beck’s remarks that followed my testimony.

I) Legislative initiatives

1. Transparency and Oversight for Federal relief plans and NJ Shore Rebuild approach

The federal Sandy relief appropriation bills require that States submit plans to various federal agencies for review and approval regarding proposed uses of federal funds. President Obama’s Executive Order guides the federal response effort (see below).

It is unprecedented in NJ history for one individual – Mark Ferzan Gov.Christie’s Rebuild Czar – unilaterally to govern the administration of billions of dollars in discretionary taxpayer funds and strongly influence the exercise of investment and land use powers – in the absence of any state legislative framework, standards, policies, plans, or structured legislative and public oversight process.

The Legislative branch is responsible for setting policies and priorities for expenditure of taxpayer funds. Legislation is required to remedy these unacceptable non-transprent practices of the Rebuild Czar and broad executive branch discretion in federal appropriations.

The Legislature needs to establish a structured, transparent, and participatory framework for these critical policy and fiscal decisions.

2. The following specific amendments to CAFRA would improve current law and policy:

a) Delete the “reconstruction” exemption from permitting in Section 5 (what DEP Commissioner Mauriello described as the right to rebuild)

b) Create a new vulnerability assessment program, by establishing content requirements, schedules, and mandates that vulnerability assessments be conducted by water & sewer authorities; local governments; and DEP.

Current DEP NJPDES regulations recommend vulnerability assessments and emergency planning and preparedness at certain wastewater treatment plants. These recommendations need to be expanded in light of the Sandy experience and made mandatory and enforceable.

Similarly, DEP water supply regulations require that DEP adopt a statewide emergency plan, but these regulatory requirements have not been implemented. DEP recently denied my OPRA request for these documents in an effort to hide this deficiency.There are no requirements for local government.

NJ DEP and NJ Sea Grant developed a Guidance document and conducted a pilot program that can serve as a framework for legislative consideration, see: Coastal Community Vulnerability Assessment Protocol (CCVAP)

The Partnership for the Delaware Estuary also prepared a pilot study, see: Climate Change and the Delaware Estuary – Three Case Studies in Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning

c) create a new climate change adaptation program. For examples of what other States are doing, see Georgetown University Climate Center:

d) create a new Shore Protection Planning process, through either DEP or via a new Coastal Commission.

I’ve reviewed Senator Van Drew’s bill (S 2575) to require DEP to update the Shore Protection Master Plan. The objectives of that bill are narrowly focused on projects, not regional planning and resource protection, and therefore is not an adequate response.

II)  Supporting documents

The following documents are provided as links, so please hit the links to access the documents –

1. President Obama’s Executive Order Establishing The Hurricane Sandy Rebuild Taskforce:

2. FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy

3. FEMA regulations – Criteria for land management and use 

4. DEP Commissioner Mauriello.s presentation at Monmouth University event – see: A Path Forward on the Shore

5. Massachusetts policy on coastal engineering (as a last resort)

Here’s what state officials in Massachusetts’ Office of Coastal Zone Management say about sea walls and engineered “structural solutions” –

ONLY AS A LAST RESORT: Flood and Erosion Control Structures

In the past, protecting coastal shorelines often meant structural projects like seawalls, groins, rip-rap, and levees. As understanding of natural shoreline function improves, there is a growing acceptance that structural solutions frequently cause more problems than they solve, and they are often not allowed under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Structural protective measures often:

• Are expensive.
• Are not permissible under local and state regulations.
• Cause erosion to beaches and dunes, leading to a loss of recreational and tourism resources and diminished storm damage protection.
• Aren’t permanent, in fact require costly maintenance to ensure that they continue to provide protection.
• Divert stormwater and waves onto other properties.
• Adversely affect other properties by starving beaches of needed sediment sources.
• Create a false sense of security.
• Disturb the land and disrupt natural water flows.

Structural protection should only be considered as a last resort, knowing that it will be an ongoing expense and may increase overall damage to land, buildings, and other structures within the natural system. Whenever structural protection is pursued, hybrid technology (such as combinations of low-profile rock, cobble berms, and vegetative planting, or combinations of marsh plantings and coconut fiber rolls) should be considered as a means of reducing the negative impacts of the structure.

6. NY CIty Department of Planning – Urban Waterfront Adaptation Strategy (attached as file)

7. Perspectives Beyond NJ

a) “New Jersey was really a giant science experiment,” he’d told me.  “New Jersey was the home of some of the first vacation spots and one of the first places to arm their beaches. Thanks to New Jersey we learned that any sort of hard stabilization—sea walls, groins, and jetties—was very damaging to the beach.  We learned that the damage occurs just by building something fixed by the beach—could be a highway, for instance. The problem of beaches is that they are eroding and always moving.  The beach tends to move toward that fixed thing and get narrower and narrower and narrower until it disappears altogether.” […] [Professor Pilkey]

b) The New York Times correctly framed the issue – just days after the storm, the Times wrote this: Costs of Shoring Up Coastal Communities –

“But even as these towns clamor for sand, scientists are warning that rising seas will make maintaining artificial beaches prohibitively expensive or simply impossible. Even some advocates of artificial beach nourishment now urge new approaches to the issue, especially in New Jersey.

The practice has long been controversial.

Opponents of beach nourishment argue that undeveloped beaches deal well with storms. Their sands shift; barrier islands may even migrate toward the mainland. But the beach itself survives, because buildings and roads do not pin it down.

By contrast, replenishment projects often wash away far sooner than expected. The critics say the best answer to coastal storms is to move people and buildings away from the water,a tactic some call strategic retreat. […]

III) Response to Senator Beck

Senator Beck took exception to my criticism and suggested I meet with Mark Ferzan and DEP Commissioner Martin to get a better understanding of the Administration’s policies.

Senator Beck and others may be meeting with Mr. Ferzan and Commissioner Martin, but those are private meetings.

Like millions of NJ residents, I have no idea what “programs are being rolled out” and the plans and frameworks under consideration by the Administration.

I spoke briefly with Mr. Ferzan on February 5, 2013, just prior to the Governor’s press conference in Union Beach, and raised concerns about lack of transparency and a public planning process.

I’ve written DEP Commissioner Martin several times, he simply does not even reply. DEP political appointees on his management team hand pick and invite all DEP stakeholders – I am persona non-grata at DEP.

But more importantly, private behind closed door meetings are totally inappropriate response to the current challenges.

You suggest that the Administration and local officials are well intentioned, and should be trusted.

I took my 6th grade civics textbooks seriously when they said that we are a government of laws, not men.

Accordingly, there are minimum content requirements that define a government initiative, including authorizing law, implementing enforceable regulations, public funding, professional staffing, and a transparent and participatory public process.

The Administration’s Sandy response does not meet these minimum content requirements and therefore can not be described as a real program.

I sensed some concern on your part with motivations.

I was testifying as a non-partisan policy analyst, regulatory expert, and critic, not a lobbyist. My ethic is to advocate the strongest position I can credibly defend based on science, law, and public policy principles. I take this role seriously and almost always source all factual claims based on published documents or expert government sources.

The Senator needs to understand some relevant aspects of my professional history. I don’t play partisan games.

I joined DEP in 1985, through the civil service, under Republican Gov. Kean.

Former Senate Environment Committee Chair, Republican Hank McNamara, appointed me to the Legislative Taskforce that drafted the 1997 Brownfields law.

I worked closely with former Republican Senator Bennett in drafting the 1997 Watershed Management Act.

Former Republican Gov. Whitman’s DEP Commissioner Shinn, appointed me to numerous DEP regulatory stakeholder groups.

At his request, I met and briefed your colleague Declan O’Scanlon when he was a Republican candidate for Assembly. Similarly, at your request, I met and briefed you on the Clean Water Act TMDL program and Barnegat Bay.

I’ve criticized the policies of numerous Democrats, including Gov. Corzine, Senate President Sweeney, and current Chairman Smith – and DEP Commissioners Campbelll, Jackson, and Mauriello.

I worked closely with Senator Smith and OLS in drafting S1, the introduced version of the Highlands Act.

In my testimony yesterday, I cited 4 examples of evidence where the current Administration is moving in the wrong direction. I stand by all that. Here is the text of those documents:

1.  Blue acres acquisition policy

(see budget language)

2. Coastal Hazard Assessment (federal CZM Section 309 Report)

The Christie DEP deleted all the climate change related findings from the Section 309 Coastal Hazard Assessment Report. The DEP downgraded the priority of coastal hazards in that 309 Report from “high” to “moderate”. Just as NJ faced Irene and Sandy, DEP was downplaying the priority for coastal storm risks.

Here is DEP’s 309 Coastal Hazard Assessment Reports (2011-2015 version).

Prior Reports have long explicitly recognized  that “strategic retreat” policy option- a finding and a policy that has changed under Gov. Christie – the most recent 309 Report excluded the “strategic retreat” concept. Here are the prior DEP findings from the 2006 Report that have been eliminated:

Many parts of New Jersey’s densely populated coastal area are highly susceptible to the effects of the following coastal hazards: flooding, storm surge, episodic erosion, chronic erosion, sea level rise, and extra-tropical storms. Reconstruction of residential development and the conversion of single family dwellings into multi-unit dwellings continues in hazardous areas… the value of property at risk is increasing significantly. With anticipated accelerating sea level rise and increasing storm frequency and intensity, vulnerability to the risks of coastal hazards will not abate; it will only become more costly.

Development in areas suited to the inland migration of coastal wetlands serves to preclude this adaptation and the wetlands will either diminish in extent or will be lost to inundation. 

All of the impediments to meeting this 309 programmatic objective that appeared in the last New Jersey Coastal Zone Section 309 Assessment and Strategy remain. These include lobbying efforts of special interest groups, legal challenges to DEP permit decisions, provision of flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, and public perception that large-scale beach nourishment projects eliminate vulnerability to coastal hazards.

Titus demonstrates (link) that in certain instances, structural engineering solutions will not be practical or economically feasible. In these cases future public and private development and redevelopment must be directed away from the hazardous areas. While some derogatorily refer to this option as “retreat,” from the perspective of sound planning based on the best available science, the concept actually involves “strategic adjustment.” Prudent planning requires that we expand upon the existing studies of the societal, economic, and environmental costs of possible mitigative actions while the greatest number of alternatives exist.

[Read full 2006 DEP 309 Report]

3. Outsourced adaptation planning

According to a review of the NJ DEP Office of Sustainability and Green Energy, DEP has abdicated state responsibility, delegated to the local level, and outsourced adaptation planning to a corporate dominated group called “Sustainable NJ” (e.g. check their website for membership)

DEP says this:

Adaptation

Despite our best efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, there will be permanent public health, ecological and economic impacts in New Jersey from those emissions already in the atmosphere. Scientists predict that in the coming years New Jersey will experience higher temperatures during the summer months that will result in an increase of heat-related illnesses, as well as poor air quality and short-term droughts; and more intense rain events, leaving residents susceptible to high flooding. These intense rain events will also worsen the impacts of rising sea level in New Jersey’s coastal and bayshore communities. …[Note: this is exactly why damaged the bridge and pipeline that collapsed. DEP also forgot to mention that record heat increases water demand.]

In particular, local governments, as the agents on the “front lines” during natural disasters, and as those with influence over planning and zoning decisions, need to be aware of their vulnerabilities and risks, as well as what actions they can take and where they need additional support.  The Department has partnered with Sustainable Jersey to form a Climate Adaptation Task Force (CATF), which is working to determine how best to support local efforts to become resilient in the face of changing climate.  The CATF released two educational tools to help local governments understand what climate adaptation is and how it will effect them.  One tool is a glossary of climate-related terminology.  The other tool is a New Jersey-specific climate trends and projections document. The CATF is now working to develop other risk assessment tools to support local government adaptive thinking.  For more information on the CATF, visit Sustainable Jersey’s website.

4. Gov. Christie Refused to acknowledge climate change

““I have no idea. I’m not a climatologist and in the last hundred days I have to tell you the truth, I’ve been focused on a lot of things, the cause of this is not one of them that I’ve focused on,” Christie said in response to a question about the role climate change could have played in fueling the Oct. 29, 2012 storm. “Now, maybe in the subsequent months and years, after I get done with trying to rebuild the state and put people back in their homes, I will have the opportunity to ponder theesoteric question of the cause of this storm. …If you asked of these people in Union Beach, I don’t think they give a damn.” NJ Gov. Chris Christie, Feb. 5. 2013

5. NJ Only Northeast State without a climate change adaptation plan

According to Georgetown University Climate Center, NJ is the only northeastern state without a climate change adaptation plan – a serious deficiency noted in a recent federal Advisory Committee Report:

Of the 12 states in the Northeast, 11 have developed adaptation plans for several sectors and have released, or plan to release, statewide adaptation plans (Georgetown Climate Center 2012). 

I appreciate your consideration and am available to clarify any of the above.

Bill Wolfe