Jackson Divides NJ Environmentalists

Public Praise contrasts sharply with private criticisms
In the run-up to next week’s US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing of Obama nominee Lisa Jackson as US EPA Administrator, former Jersey Girl Kate Sheppard has written an in depth piece for Grist, the national journal of the environmental movement.
The piece paints a pathetic picture of NJ environmental politics:
The Lisa of our concerns
N.J. enviros deeply divided over record of Obama’s EPA nominee
Kate Sheppard – 05 Jan 2009
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/5/8314/64771
(continued)

Bill WolfeLisa Jackson whispers in Governor Jon Corzine’s ear – April 2008.
Sierra Club has called Corzine “the worst environmental governor ever”
Jackson resigned as DEP Commissioner to become Corzine’s Chief of Staff.

“Depending on who you ask, Lisa Jackson is either the best or worst thing that ever happened to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which she led from February 2006 to November 2008.
For the most part, New Jersey’s biggest environmental groups praise her work on climate change and celebrate her nomination to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But she also has a passionate and vocal group of detractors, mainly people who have worked on toxics in the state, both within the DEP and outside it. Her critics say she’s a political player who has undermined science within the department. The deep divide between greens in the state has lead to some nasty finger-pointing on both sides.”
I am a Jackson critic. But in judging the credibility of the Jackson praise, readers must consider how environmental leaders criticize Jackson policy privately, versus what they say publicly in the press. Let’s take a look:
1. On environmental justice and global warming:
“We oppose carbon trading as a method to address climate change. RGGI gives little consideration to environmental justice issues.
Carbon trading does not ensure emissions reductions in or near overburdened environmental justice communities and does not ensure that its operation will not create pollution “hot spots” in or near environmental justice communities.”
(Dr. Nicky Sheats, NJ Environmental Justice Alliance)
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/12/will_environmental_justice_fin.html
2. On protecting water quality:
Dear Commissioner Jackson,
In a late December meeting attended by many of our groups, the Department outlined its plan for a new process to guide the designation of Category One waterways. The meeting afforded only a cursory overview of what would represent a very fundamental change to clean water protections in New Jersey, but did provide an outline of the narrow set of water quality indicators that might serve as the basis for deciding future C1 upgrades. We have serious objections to the proposed designation process and fear that its implementation would strip New Jersey of the ability to adequately protect and maintain its high quality waterways. If enacted, this method would reverse tremendous advances in clean water protection in the state, contradict the commitments made by Governor Corzine, and leave New Jersey without the ability to adequately protect and maintain many of its most deserving waterways.
Jeff Tittel, Sierra Club, NJEF, ANJEC, Environment NJ, et al
http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/c1_letter.pdf
3. On enforcing stream buffer regulations against sprawl developers:
Dear Commissioner Jackson:
We the undersigned have concerns regarding the current interpretation of C-1 stream buffers on farmland being converted to non-agricultural
uses like residential or commercial subdivisions.
NJDEP rules require a 300-foot buffer zone to protect the resource
qualities of C-1 waters. Recognizing the special role of farmers, the
rules allow a reduction of the buffer to 150 feet for farming purposes if the land is already “disturbed,” meaning not in its natural state.
NJDEP interpretation is presently allowing this buffer reduction to be
permanent even when the land is taken out of agricultural production – and
thus allowing construction of buildings in the buffer.
We strongly urge that this interpretation be reconsidered.
http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/buffer_loophole.pdf
I could provide several other examples – but, the question is, why is there such a sharp difference between the private criticism of Jackson’s policies, versus the public praise?