WolfeNotes.com

Distrust – And Verify!

Political Appointee in DEP Office of Local Government Affairs Provides Regulatory Guidance

So there it is – your Christie Government In Action : political hacks with absolutely no environmental or regulatory training, knowledge, or experience providing regulatory guidance to local officials.

[Update below]

Looks like NJ reporters may finally be getting it – and practicing a little Perestroika with the DEP Press Office.

I’ve had numerous experiences and have written several times about not only their excessive spin, but a total lack of credibility at DEP’s press office – at times calling them out for flat out lies and fabrications.

Most recently, DEP claims have come under close and critical scrutiny in the Fenimore landfill fiasco in Roxbury, NJ.

So, I am pleased to share the most recent example, actually a case with some regulatory parallels to the Fenimore landfill case, which involved similar violations of DEP solid waste and “waste flow” rules.

The Asbury Park Press reported today:

DEP officials are investigating the JR Custom Landscaping site on Bennett Mills Drive but there have been no violations issued at this time, said Larry Ragonese, a spokesman for the state agency.

However, Walker had an email exchange with William Everett, the southern region supervisor of the state DEP following a June 10 inspection of the site. Everett said there were three violations of solid waste regulations on the site, according to the email.

According the DEP report, the JR Landscaping site has been composting, accepting and distributing untested fill dirt with no proof of origin, allowing compost to spill over into adjacent properties, and allowing water that has gone through the waste to pond on the property.

The site failed to apply and receive a permit to dispose solid waste and store waste, according to the report. The site also engaged in the collection or disposal of solid waste in excess of .148 cubic yards of solids, which is a violation because the activity is not authorized by the DEP, the report said.

So, there it is – another conflict between DEP Press Office statements and DEP documents.

I will be curious to see how this turns out – those are serious violations.

How will Ragonese walk those remarks back? Say he was misquoted? Taken out of context? Lacked current information?

Or was Ragonese inadvertently revealing the policy and regular practices of his boss, Commissioner Bob Martin, i.e. will the DEP field inspector’s enforcement efforts (likely a field NOV “Notice of Violation”) be squashed by senior management political appointees at DEP?

Squashing staff level enforcement actions might be what explains why DEP enforcement fines and penalties are at an historic low in the “job killing red tape slashing regulatory relief providing $2 billion corporate subsidizing” Christie Administration!

Let’s hope the press keeps on asking for evidence in support of Press Office statements and keeps on reviewing and relying on actual DEP regulatory documents.

Those are both significant improvements.

[Update: While – to paraphrase Gov. Christie – I’m “taking the bat out on” the DEP press Office, lets not spare the DEP Office of Local Government Affairs.

If you thought Gov. Christie’s Office of Inter-Governmental Affairs – headed by Bridgette Kelly of GW BridgeGate fame – was bad,  check this out.

I discovered this when a local official, from Hunterdon County, told me that the head of the DEP Office of Local Government Affairs, a woman named Cindy Randazzzo, said that the sycamore trees at Bulls Island were an “invasive species“, I knew something was badly wrong at DEP. In September 2012, I wrote:

DEP’s Cathy Randazzo (sic) – a patronage appointment who has ZERO environmental training and no college degree – told one local official that sycamore’s were an “invasive species“. That astonishing info was stated in a public hearing by a  local official. 

So, I looked into Ms. Randazzo’s background and noted a serious deficit- an obvious patronage appointment, a friend of Bob Martin from Mercer County Republican circles (both were failed Republican candidates).

Not surprisingly, Randazzo has been a prominent figure in the Roxbury Fenimore Landfill dispute, for distributing the flawed scare tactics email to neighboring towns.

If obstruction of field enforcement cases is bad, the thought of Ms. Randazzo providing regulatory compliance guidance is downright scary – the Bergen Record reported today:

Following a review by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, the DEP cut red tape for stream desnagging, clearing and cleaning permits, as well as for regional projects, said Cindy Randazzo, director of the Office of Local Government Assistance. NJDEP press director Larry Ragonese said these policy initiatives did not include dredging.

When Randazzo meets with municipalities the first thing she asks is what concerns officials have about stream cleaning.

“It’s surprising that folks think they can’t do it at all because of decades of red tape,” she said. Randazzo often visits municipalities to walk the stream with officials, to show them what they can do without a permit and what permits they will need.

So there it is – your Christie Government In Action : political hacks with absolutely no environmental or regulatory training, knowledge, or experience providing regulatory guidance to local officials.

At least Bridgette Kelly got endorsements in return – what the heck is DEP getting?

How Can One Who Thinks Like This Head Columbia University’s Earth Institute?

[Update below]

A friend just passed along a Huffington Post piece with this cryptic headline:

• Competent Leaders Need to Understand the Science of Sustainability

Being a strong skeptic of all “sustainability” claims, I was particularly interested in the juxtaposition of the words “sustainability” and “science”, so I read it closely – the entire slogan rich and far too lengthy post.

And never mind that, however much rhetoric and slogans you dress it up in, that the concept of “sustainability” has no scientific basis or operational definition.

But let’s not let style or policy differences divert from the real substantive issue at hand.

This is not about sustainability. It is about scientific understanding.

The post was written by Steven Cohen, Executive Director of the Earth institute at Columbia University.

Remarkably, in a blog post about the need for “leaders” to be “competent” and understand science, written by the head of an Ivy League climate science institution, the author reveals a shocking ignorance of the science of climate change!

How is it possible for a person in such a prestigious institution with such huge responsibilities to reveal such ignorance of the basic cause of global warming?

Not since then EPA Administrator Christie Whitman – in the New York Times – confused ozone depletion with global warming, do I recall such a high profile and revealing fundamental error. And it was not a gaffe – it was an error.

In his HuffPo blog post, Cohen used an analogy that completely misunderstands and misrepresents the cause of climate change.

Cohen revealed a typical Junior High School level misunderstanding – one in fact I too actually shared more than 40 years ago in junior high school – and was hugely embarrassed by when gently corrected by the science teacher.

Specifically, in this paragraph, which I reproduce in full to avoid any possible criticism that I took him out of context, Cohen confuses “waste heat” with the mechanism of global warming (emphasis mine):

It is important to develop consensus around facts and reality. A person shot dead on the street is not in suspended animation. A glass of water may look like vodka, but it doesn’t pack the same punch. The environmental impact of the settlements, machines, food and water of seven billion people is far greater than the impacts of a planet of three billion people. Earth’s human population was three billion in the 1960s and is over seven billion today. If you don’t think our use of energy causes heat, stand next to an idling truck during a mid-August heat wave. Feel the heat? Where do you think all the waste heat from our power plants, homes and cars ends up? We can argue about what to do about homicides, alcoholism, or climate change, but our view of reality must be based on the same facts. And in a high-tech, globally interconnected economy our survival depends on scientific fact being researched, debated, accepted, understood and acted on.

The heat Cohen refers to  from an idling truck, power plants, homes, and cars is commonly referred to as “waste heat” (there are several other scientific terms for it, but lets keep it simple here).

By using the “waste heat” analogy, Cohen essentially tells his readers that global warming is caused by heat coming off things like truck motors.

That is a profoundly false analogy and it completely misunderstands the mechanism and cause of global warming.

I’ll let a scientist explain why:

Wherever it comes from, waste heat is not usually taken into account in global climate calculations for the simple reason that it is utterly trivial in comparison to the heat trapped by the carbon dioxide that is released when you burn fossil fuels to supply energy.

Got that, Mr. Cohen?

I hope you don’t spew such drivel to your students.

[End note: I stole that phrase from Ted Lowi, Government Professor at Cornell. In his grading of a final essay exam, I can still feel the sting of Lowi’s criticism of my work as “spewing drivel and parroting lectures”. Ivy League academics! Ouch!

[Update: Via email, I brought the error to Columbia and Mr. Cohen’s attention and suggested that he should correct, or at least clarify it.

For the record, here is Columbia’s response:

Thanks Bill.

Steve Cohen is undoubtedly not suggesting that the cause of current global warming is waste heat. It is of course human-produced greenhouse gases. But I have passed it on in case he wants to clarify.

Kevin

With a Hurricane Moving Up The Coast, Media Gives Gov. a Pass on Sea Level Rise & Climate Denial

Unlike 9/11, It Looks Like Sandy Changed Absolutely Nothing

Yay! We’re spending more of your money building things in dangerous locations and promoting our political careers! Assemblywoman Casagrande (R – clapping) and Senator Beck (R – Hot) literally cheerlead for Gov. Christie (Source: Bergen Record, Marko Georgiev/Staff photographer)

[Update: 7/6/14 – No, despite the apt title, this Record editorial is not an attempt at redemption for the  egregious journalistic malpractice I criticize below – but worth reading anyway, see: Christie Grandstands – end update.]

It’s been widely reported that Gov. Christie rejects consideration of the risks of sea level rise and climate change in his post Sandy shore recovery and redevelopment policies.

It also has been widely reported that scientists – including those right here at Rutgers – say that climate change is happening and impacting us right now and project that sea level rise, storm surge, and more frequent and intense coastal storms pose serious threats to the NJ shore – and that NJ is poorly prepared for adapting to climate change and managing those risks.

Severe criticism of the Gov.’s coastal development policies – from scientists, legislators, flood hazard experts, former DEP Commissioners, editorial boards at major newspapers, and environmentalists –  also has been reported widely.

Finally, the Gov. has been admonished – by everyone from federal officials and editorial boards to shore residents –  for his blatant self promotion and politicization of the use of State and federal tourism dollars.

This scathing criticism even forced the Gov. to abandon another round of his “Stronger than the Storm” promotion.

So, given all this – and the fact that a hurricane was moving up the Atlantic Coast at the time – how does the NJ media respond to the fact that Gov. Christie did another ribbon cutting event, for another project, in another location that is highly vulnerable to sea level rise and climate change driven more intense coastal storms?

They gave him a pass on another self promotional, climate denying ,photo op and instead wrote about his 2016 Presidential aspirations!

Don’t believe that something so stupid and irresponsible is possible?

Well, just read the Bergen Record story, which just prompted me to fire off this nastygram to reporter Melissa Hayes:

Melissa – How hard would it be to ask the Gov. a question like this:

“Gov., how do you respond to critics who say you are being irresponsible by promoting development in hazardous locations at the shore, while ignoring sea level rise and climate change?” or

“Gov., I notice you have a Rutgers shirt on – are you aware that Rutgers’ sea level rise projections show this boardwalk is highly vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surge. How do you respond to that science?” 

You just gave the Gov. another photo op – THE DAY BEFORE A HURRICANE WAS MOVING UP THE COAST. 

This is totally irresponsible journalism.

 

Wolfe

Economic Justice is as Deeply an American Value as Freedom and Equality

Revolutionary Popular Notions of a Just Society At the Founding

Democratic Resistance To Elite Control & Concentration of Wealth

[Update: 11/2/15 – Historian Eric Foner’s advice to Bernie Sanders:

I urge you to reconsider how you respond to the inevitable questions about what you mean by democratic socialism and peaceful revolution. The next time, embrace our own American radical tradition. There’s nothing wrong with Denmark; we can learn a few things from them (and vice-versa). But most Americans don’t know or care much about Scandinavia. More importantly, your response inadvertently reinforces the idea that socialism is a foreign import. Instead, talk about our radical forebears here in the United States, for the most successful radicals have always spoken the language of American society and appealed to some of its deepest values.  read the whole thing  ~~~ end update]

As public awareness and a populist resistance to deepening inequality rises to an almost pre-revolutionary fervor (watch Bill Moyers’ interview with Jim Hightower “Grass Roots Grow Against Greed“), my thoughts this 4th of July (Independence Day) wander to the contradictions built into the Founding by “The Founders”.

Unlike prior 4th’s of July, my thoughts this year are not focused on Thomas Paine and the NSA, or on our so called  “Independence”,  or on modern day classics, such as Sheldon Wolin’s “Democracy Inc.“, or even on memories of my born on the Fourth Of July Grandfather, but instead –  like the title of this post – today I look to history and come directly from Terry Bouton’s superb book “Taming Democracy“.

Bouton tells the story of how the radical potential of the Revolution was co-opted by economic elites, who, as his title implies, “tamed democracy”.

Like Howard Zinn’s classic “People’s History“, this is not the tale you were told in high school history and civics classes.

In the introduction to his book, Bouton frames the key questions he will explore:

… the question remains: how Democratic was the Revolution? To what extent did the Revolution actually democratize government and society? How much power did “the people” really wield? How responsive were the new governments to the interests and ideals of ordinary americans?  What kind of democracy did common folk want from the Revolution? And how happy were they with the version of democracy the Revolution brought? In short, if it was a Revolution “by the people”, to what extent was it also a Revolution “for the people”?

As open revolt breaks out in places like Detroit – where people’s water is being turned off by the morally bankrupt puppets of Wall Street’s greed – and organizations like “Occupy” are defending homeowners against foreclosure, Bouton’s exploration of our history is extremely relevant.

In fact, Chapter 3: “The Gospel of the Moneyed Men: The Gentry’s New Ideals“ has strong parallels to our current experience.

In this chapter, Bouton recounts how the greedy bankers and land owners ( “the Gentry”) sold out the common man and the democratic notions of the Revolution – and how “the people” fought back:

Amid the chaos of war, the Revolution in Pennsylvania reached its decisive turning point. The turning point was not a military loss or victory but rather a radical rethinking by the gentry of what they wanted the Revolution to be. In a stunning reversal, many genteel Pennsylvanians abandoned the vision of ’76. They did not just give up on the ideal of empowering white men: the gentry, in fact, made a complete about face. They began condemning the Revolution’s democratic achievements and started calling for important decisions to be removed from popular control. Much of the gentry also replaced its support for wealth equality with a new belief that the only way to make America great was to put most of the money and land in the hands of the wealthy. In short, during the war, much of the gentry came to embrace ideals that had far more in common with the beliefs of their former British masters than they did with the ideals of 1776.

That chapter goes on to explain how this happened and the specific set of policies the gentry used that were virtually identical to the economic repression used by the British  – policies and practices like restricting access to credit and erecting barriers to land ownership; elimination of paper money and public land banks; requiring that debts be paid in gold or silver; transferring government powers to private corporations; throwing people off the land; and controlling government power by restricting democratic means of accountability.

Bankers, greed, privatization, concentration of wealth, private corporate power, exploitation of labor, appropriation of land, voter suppression, Feudal Oligarchy – sound familiar?

Chapter 4: “The Sheriff’s Wagon: The Crisis of the 1780’s” tells the story of the economic crisis that triggered the people’s resistance and rebellion.

Bouten writes that the Sheriff’s wagon was to many Pennsylvanians:

the most potent icon of the Revolution’s outcome. The image was this: the heavily loaded wagon of a county Sheriff bearing the foreclosed property of debt ridden citizens. The power of this icon came from its ubiquity. During the post war decade, the Sheriff’s wagon could be seen nearly everywhere. With its load of foreclosed property, it struggled up the gullied roads of the backcountry …. and rattled down the bumpy cobble-stone streets of Philadelphia, the richest city in the new nation. As was to be expected in a largely agricultural society, the wagon made most of its stops at the homes of small farmers. Yet its flat wooden bed was just as likely to hold the confiscated tools of a blacksmith, the grindstone of a miller, or the inventory of a small merchant.

This chapter …. provides an intimate portrait of how the new cash scarcity reawakened the specter of mass economic dependency that many Pennsylvanians had initiated a revolution to escape.

But, unlike today’s apathy in many quarters, the common folks didn’t just sit back and take it.

Like the Occupy movement and the people of Detroit, they organized and fought back. Often violently.

In Chapter 5: “Equal Power: “The People” Attempt to Reclaim the Revolution” , we get to the heart of the book.

During the 1780’s, ordinary Pennsylvanians launched an attack on the gospel of moneyed men and the hard times it created. These people demanded that State leaders save democracy by ending the policies that concentrated wealth amongst moneyed men. They called for new policies to make wealth more equal. And they demanded a return to a vigorous democracy.

A more equal distribution of wealth – a longstanding American ideal – 230 years before Thomas Picketty and 75 years before Karl Marx.

Chapter 7 :“Rings of Protection: Popular Resistance During the 1780’s” describes the organized resistence movement of the people.

The organizing and tactics provide lessons for a response to today’s injustices.

“The people” were seriously engaged in what amounted – at times – to a civil war in the backcountry.

Bouton sees how the resistance was based on “7 concentric rings of protection”:

During the 1780’s, ordinary Pennsylvanians constructed elaborate resistance networks designed to shield themselves from the harmful effects of state policies. … the first [rings] were formed by county revenue officials who tried to thwart tax collection. The second ring was composed of county justices of the peace who refused to prosecute delinquent taxpayers and collectors. The third ring was formed by juries who acquitted those accused of not paying their taxes. The fourth ring was composed of Sheriffs and constables who would not arrest non-paying citizens. The fifth ring involved ordinary folk attempting to stop tax collection and property foreclosures through non-violent protest. Ring 6 was people trying to achieve those same goals through violent crowd action. Ring seven was composed of self-directed county militias that refused to follow orders to stop any of this protest. During the 1780’s, these seven rings of protection – each a clear example of popular democracy in action – formed a barrier for defending both property and popular notions of a just society.

Go read the whole book and find out how these amazing resistance efforts were organized and how it all turned out.

And have a Happy 4th!

Ringwood Mines Superfund Site (Bill Wolfe, 1/3/12)

[Update: 7/5/14 – The Record editorial nails it, read “Toxic Compromise” – end update]

Yesterday, I rightfully blasted EPA for a cynical deal that would let Ford Motor Co. off the hook for some $30 million in cleanup costs for the Superfund site they created in Ringwood, NJ, while shifting long term risks to the community.

In fairness, EPA didn’t create the problem, so I thought readers might not be aware of the history and therefore might benefit from the context, in terms of a brief overview of what Ford did at the Ringwood site. So, today its Ford’s turn.

An understanding of the reprehensible and egregious behaviors Ford engaged in fuels some of the anger at EPA for letting Ford off the hook for cleanup costs, when they should be criminally prosecuted.

So, here is a brief history of the site, from EPA’s ROD, over-viewing what Ford did to create the Ringwood Superfund site. It far surpasses the typical pattern of greed and irresponsible corporate behavior that has led to most of the Superfund sites.

EPA wrote:

• formed a wholly owned subsidiary real estate corporation, under a local name, masking Ford’s role
• purchased remote forested lands owned and occupied by Native Americans
• entered into contracts with a waste hauler to truck Ford’s hazardous waste to the site
• dumped unknown tons of highly toxic sludges and chemicals in that remote land
• then began donating the highly contaminated  land to unsuspecting public entities and a non-profit, thereby spreading cleanup liability

And no one from Ford went to prison for this scheme.

Instead, 50 years later, still the site is not cleaned up and EPA is bending over backwards to give Ford breaks to reduce cleanup costs.

The whole thing is a disgrace. Take a look (shot on 1/3/12)