Good Gas?: The Case of the Well Meaning But Misguided Editorial

 “Heroic” Meadowlands & “good news for the planet” is way over the top 

Cheerleading for Carbon Trading While Ignoring Christie RGGI Kill

Editorial writers are significantly dependent on news coverage for the focus and factual basis of their editorials.

When the reporting gets the story wrong, even a well meaning editorial page typically follows suit.

Unfortunately, while we appreciate the sentiment, we have an example of that today from the Bergen Record. Today’s editorial is based on yesterday’s “good news” coverage I criticized in this post.

That “good news” story used the flea on the tail of the climate change dog (i.e. wetlands carbon sequestration) to support failed and flawed market based carbon trading and wetlands mitigation schemes.

That story now has generated today’s editorial: “Good Gas:

But from an environmental standpoint, the Meadowlands should be hailed as the hero of our time. Especially in light of new research that concludes that even when hobbled by all sorts of manmade problems, urban wetlands forge ahead with their job of absorbing and storing carbon dioxide. It’s amazing, really, what they can do. […]

Not only is this study good news for the health of the planet, its conclusions may help bolster attempts to monetize wetlands restoration. This is a clever twist on cap and trade, in which investors preserve or restore wetlands, and then make a profit by selling credits to store carbon. Industries whose manufacturing processes emit carbon can buy those credits to compensate for the pollution they create. Environmental preservation is transformed into a commercially viable business, in which buying credits creates a profit, which spurs more wetlands preservation, which helps to combat climate change.

That is way over the top and misleading.

The misleading Record editorial closely follows the misleading and flawed news story I criticized yesterday, so I won’t repeat those criticisms here.

To be clear, yes I agree with the Record editorial that it is amazing what wetlands can do. But with respect to carbon sequestration, unfortunately the big picture data suggest that its not very much – and disturbing new research suggests that even that small sequestration potential is being reduced by extreme heat.

The editorial’s characterization of “heroic” Meadowlands and “good news for the planet” is way over the top. 

So, aside from the in the weeds science (pun intended), more narrowly, if the Record is going to report and editorialize in favor of a carbon trading scheme, they should at least put the complete NJ carbon emissions trading story on the table.

NJ did have a carbon trading scheme, until Gov. Christie killed it.

So, a few additional facts and contextual points are in order.

The underlying and unstated premise seems to be that market based trading schemes and mitigation are inherently good and important mechanisms for funding wetlands conservation and scientific research.

While we oppose carbon trading and mitigation schemes, we do agree that this scientific and conservation work needs to get funded.

While we’re on the topic of money, the news story reported:

The Meadowlands research was started with $40,000 from the commission; since then, Schafer and her collaborators at Princeton and other universities have secured about $800,000 in grants from the National Science Foundation for the work, which includes a variety of projects.

So, just like we put the wetlands’  carbon sequestration data in the larger context of carbon emissions, let’s put that $840,000 one time research funding in context.

Critically, the story did not report – and the Record editorial writers seem unaware of – the fact that Governor Christie diverted sequestration dedicated revenues and then killed a revenue generating program known as RGGI – the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

But what does RGGI have to do with carbon sequestration in wetlands?

Hint: the citizen won’t find out from reading Governor Christie’s “Global Warming” webpage, which has deleted the prior section on RGGI.

RGGI generated approximately $45 – $60 million per year from the sale of “carbon allowances”. Major carbon polluters in the electric energy sector were required to purchase these allowances for each ton of carbon emitted. That money was programmed by a law called the “Global Warming Solutions Fund Act” (Act):

Global Warming Solutions Fund Act

Adopted in January 2008, the Global Warming Solutions Fund Act (pdf) authorizes the auction of allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a ten-state mandatory carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program for electric power plants. The law directs that auction proceeds be used to: fund energy efficiency, renewable energy, and innovative greenhouse gas reduction technologies; promote local government greenhouse gas reduction efforts; preserve and restore forests and tidal marshes; and reduce energy demands and costs for low- and moderate-income New Jersey citizens.

Christie diverted money from and then killed RGGI – RGGI generated $45 – $60 million/year, so we’re talking about $180 – $240 million for the Christie 4 year term.

The Act allocated 10 percent of the Fund to the DEP to support programs that enhance the stewardship and restoration of the State’s forests and tidal marshes that provide important opportunities to sequester or reduce greenhouse gases.

So, Christie diverted from $18 – $24 million for wetlands sequestration.

That’s 21 – 28 TIMES larger than the Meadowlands research project funding.

And that Meadowlands funding was a one shot deal –

In contrast, RGGI provided a stable, ongoing, dedicated funding source – the perfect and reliable funding mechanism to plan for and carry out a long term research and program agenda.

Now, if I were a wetlands ecologist, reporter, or editorial writer, I would be much more interested in making the public aware of that, than in exaggerating the benefits of mitigation and trading schemes.