WolfeNotes.com

Thoreau Set The Moral Standard

Genocide And Nuclear Threats Violate It

Henry Thoreau set the moral standard on whether a citizen had an obligation to withhold payment of  federal income tax and go to jail in his famous essay, see:

• Tax Day Essay: “On Civil Disobedience”

Thoreau could not pay his taxes because his money would support the federal government’s policies on slavery and the invasion of and imperial war on Mexico.

Thoreau wrote:

If one were to tell me that this were a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probably that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. … But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun, and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact, that the country so over-run is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

The United States government currently is replicating similar moral atrocities in the Ukraine proxy war, the dirty war on Syria (and others), and the support of Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank.

Similarly, the Biden administration has engaged in warmongering and gunboat diplomacy on Taiwan and China.

The US Congress is appropriating hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on war.

Nuclear armageddon is on the table.

Thus, the case for taxpayer revolt and rebellion is well beyond and far more egregious than Thoreau’s historical origins.

Today, I filed my taxes and pledged to pay on line at some future point.

I hoped that this might be part of the tax revolt movement and send a signal to IRS and the federal government.

But, first of all, my tiny tax burden will have no impact and to be honest, if push comes to shove, I’m willing to pay late fees but I am a coward and am not willing to go to jail, even for Thoreau’s brief incarceration. Been there and done that, and just one night in jail is enough to drive a man insane.

I am so sickened by my government and I’m not sure what else to do, but starving the military beast is clearly justified and necessary.

When the government supports genocide in my name and with my tax dollars, in principle I’m with Hannah Arendt:

As Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” the only morally reliable people are not those who say “this is wrong” or “this should not be done,” but those who say “I can’t.” They know that as Immanuel Kant wrote: “If justice perishes, human life on earth has lost its meaning.” And this means that, like Socrates, we must come to a place where it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. We must at once see and act, and given what it means to see, this will require the surmounting of despair, not by reason, but by faith.

What I lack is the courage of my convictions (in terms of going to jail).

NJ Spotlight Reporting Obscures Major Policy Debate

Once Again, Costs Are Elevated Above Public Health

Yet, after several years and many stories misleading readers by praising DEP’s leadership on regulation of PFOA/PFNA, forever chemicals, NJ Spotlight’s coverage obfuscated critical issues in favor of a focus on costs – which is just what the Chamber of Commerce, NJ BIA, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and the Chemistry Council ordered.

We wrote last week about EPA’s adoption of stringent national drinking water standards for “forever chemicals” PFOA’s to emphasize the State DEP’s lax and overly praised NJ DEP State standards, see:

• EPA Drinking Water Standard For “Forever Chemicals” PFAS Exposes Less Stringent NJ DEP Standard

NJ Spotlight picked up the story today, but of course ignored our work. So let me take a moment to outline the flaws in their coverage.

The purpose of my initial post was to highlight the Murphy DEP’s quiet reversal of the “federalism” aspects of NJ’s historically more stringent State standards adopted by DEP.

For over 30 years, NJ DEP adopted a series of more stringent air pollution, water quality, toxic site cleanup, hazardous and solid waste waste management, and chemical safety standards than their minimum federal counter-parts. That is the federalism policy built into federal environmental laws, which allows State’s to adopt more stringent State standards, based on local conditions and State priorities.

This more stringent State regulatory policy was justified by NJ’s historical petro-chemical industrial pollution legacy and the nation’s greatest population density. The policy was strongly opposed by the NJ business community, due to higher compliance costs.

The policy lasted until 1994, when Gov. Christie Whitman issued Executive Order #27, which effectively rolled back stricter NJ DEP State standards.

EO #27 mandated a cost-benefit justification for stricter State standards, and discouraged the adoption of any new stricter State standards, instead relying on US EPA federal standards:

WHEREAS, New Jersey must simultaneously move toward reducing redundant and unnecessary regulation that dulls the State’s competitive advantage while being ever vigilant in the protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare; and

WHEREAS, New Jersey’s administrative agencies should consider applicable federal standards when adopting, readopting or amending regulations with analogous federal counterparts; and

WHEREAS, New Jersey’s administrative agencies should analyze whether analogous federal standards sufficiently protect the health, safety and welfare of New Jersey citizens; …

I … do hereby ORDER and DIRECT:

1. On or after the effective date of this Order, each administrative agency that adopts, readopts or amends any rule or regulation described in section 2 of this Order shall, in addition to all requirements imposed by existing law and regulation, include as part of the initial publication and all subsequent publications of such rule or regulation, a statement as to whether the rule or regulation in question contains any standards or requirements which exceed the standards or requirements imposed by federal law. Such cost-benefit analysis that supports the agency’s decision to impose the standards or requirements and also supports the fact that the State standard or requirement to be imposed is achievable under current technology, notwithstanding the federal government’s determination that lesser standards or requirements are appropriate.

The Whitman federal consistency policy and cost-benefit analysis were never formally repealed and remain in DEP practice, but the policy was effectively reversed by the McGreevey DEP in 2002, and later Codey and Corzine Administrations.

But the Whitman federal consistency/CBA policy rollback was restored and expanded by Gov. Chris Christie’s anti-regulatory package of Executive Orders issued on his first day in Office under Executive Orders #1 (regulatory moratorium) Executive Order # 2 (regulatory relief), Executive Order #3 (Red Tape review), and Executive Order #4 (abdication of State role to local government).

(Christie’s first day in office regulatory attack later became the model for President Trump, who did EXACTLY the same thing his first days in Office).

Gov. Murphy repealed Christie’s Executive Order #2 via Executive Order #63, see:

• Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order On Regulatory Policy Raises Major New Concerns

This entire debate, which sacrifices public health and the environment to industry compliance costs, was obfuscated by NJ Spotlight’s coverage.

Here it is: (NJ Spotlight)

The federal agency [EPA] has long been under pressure from public health and environmental advocates to set national standards to protect public health from PFAS in drinking water. The absence until now of federal rules led states including New Jersey to set their own regulations for the most common PFAS chemicals.

Did you see how they did that?

The “absence of federal regulations” is NOT why DEP adopted a NJ State standard.

NJ adopted the State standards for “forever chemicals” to protect public health.

They did so under a NJ State law (the NJ Safe Drinking Water Act) that is explicitly more stringent than the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, sets an explicit numeric cancer risk standard (1 in a million), and does not authorize consideration of costs.

This NJ law has long authorized DEP to adopt State standards for more chemicals that were NOT regulated by EPA and at a stricter level.

I explained all that in my prior post.

Here how NJ Spotlight superficially covered this critical debate:

Until then [i.e the lengthy 5 year compliance period under EPA rules], New Jersey will continue to apply its own PFAS standards. But the state’s regulation of three common PFAS chemicals — PFNA, PFOA and PFOS — is less strict than the new benchmarks set by the federal government and some advocates are asking whether the state’s standards are fully protecting the public.

The state rules “are not as protective as the new standard,” said Andy Kricun, former head of the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, which provides water and wastewater services to the South Jersey county. “That is absolutely a concern.”

That means you will be drinking unsafe water for at least 5 more years.

That means DEP’s over the top claim of “national leadership” is spin, see DEP press release:

• Affirming National Leadership Role, New Jersey Publishes Formal Stringent Drinking Water Standards for PFOA and PFOS (2020)

And those health, safety, and environmental pollution concerns are not limited to PFOA, PFNA and PFOS – but to everything DEP does.

Yet, after several years and many stories misleading readers by praising DEP’s leadership on regulation of PFOA/PFNA, forever chemicals, NJ Spotlight’s coverage obfuscated critical issues in favor of a focus on costs – which is just what the Chamber of Commerce, NJ BIA, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and the Chemistry Council ordered.

Murphy DEP Reverses Historical Role Of DEP Adopting More Stringent State Standards

The US EPA just adopted a national drinking water standard (known as an “MCL”) for the “forever chemicals” PFAS.

The EPA national standard is 4 ug/L – 4 parts per trillion*.

In contrast, the NJ DEP – highly touted as a national leader on PFAS regulation by the cheerleading NJ press corps and environmental groups – adopted a far less stringent NJ State drinking water standard of 14 ug/L, more than 3 TIMES higher than the EPA national standard.

NJ legally is forced to comply with the federal EPA far lower and more protective MCL public health standard.

Historically, the NJ DEP has adopted NJ State standards that are far more stringent than federal minimums.

These more stringent NJ State standards are authorized by the NJ Safe Drinking Water Act, which, in contrast to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, prohibits consideration of costs and establishes a 1 in one million individual lifetime cancer risk standard, both of which NJ State standards are far more stringent that the federal EPA risk range of 1 in ten thousand to 1 in a million and which allows consideration of costs.

Yet despite this federal EPA regulatory action that exposes the NJ DEP standard as less protective of public health – a reverse of NJ’s 30 year history – DEP issued a favorable press release that ignored all that.

A reasonable and humble response from NJ DEP would be to applaud EPA for following the science and pledging to strengthen NJ’s standards and do better.

But instead of a muted and low profile NJ DEP response, DEP Commissioner LaTourette decided to deflect attention from the embarrassing reality of DEP’s lax NJ State standard and the betrayal of 30 years of DEP adopting far more stringent NJ State standards.

Read the DEP press release – and never trust these people again:

• GOVERNOR MURPHY, COMMISSIONER LATOURETTE STATEMENTS ON U.S. EPA’S LANDMARK ADOPTION OF FEDERAL PFAS STANDARD

*typo corrected

DEP Created And Gov.’s Office Approved A $142,500 Political Job In Record Time

Crony Hire Was Former Colleague Of DEP Assistant Commissioner Cecil, Who Conducted The Interview

No Job Postings, Solicitation, Or Competitive Civil Service Safeguards

This one smells so bad that I think I’m going to refer it to the Attorney General’s Office of Public Integrity And Accountability.

The Murphy DEP just made a highly unusual hiring decision that raises multiple red flags.

The DEP recently hired a former NJ Audubon staffer into a $142,500 job, with excellent benefits. Nice work if you can get it.

The job title is “Government Representative 2” – in other words, a lobbyist, not a scientist, engineer, planner, or technician who make up the large majority of DEP staff.

The individual hired is a former colleague of DEP Assistant Commissioner John Cecil, who worked under his management control at NJ Audubon.

Mr. Cecil has ethical issues for his failure to disclose and recuse from DEP decisions related to his prior work at NJ Audubon, which included controversial logging on State lands and multiple “corporate stewardship” projects, including one at Donald Trump’s golf course in Bedminster.

Given these conflicts, one would think that Mr. Cecil would tread lightly and refrain from involvement with NJ Audubon issues.

One would be wrong.

Here’s DEP OPRA reply:

She [Ms. Meistrell] was interviewed on 10/05/23 by AC David Golden, AC John Cecil, and Lisa Barno.

It seems like Ms. Meistrell’s interview on 10/5/23 preceded the creation of her position. Another unusual situation (see below chronology).

Assistant Commissioner Cecil was involved in the creation of the new position, he participated in the interview, and he made the hiring decision – of a former colleague (we will discuss their shared controversial and deeply flawed pro-logging policy views in a future post).

Thus, Mr. Cecil compounded his prior ethical disclosure and recusal lapses with gross cronyism (at a minimum).

But it gets worse.

First, let me explain the unusual timing: (source: verbatim from DEP OPRA response):

The [hiring] request from the Program was submitted in Hiring & Recruitment Platform (HARP) on 12/21/23.  Governor’s Office approval was received on 02/01/24 and CSC approval was received on 02/14/24.

I worked at DEP for almost 14 years, 3 years as a political appointee approved by the Governor, and many times personally walked important documents that required DEP Managers and the Governor’s Office approvals, so I know first hand how cumbersome the system is. Under tight budgets and hiring limits, it is very difficult to create new positions, particularly in the $142,500 salary range.

In this case,  that all happened incredibly fast, and with several holidays slowing things down. This hiring required approvals of the DEP Assistant Commissioner (John Cecil), the DEP Assistant Commissioner for personnel or Management And Budget, and DEP Commissioner LaTourette. Then the Gov.’s Office and Civil Service and Treasury had to certify available funds.

Second, let’s take a look at the job position itself.

According to DEP OPRA response I just received: (these are verbatim quotes):

There was no Notice of Vacancy (NOV) posted for this unclassified position,

This is an unclassified appointment.

There was no Civil Service exam because this is an unclassified, at-will position.

There was no job posting for this unclassified appointment.

There was no job posting for Ms. Meistrell’s position.

Now that is a truly stunning example of cronyism, special treatment, ethical lapses, and abuse of power.

We will explain the implications for managing State forests and natural resources in an upcoming post.

Meantime, consider:

2C:30-2. Official misconduct

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:

a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or

b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

The Same Thing Happened Last Year In The Pinelands

“As If On Cue”

Meanwhile, DEP Exempts wildfire Smoke From Air Pollution Inventory

(Caption: Delaware River near Watergap, 5 acre fire in Worthington State Forest, photo by Bruce Scruton, NJ Herald)

Firefighter arson is a persistent phenomenon involving a very small minority of firefighters who are also active arsonists.^[1] Fire-fighting organizations are aware of this problem. Some of the offenders seem to be motivated by boredom, or by the prospect of receiving attention for responding to the fires they have set.

It has been reported that roughly 100 U.S. firefighters are convicted of arson each year.^[3][4] ~~~ Wikipedia

For the last few years, DEP Commissioner LaTourette, the DEP Forest Fire Service, and DEP Press Office have been flogging the wildfire issue, greatly exaggerating the risks.

They have conducted an unprecedented campaign of media events, tours, press releases, prescribed burn media demonstrations, and legislative testimony, see:

• Murphy DEP Caught Blowing Smoke On Wildfires

The DEP’s public relations campaign coincided with rising public awareness of western wildfires and strong public opposition to the smoke and forest destruction created by DEP’s “prescribed burn” program. Public awareness was spurred by the national scandal of a US Forest Service “prescribed burn” in New Mexico that caused one of the largest wildfires in southwestern history. That disaster forced USFS to impose a moratorium and review and reform its prescribed burn program.

That USFS accident should have shed light and triggered critical scrutiny of DEP’s prescribed burn program and well as misguided recent legislation that eliminated liability for damages caused by prescribed burns that get out of control. But that review never occurred, e.g. see:

• DEP’s Own Analysis Of The Dynamics Of The Wharton State Forest Wildfire Illustrates Why Their “Forest Thinning” And “Firebreak” Logging Plan Won’t Work

Instead, DEP recently took steps to deregulate prescribed burns and exempt the unhealthy smoke they create from the air pollution inventory mandated by the federal Clean Air Act.

This demonstration aims to exclude certain ozone monitoring data from April 13, 2023, June 2, 2023, and June 29 – 30, 2023, due to the impact of multiple wildfires on New Jersey’s ozone air quality. …. A copy of the Department’s proposed Exceptional Event Demonstration is available on the Department’s website at public-notice-and-2023-ozone-ee-demo.pdf (nj.gov).

The DEP public relations efforts have paid off by diverting any critical review of DEP, instead portraying DEP Forest Fire Service and prescribed burns very favorably. The campaign’s success includes millions of dollars in federal grants and state appropriations: (DEP press release):

The Murphy Administration responded to the busy fire year by supporting the Forest Fire Service with a $3 million budget boost in FY23 to enhance protection of lives and property through investments in new equipment and staff.

Yesterday, when I received the DEP press release warning the public about risks of wildfire and touting DEP’s prescribed burn program, I was thinking about Tweeting “The arson starts tomorrow”.

Seriously.

And I’ll be damned, just one day later, there was an unusual small wildfire in the Delaware Gap. That fire occurred not only one day after DEP’s press release, but less than a mile from a DEP prescribed burn.

And it generated the same very favorable media coverage and support for DEP’s controversial prescribed burn program. The local newspaper story read like a DEP press release.(see the NJ Herald story by pro-logging DEP transcriber Bruce Scruton, who also mis-reported the controversial DEP logging on Sparta Mountain).

Exactly the same thing happened last year in the Pinelands – when I recall asking reporters to look into the proximity of the wildfire to the DEP prescribed burn program.

• Latest Pinelands Wildfire Raises Serious Questions About DEP Forest Management

The DEP attributed the cause of that remote Pinelands fire to a campfire, which I also found highly suspect given its remote location and low probability of campers being in that area at that time of year and day of week.

Even NJ Spotlight expressed skepticism and dropped a hint: (quote from Spotlight email)

• As if on cue, the firefighting service tonight reported a five-acre blaze near the Delaware Water Gap, which they say is unrelated to an earlier prescribed burn in the area.

Yes, as if on cue. They say.