WolfeNotes.com

Department of Health Pandemic Plan Predicted Up To 50,000 Deaths

An Homage To IF Stone

No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon — into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile. – Condoleezza Rice, Testimony to 9/11 Commission

During our recent discussion of DEP climate programs, NJ Spotlight reporter David Cruz sent me a very nasty and revealing email, in terms of what he really thought about alternative media. Cruz wrote:

For all your public mouthing off on social media, I would think you’d have something intelligent to say. So far, a lot of bluster.

So, I’ll admit that I’ve been lying in ambush, just waiting to rattle his cage.

Today he gave me the opportunity to do so in his lame “Chat Box” interview with Murphy Department of Health Commissioner Persichilli about the latest on COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in the state.

The interview opened with some “chat”, including joking around about the Commissioner’s night life. Of course, I was not amused. I could watch not much further.

But right out of the box, Commissioner Persichelli deployed the Bush administration’s big lie about 9/11: (at time 1:25, Persichilli said):

I started this job in August of 2019, and in 4-5 months we started monitoring what was going on in Wuhan. I don’t think any of us could have imagined what was in front of us. I certainly didn’t.

That is either a lie or total negligence at the NJ Department of Health.

The NJ Department of Health not only imagined a pandemic, they had a plan for it!

I served in NJ State government for many years and was part of a small team that briefed incoming DEP Commissioner Campbell in 2002.

Any new Commissioner receives detailed and comprehensive briefings from senior staff about critical issues, policies, plans and programs.

As I wrote back in March 2020, when COVID was first breaking out, the NJ Department of Health had a Pandemic Plan that predicted up to 50,000 deaths, see:

• NJ State Officials Knew For Years That A Pandemic Could Cause Healthcare System To Collapse And 50,000 Residents Could Die

Did NJ DoH professionals brief the new incoming Commissioner on this Pandemic plan? If not, why not?

Why have no NJ media asked her this question?

I fired off this email to Cruz and his editor John McAlpin to try to get an answer.

I’m fairly certain I’ll get no reply:

Dave – you let Health Commissioner get away with the famous Bush administration lie about 9/11:

“no one could have imagined” something like COVID.

In fact, NJ DOH had a pandemic plan that estimated 50,000 people could die! SO did NJ Hazard Mitigation Plan.

In case you’re interested, us big mouth social media hippie bloggers provide links to official documents when we write to hold State officials accountable – and follow IF Stone’s dictum that the best info is always buried in Attachments at the end – instead of joking with them about their night life, see:

NJ State Officials Knew For Years That A Pandemic Could Cause Healthcare System To Collapse And 50,000 Residents Could Die

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2020/03/nj-state-officials-knew-for-years-that-a-pandemic-would-cause-healthcare-system-to-collapse-and-50000-residents-would-die/

[End Note: That “something intelligent to say” attack is ironic, because I’ve found that journalists are some of the most poorly educated and incurious “professionals” I’ve come across. Many are downright anti-intellectual and hostile to intelligence.

Back in 1980, in an undergraduate History of Science course, we read William McNeil’s 1976 classic “Plagues and Peoples”. That course was popular among pre-meds and science majors, not because they were interested in history, but because they could check their “liberal arts” course degree requirements. We also read F. Braudel’s classic  The Wheels Of Commerce. (some of us even took literature and philosophy courses – or dated women who did – and read writers like Camus’ The Plague.)

So, before the issue got relegated to the culture war, I learned that white European settlers had waged a genocidal war on indigenous peoples, including biological or germ warfare. I also was exposed, pun intended, to some basic concepts of epidemiology and public health. I was learning similar science in courses in biochemistry, ecology, and toxic chemicals.

So, over a decade later, I was not surprised by reading Laurie Garrett’s 1994 classic “The Coming Plague”.

Now I am not a public health expert, but these are classics in the field. They are elementary, basic foundations.

No doubt, the epidemiologists and public health experts at the NJ Department of Health have read them and far more on pandemic risks.

Yet, some hack like Dave Cruz can attack my lack of “something intelligent to say”.

And that pretty much sums up US media. ~~~ end]

Murphy DEP Seeking To Use Prescribed Burn And Forest Thinning As Cover For Forestry Program

Greenwood Lake, from the AT trail at NJ/NY State line

This is the first in what will have to be a series of posts on various important issues related to protection of what remains of NJ’s forests. I’ll start by exposing the most recent effort to shape the upcoming forest debate by the Murphy DEP.

For over a decade, there have been a series of Orwellian slogans and sham justifications for legislation designed to increase logging of NJ forests. The legislation openly began as “Forest Harvest”, then it stealth shifted to “Forest Health“ and then to the current noble brand: “Forest Stewardship“.

The scientific and policy justifications have been similarly shifting: the original bills openly promoted renewal of NJ’s logging industry. Then, when public opposition exploded, the rationales shifted to creating habitat for T&E species, then it was to diversify the age class structure of NJ’s allegedly “old” forests, then it was to promote forest health and “young forests”. Then to adapt to climate change. Now the rationale is to prevent wildfires by “thinning” and “prescribed burns”.

These shams have been provided political cover and a veneer of scientific legitimacy by conservation groups like NJ Audubon, who own and actively log forests, have self interested forestry pet projects (single species management), and use these forestry projects to secure federal and state grants and private contributions.

The most recent legislative effort was kicked off last week. The Murphy DEP is playing right along with this legislative initiative. Here’s the latest.

Exactly one day before Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith announced the formation of his Forestry Task Force, the Murphy DEP issued this revealing “pro-active” press releases:

• DEP LAUNCHES PROACTIVE FOREST FIRE RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM AHEAD OF WILDFIRE SEASON

The only thing “pro-active” about that DEP launch was an attempt to obfuscate the forest management debate about to begin the next day.

The DEP press release on “prescribed burn” used all the slogans and junk science justifications DEP has deployed to “actively manage” (code for log and burn) NJ forests.

DEP Commissioner LaTourette made that very obvious:

Proactive forest management, including prescribed burning, is vital to protecting public safety and helps to ensure that we protect the long-term health and success of our forests. By reducing forest fire fuels through strategic prescribed burning, our Forest Fire Service protects New Jersey communities and ecosystems and helps to avoid catastrophic releases of carbon during wildfires that would contribute to climate change.”

Just like the US military’s Vietnam metaphor on villages, you gotta burn a forest to save a forest.

DEP even had the chutzpa to quote John Cecil, now Director of DEP Parks and Forests, the former champion of the “active forest” management logging scheme when he was with NJ Audubon.

(In a future post, I’ll explain what DEP failed to mention about the 2018  Prescribed Burn Act that they rely on, a law that got little if any media coverage and so virtually no one knows anything about. I think people would be outraged to learn of the provisions of that law, specifically C.13:9-44.16 Prescribed burn deemed to be in public interest; immunity from liability).

People would also be outraged to learn about this, from the NJ ozone SIP. On 2/6/15, the Obama EPA:

eliminated the requirement for state and local agencies to report emissions from wildfire and prescribed fires (@ p. 10-3) https://nj.gov/dep/baqp/OA/Ozone%2075%20ppb%20AD-70%20RACT-2017%20PEI%20Final%2011-18-21.pdf

The next day, Senator Smith played right along with the wildfire threat myth.

In an outrageous exaggeration and falsehood, in explaining why he formed the Forestry Task Force, Senator Smith said this: (listen, starting at time 2:05):

Our forests are at risk. I’m sure you’ve seen the footage, two or three years ago, of half the country burning down. It wasn’t just California, it was really like from the center of the country – west. And we could be in that same situation. And you also need healthy, sustainable forests so that we can mitigate the impacts of global climate change.

Fact check:

1) half the country did not burn down.

2) We could not be in the same situation because NJ’s forests, NJ’s landscape, and NJ’s climate (rainfall, soil moisture, drought, heat, wind, humidity) are nothing like California’s forests and the conditions that drove massive wildfires. Even NJ’s most fire prone forests, in the Pinelands, are nothing like California and western forests and landscapes. Nothing.

But that was not just random off the cuff hyperbole by Senator Smith. He knew exactly what he was doing, just like the DEP’s “pro-active” press release on prescribed burns.

Senator Smith’s remarks, coupled with the DEP’s message coordination and prior remarks by Senator Smith, make it very clear that this was intentional political propaganda.

Weeks before, Smith tipped his hand on the wildfire justification, at the Highlands Coalition’s Forest Forum.

During Smith’s remarks at that Forum (time: 21 minutes), he closed by recommending that people read a recent NY Times magazine article on California wildfires to understand the problems NJ faced:

There was a terrific article in The NY Times magazine section about how various types of forests had been stewarded in different ways, held up to forest fires. I think that might be somewhat instructive.

This was the article Smith referred to:

• Have Wildfires Ruined California’ Magic?

That article was one long fear based screed and propaganda piece for “active forest management”: (emphases mine)

Living in California now meant accepting that fire was no longer an episodic hazard, like earthquakes. Wildfire was a constant, with us everywhere, every day, all year long, like tinnitus or regret. The dry spring was bad; the dry summer, worse; the dry fall, unbearable. Even a wet winter (if we caught a break from the drought) offered little reprieve. All thoughts, all phenomena, existed relative to fire. […

California, and the world, are in bad shape. But the situation is not as devoid of hope as we believe. “We have this idea that the world is either normal and in continuity with what we’ve expected, or it’s the apocalypse, it’s the end of everything — and neither are true,” he said. That orange sky in 2020? “We’re all like, Wow, the sky is apocalyptic! But it’s not apocalyptic. If you can wake up and go to work in the morning, you’re not in an apocalypse, right?”

The more accurate assessment, according to Steffen, is that we’re “trans-apocalyptic.” We’re in the middle of an ongoing crisis, or really a linked series of crises, and we need to learn to be “native to now.”

This NY Times news (not magazine) article also probably could be the one Smith referred to. It is more science based, but still an argument for burning and logging forests under the guise of wildfire prevention:

• This Vast Wildfire Lab Is Helping Foresters Prepare for a Hotter Planet

But for Ms. Sauerbrey and her colleagues with The Nature Conservancy, what she witnessed was most likely a real-life example of what they and others have been studying for years: how thinning of trees in overgrown forests, combined with prescribed, or controlled, burns of accumulated dead vegetation on the forest floor, can help achieve the goal of reducing the intensity of wildfires by removing much of the fuel that feeds them.

The western – California wildfire model is what Senator Smith has in mind. The DEP is happy to manipulate that.

So, be forewarned.

Trenton policymakers will try to use the fear of wildfire to justify continuing mismanagement of NJ’s forests.

I will go into additional detail in future posts. There is a lot of scientific disagreement that active management techniques are the solution to wildfire prevention or adaptation to climate change, see:

• Debunking the Biggest Myth About Wildfires

• Logging in disguise: How forest thinning is making wildfires worse

• Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent-fire forests of the western United States

For today, I just wanted to put out the alert.

Fascist And Racist Forces Are Driving Astroturf “Working Class” Events

Message of “Freedom” Used To Appeal To Broader & Legitimate Public Grievances

[Update #1: 2/14/22 – economics professor Richard Wolff explains what I meant by “legitimate grievances” and how they create conditions conducive to the rise of fascism – listen here!

[Update #2: 2/14/22 – Chris Hedges does his usual superb job explaining. A taste:

The US domination of the world economy, after 75 years, is over. It is not coming back. We manufacture little, short of weapons. Our economy is a mirage build on unsustainable levels of debt. The pillage orchestrated by the capitalist elites and corporations has hollowed the country out from the inside, leaving the infrastructure decayed, democratic institutions moribund and at least half the population struggling at subsistence level. The two ruling parties, puppets for the ruling oligarchs, refuse to curb the rapacious appetites of the war industry and the rich, accelerating the crisis. That the rage of the dispossessed is legitimate, even if it is expressed in inappropriate ways, is never acknowledged by the Democrats, who were instrumental in pushing through the trade deals, deindustrialization, tax loopholes for the rich, deficit spending, endless wars and austerity programs that have created crisis. Instead, shooting the messenger, the Biden administration is targeting Trump supporters and winning draconian sentences for those who stormed the capital on January 6. Biden’s Justice Department has formed a domestic terrorism unit to focus on extremists and Democrats have been behind a series of moves to de-platform and censor their right-wing critics. ~~~ end updates]

There is little doubt in my mind that the forces (by “forces”, I mean people, organizations, money, media, and ideology) who planned, organized, funded, publicized, and mobilized the trucker anti-vaxx “protests” in Canada are right wing fascist forces.

But their seemingly targeted opposition to vaccine “mandates” and the message of “freedom” are very effectively disguising these fascist forces and being used to appeal to a far broader set of issues and legitimate grievances. This enables the fascists to grow their movement and expand their base. (The Guardian):

The official line from Bauder and his co-organizers, however, has remained focused; in a Facebook live broadcast, Bauder instructed his supporters to “stop talking about the vaccine” and instead stick to message of “freedom”.

Such strict message control has attracted mainstream support. Numerous members of the Conservative party, Canada’s official opposition, have come out to meet the protesters. Elon Musk and Donald Trump have both endorsed the convoy. Fox broadcasters Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have provided glowing updates on the continuing occupation.

Legitimate anger and grievances are being mobilized and targeted against government and left/progressive ideologies, instead of the corporate forces and Neoliberal ideologies that are generating the social and economic conditions that create the grievances.

Republicans and libertarians have effectively done this for many years in the US – blaming government for corporate abuses.

In response, government, media, progressives, democrats and those on the left are dismissing these “protesters” as ignorant rabble . This dynamic is way beyond Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables”, but reflects the same elitist arrogance and detachment from some people’s suffering and legitimate grievances. The result is a further polarization between left/progressives and working class and popular concerns that the left could and should be organizing.

This is a very dangerous and destructive dynamic.

1. Clearly, the media’s wall to well coverage of these protests is getting out the message of the protesters to the public and stimulating more participation and growing the “movement”.

That virtually never happens when anti-war, climate, environmental, or civil rights protesters take to the streets.

2. The police are not arresting, harassing, assaulting, confining them to “free speech zones” and otherwise intimidating these protesters. In some cases, police are supporting them (Youtube of cops bringing food, etc).

That never happens when anti-war, climate, environmental, or civil rights protesters take to the streets. Just the opposite: left leaning protesters are assaulted, arrested, shot, beaten, water hosed, bitten by dogs, and serve long prison sentences. Their “occupations” are crushed immediately – even Occupy Wall Street was crushed by a coordinated national campaign.

3. There are liberals and “moderates” who argue against protests and aggressive tactics, because they antagonize the public and allegedly will create a backlash (read Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” about that).

Ironically, these fake trucker protests will strengthen that argument and further suppress any left oriented street protests, just when climate activists and others need to ramp up pressure and street activism. Tragic beyond words.

4. The fact that fascist forces, organizations, individuals and messages have successfully appealed to the public and mobilized protests is extremely disturbing.

From  Public “Disappointment, Outrage, Incredulity” To DEP Leadership

A Classic Example Of A Story Down Orwell’s Memory Hole

How is it possible for a news outlet to write a story – by the same reporter – that cites multiple sources – including a Rutgers Professor – in flat out denouncing a DEP climate rule, and then just 9 days later forget all that and write a story that praises DEP’s climate leadership?

On February 2, 2022, NJ Spotlight co-founder and veteran reporter Tom Johnson wrote this story:

• Plan to cut emissions falls far short, activists say

That story absolutely and correctly slammed DEP’s proposed CO2 emission climate rule. A reader could not be confused by the narrative or the damning facts and multiple hostile quotes:

Here’s the lede:

At a 3 ½-hour public hearing hosted by the Department of Environmental Protection on the proposed regulation Tuesday, environmentalists, consultants and academics panned the 165-page proposed rule, saying it would do little to decarbonize the state’s electric generation sector. The rule, they said, would allow most of the existing gas-fired power plants to continue to operate and would permit new plants to be built.

“DEP has squandered what will likely be the last opportunity we have to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid climate catastrophe,’’ said John Reichman of Blue Wave NJ. “The rules could have been written by the fossil fuel lobby.’’

Tom reported the following absolutely killer facts – not as an activists’ opinion, but as damning facts:

If adopted, the proposal also would achieve only 3% of reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions of the 80% drop in carbon pollution required under the state’s Global Warming Response Act. The rule also fails to mention, or even come close to meeting, Gov. Phil Murphy’s executive order that set a goal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 50% by 2030.

That story closed with this equally harsh conclusion:

Whether the entire rule will result in substantial reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions left many doubtful. ‘’This rule is seriously flawed; it just has too many loopholes,’’ said Jeff Tittel, a former director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “It has too many loopholes to be fixed.’’

David Hughes, a professor at Rutgers University, agreed, saying the DEP failed to protect lives endangered by the climate crisis. “You need to start over,’’ he told DEP officials, blaming them for favoring economic interests over tackling the climate crisis.

Yet just 9 days later, on February 11, 2022, Tom Johnson forgot all those damning facts and valid criticisms of DEP.

He wrote this story, with exactly the opposite narrative, which portrayed DEP Commissioner LaTourette in a leadership posture warning legislators of the need to move more aggressively and quickly (just days after being condemned for a lax proposal):

• Act fast to avert climate disaster, lawmakers warned – NJ’s top environmental and energy officials say state falling short of climate goals

The state needs to do a lot more and act much quicker to avert the worst impacts of climate change, lawmakers were warned Thursday as they began assessing what new steps must be taken to speed up reductions in pollution from greenhouse-gas emissions.

“There is too much at risk to not push further and do more,’’ Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Shawn LaTourette told the Senate Environment and Energy Committee. “We are not ready. Ida showed us that.’’

Act fast?

“Push further and do more”?

“Push further and do more”?

“Push further and do more”?

Are you kidding me?

LaTourette says that after he proposed a DEP rule that does virtually nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and would allow current emissions to significantly increase?

Here’s how Tom contextualizes and alludes to that prior negative story, which correctly condemned DEP:

Their appearance before legislators comes at a time when there are signs the Murphy administration’s ambitious goal to transition to 100% clean energy by mid-century is beginning to encounter stronger opposition from business and other interests, who worry about the cost of phasing out fossil fuels and the reliability of new power sources. 

Beginning to “encounter stronger opposition from business and other interests”? Say what?

There is no mention of the DEP public hearing 9 days prior (or the DEP’s denial of a climate petition that has spawned a lawsuit, another story that Tom Johnson wrote that contradicts LaTourette’s self serving spin and finger pointing deflection of responsibility).

Tom completely changes the subject from DEP’s failure to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas emissions reductions, to the business community’s propaganda about high costs and suspect reliability (of “new power sources” – a euphemism  for renewables).

Climate scientists, environmentalists and climate activist are not even mentioned, but vaguely alluded to as “other interests”.

Not one climate scientist, environmental spokesperson, or climate activists was included in the story to push back agains t DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s Orwellian spin. Not one. He was given a platform to spout total bullshit.

If the state is going to achieve its climate goals, LaTourette said it will require help from every sector — government, economic sectors, communities and individuals. “It requires everyone rowing in the same direction and fast,’’ he said.

“Rowing fast”? After DEP was just denounced for slow walking?

What the hell was Tom Johnson thinking?

How can something like this possibly happen?

[End Note: I listened closely to that hearing NJ Spotlight reported and here’s what I heard and wrote:

• Murphy Administration Emphasizes Existential Threats Of Climate Emergency, Then Runs Away From Any “Mandates”

Disturbing Signals In Naming of Co-Chairs And Policy Charge

No local or activist representatives

Reliance on “consensus” gives a veto to those who benefit from status quo forestry practices

Not 24 hours after Senate Environment Committee Chairman Smith announced its formation yesterday, the Forestry Task Force work is already being spun.

I tried to provide context and a warning in these recent posts:

• NJ Senate Environment Chair To Form “Forestry Task Force” To Develop A “New Paradigm”

• The Future of NJ’s Forests – At Risk From Climate, Logging, Development, & DEP MisManagement

Already, my email in box was flooded today by press releases, a self congratulatory pre-packaged Task Force announcement (which smells a lot like Foundation grant proposal), and celebrations by well meaning but inexperienced and naive local forest activists.

We need to be realistic about what’s going on here.

First, I’m concerned that Smith has given up on his legislative package only because DEP is implementing his “forest stewardship” program under the direction of John Cecil (Director of Parks & Forestry) and he therefore doesn’t need legislation and this is his way of saving face, diverting focus of forest activists, and shifting the burden to conservation groups.

Second, the composition of the Task Force is troubling. The 4 Co- chairs are biased towards the DEP and NJ Audubon and Forestry consultant “active management” model that Smith and DEP have championed. There is no local grassroots representative.

(a reader just shot me an email noting that “3 of the 4 groups conduct prescribed burns or logging“. Exactly.)

I’m disgusted, but not surprised, that NJ Audubon was named as one of the 4 co-chairs. That is a very bad sign, because NJ Audubon is the architect of the failed and horrible “forest stewardship” legislation Smith sponsored. NJA also promotes and implements logging projects under the guise of “forest stewardship”. NJA  also has deep linkages to the DEP. John Cecil, former NJA head of Stewardship is now DEP Director of Parks And Forestry with science and policy control over NJ forests. The Task Force Co-Chair, Eileen Murphy, is former DEP head of Science and Research. Both will be able to assert undue influence on DEP and benefit from inside DEP information.

I’m also very concerned to see Tom Gilbert of NJCF as a Co-Chair, instead of Emile DeVito. Gilbert lacks expertise and he is politically compromised in his role and promoting solar power. For example, Gilbert has supported the BPU ‘Dual use” solar policy. Just yesterday, BPU President Fiordaliso’s climate testimony highlighted the “agricultural dual use solar program” – while DEP ran away from any regulatory program response. NJCF has close relationships with DEP, owns and acquires a lot of forested lands, and conducts stewardship on those lands, and thus has conflicts of interest. (Those conflicts were highlighted in the recent “prescribed burn” legislation).

Third, there was no clear mission or policy charge established by Senator Smith, nor were there any bright lines or demands made by forest preservation advocates before the Task Force as formed or in response to the formation of the Task Force.

All I’ve gotten from groups like the Highlands Coalition are self congratulatory celebrations.

This is a dangerous “wait and see” passive approach. Such a vacuum will be filled by those with a clear agenda, like NJ Audubon and forestry consultants and the forestry industry.

Fourth, Senator Smith has not admitted any defeat of his forestry ideas and is seeking a “consensus”, which, as I warned, provides veto power to those who want to log NJ’s forests: (Smith press release)

“For decades, we have been debating what proper management of the State’s forests should look like, and what the State’s policies for forest stewardship should be,” said Senator Smith. “We’ve assembled this task force in order to identify and debate the major issues and ultimately develop consensus solutions which could form the basis for future legislation.”

Finally, there is no specific focus on land use or development threats to forests – or any mention. of currently ongoing parallel forestry policies and plans at DEP.

So, this is not a land use preservation driven initiative and it certainly will accelerate the solar development threats and do nothing to respond to the warehouse development threats.

Here is my note to the Task Force: (you can sign up at NJForestTaskforce@gmail.com)

Dear Task Force: Please put me on email lists for all Task Force workgroups, stakeholder groups, technical advisory groups, policy groups, or any other issue groups you organize.

I would like to monitor the work of the Task Force and contribute information and analyses.

At the outset, I strong urge that your work specifically include consideration and review of the parallel forestry work now ongoing at DEP, including but not limited to:

1) The Forest Action Plan;

2) Natural Lands Initiative;

3) REAL – PACT climate land use rules;

4) the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) carbon sequestration and allowance trading scheme; and

5) ongoing DEP projects, including: a) prescribed burn, b) forest stewardship, c) “young forest”, d) “wildfire prevention”, e) “habitat creation for T&E species, f) deer management, g) “high hazard” tree removal, h) utility ROW maintenance, i) urban forestry, j) carbon sequestration, k) “forest thinning”, and l) various other site specific forestry projects on State and/or private lands.