DEP Strategy To Enroll 100,000 Acres Of Forest In “Carbon Market”
Public Trust Managed Like A Wall Street Commodity
Wall Street Billionaire Influencing DEP Forest Management Policy
Lately, it seems like under every rock I turn over in the Murphy DEP’s backyard I find lofty goals and appealing slogans used to justify toothless or flat out rotten policies and programs.
Working on a forestry issue this morning, I came across and scanned the Murphy DEP’s Natural And Working Lands Strategy (May, 2024).
But who are those lands really working for?
Under the guise of the climate emergency and promotion of carbon sequestration, that strategy sets policies and goals for managing NJ’s last remaining natural landscape.
I only briefly scanned the document – which I’ll try to review in a future post – and one of the policies and goals that jumped off the page were the goals for forested lands (see table on page 6).
My goodness, DEP’s “target” is to “maintain” the loss of 4,000 acres of forest per year!
Minimize Conversion of Forested Lands Targets (F5)
• Maintain annual forest conversion rate of 4,000 acres converted to non-forest cover until 2030, then reduce forestland converted to non-forest cover to 2,000 acres per year, by 2050
That is a totally unacceptable loss rate and nothing close to “minimization” of loss. The loss rate target should be ZERO!
In contrast, the “afforestation” “targets” are pathetically minuscule and limited to existing forests, not farmland and other barren lands:
Afforestation Target (F1)
• Afforest 200 acres per year, for a total of 1,600 acres through 2030 and 4,000 acres through 2050.
Here is DEP’s explanation of that small goal:
As acres of urbanization and development in our state continue to increase annually, acres of forest wetlands, and agriculture have continued to decrease over the past 29 years. ….. With buildout anticipated in some counties in the near future, there is limited land remaining within the state that is appropriate for afforestation or reforestation, and the targets aim to reflect that limitation.
I draw exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion from that data.
Because NJ is so densely populated and is losing the little that is left, it is imperative that we preserve the little remaining forests!
(you don’t have to be a math major to understand that if NJ is losing 4,000 acres of forest per year (long term trend, real data) and only adding 200 (hypothetical, never been done before), that’s a formula for total loss.)
The DEP strategy is based on “active forest management“, which is code for more logging under the guises of “carbon storage and sequestration”, habitat creation, wildfire risk reduction, and forest health:
Plan ecological forest management to sequester carbon while mimicking natural processes and diversity in forest systems on 100,000 acres by 2030 and 200,000 acres by 2050.
Active forest management can improve carbon sequestration, while enhancing forest resilience, health, and ecological benefits. Forest management helps ensure the longevity of native forests while providing age and structural diversity.
But the policies and “targets” that really set me off were these: (page 32)
-
-
Enroll approximately 75,000 acres of state forest lands in a carbon market.
-
Encourage enrollment of private lands in carbon markets.
-
Enroll 75,000 acres of forest lands into a carbon market by 2030 and 100,000 acres by 2050.
-
DEP provided the following justification for that huge and controversial policy:
Voluntary carbon offset markets allow landowners to sell the carbon sequestered in their forest to another entity to offset emissions made elsewhere. The income from state land carbon credits could be used to fund forest management activities and potentially the conservation of additional lands to forested use.
The boldface text is the tell: the money will fund “forest management activities”.
DEP is again seeking revenues to support the Department’s staff. We’ve already seen how this funding structure creates conflicts of interest and incentivizes poor management, so let’s not let DEP repeat this problem!
DEP seems committed to this market trading scheme. And it its a scheme which has been proven to be flawed and corrupt, see:
Market-based approaches to forest conservation like carbon offsets and deforestation-free certification schemes have largely failed to protect trees or alleviate poverty, according to a major scientific review published on Monday.
The global study—the most comprehensive of its kind to date—found that trade and finance-driven initiatives had made “limited” progress halting deforestation and in some cases worsened economic inequality.
Ignoring that science, the DEP nonetheless is plowing ahead with this flawed scheme. DEP’s strategy pledges to:
Near-term actions
• Release a Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) for a carbon market on state land.
• Conduct exploratory research on the viability of carbon markets on privately held forested lands appropriate to the distribution and size of these lands in New Jersey.
• Educate non-profits and other natural resource-based organizations on carbon markets – how they work, barriers to entry, etc.
The non-profits, who clearly know better, have the same financial interests as DEP in this trading scam.
I suspect that Sussex County Wall Street billionaire Peter Kellogg is behind this corrupt carbon market scheme for forests.
Kellogg is politically powerful and well connected to DEP . This billionaire, already has enrolled his Hudson Farm lands in a private carbon credit – trading program.
Kellogg provided over $300,000 to fund NJ Audubon’s “forest stewardship” logging project at Sparta Mountain – a joint project with DEP.
Kellogg also paid for $5,000 per week DEP managers junkets.
Kellogg is a former Wall Streeter like our NJ Governor Phil Murphy, so his money, his land, and his connections have had undue influence on DEP’s flawed forestry policy.
Given the DEP statement about developing a carbon credit program, Kellogg’s support for such a program,and the availability of significant RGGI funding, it is very possible if not likely that Senator Smith will amend his current proposed forestry legislation to authorize the Murphy DEP’s carbon credit schemes.
DEP could also attempt to adopt such a carbon credit program via regulations or informal guidance in the absence of authorizing legislation. DEP currently implements a “14 step process” to manage NJ’s forests on public lands in the absence of authorizing legislation and regulation, so anything is possible from the arrogant pro-logging bureaucrats at DEP.
I urge readers to contact Smith and DEP Commissioner LaTourette to tell them to avoid going down this failed market based path and instead pursue real planning and regulatory measure to preserve all of what’s left of NJ’s forests, on public and private land.
Over and out, with a letter to DEP Commissioner:
Dear Commissioner LaTourette:
I write regarding the Department’s “Natural And Working Lands Strategy” (May 2024)
https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/climatechange/nwls-final-2024_09_19.pdf
That strategy adopts policies and goals for, among other things, to:
- Enroll forest land in a carbon market – (75,000 acres per year by 2030 and 100,000 acres by 2050)
As you know, the protection and preservation of NJ’s forest resources enjoy widespread and strong public support.
As you also know, the role of markets in public policy is an extremely controversial and complex policy field. The science and management frameworks to govern carbon markets is not well developed, perhaps the least so for carbon markets for forested lands.
The Department has no legislative authority I am aware of to “enroll forest land in a carbon market”.
The Department has no regulations that govern any program to “enroll forest land in a carbon market”.
The Department has no scientific basis or technical support documents to “enroll forest land in a carbon market”.
The Department has no public process to oversee any carbon market for forests.
Given the lack of legislative authorization and legislative policy direction – compounded by the controversial policy issues and lack of adequate scientific basis, management control, and public participation – please delete the policy and targets to “enroll 75,000 – 100,000 acres of forested land in a carbon market” from the Strategy.
Frankly, I find the Department’s over-reach absolutely stunning.
Thank you.
Bill Wolfe