WolfeNotes.com

Winter Night

Henry Martin Gasser (1909 – 1981)

Gasser was born in Newark, New Jersey, where he lived for most of his life. … Henry Martin Gasser was an American painter in every sense. From his working-class industrial town, he sought out the greatest artists in the area in order to study from them and found inspiration in his backyard. Through persistence and a spirit of originality, Gasser turned humble scenes of urban American life in the mid-twentieth century into extraordinary works of art that were widely praised by the art world.

Despite its highly individualistic style, Gasser’s work still fits neatly into the tradition established by his American predecessors. In addition to exhibiting influence from Grabach, Gasser’s realist depictions of everyday life continued the legacy of the Ashcan painters. The majority of Gasser’s work portrays his native New Jersey. By the time he reached artistic maturity in the mid-twentieth century, Newark had become a major industrial center. Such cities, although the life force of American industry and ingenuity, were not known for their scenic qualities. Nonetheless, Gasser found beauty in his surroundings. His artworks typically feature urban scenes, such as residential streets lined with houses and blue-collar suburban communities. Along with painting in New Jersey and New York, he embarked on excursions with Grabach to New England to capture coastal views and winter scenery.

[Note: see Ashcan School

Watch: The Ashcan School: America’s Lost Art Movement

Read: Ashcan Art, Whiteness, and the Unspectacular Man

Winter Parking

Highway Diner

?

The Underpass

View From Kelvin’s Window

?

Hill Street, Winter Harbor

Industrial Landscape (Newark)

Harrison House

Backyard In Newark

Oil Well Outskirts

Chairman Smith Guts “Green Amendment” By Deleting The Enforcement Mechanism

DEP Action And Inaction Deleted

EXPLANATION – Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in the above bill is
not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law.

Chairman Smith amended the proposed “Green Amendment” and released SCR 43 from Committee yesterday. Smith provided no explanation or justification for the amendments in a brief 15 minute hearing, which ended in loud applause from supporters of the Green Amendment.

The amendments listed “a safe climate” among the Constitutional “rights”, appearing to address one of 3 fatal flaws I flagged initially on March 2 and that later was requested by Maya van Rossum in testimony on March 7.

But the amendments did NOT include 2 other fatal flaws: lack of rights for environmental justice and public health (a “healthy environment” means what it says: it does not say healthy for humans. This lack of precision is replicated throughout this flawed measure.)

And there was no specific scientific or numeric standard included in the SCR that would define what a “safe climate” is. I suggested 350 parts per million CO2, the level scientists suggest is the highest concentration that can support a stable (“safe”) climate.

But, before climate activists start applauding, consider the fact that the brackets taketh away. SCR 43 now reads:

The State shall not infringe upon these rights 1[, by action or inaction]1

State “action” means things like DEP permits.

State “inaction” means things like the failure of DEP regulations and permits to address or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stop destruction of forests and farms by development, and allow petro-chemical companies to poison the air and water of the State.

And the law would not apply to violations of these rights by the private sector – only by the State (and are municipal, County, and regional governments and Authorities considered “the State”?)

All of which confirm my assessment: Washington Post:

The measure would decree that “the state’s natural resources, among them its waters, air, flora, fauna, climate, and public lands, are the common property of all the people, including both present and future generations. The state shall serve as trustee of these resources, and shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all people.”

But Bill Wolfe, a former official with the state Department of Environmental Protection and a frequent critic of the agency, said the state already is the trustee of those resources under the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal concept dating back to the Roman Empire that the state has adopted in other areas, including access to beaches and waterways.

“The bill is deeply flawed, and I believe it is more performative than a serious effort,” he said.

[Update – see this for background info on the NJ DEP “public trust doctrine”.

The NJ DEP also has explicit legal authority to enforce the Public Trust Doctrine in the toxic site remediation program, the Natural Resource Restoration program, and under the delegated federal Clean Water Act. There s implicit authority in DEP’s enabling legislation and several other State environmental laws. NJ DEP and environmental groups do very, very little work to actually enforce this existing authority.~~~ end update]

So, why would Chairman Smith delete “State action and inaction” from the bill?

It was clearly a sop to the business community, who claimed that: (read the whole thing)

NJBIA is opposing a constitutional amendment that attempts to establish that every person has a legal right to a clean environment because it will lead to a surge in costly litigiation (sic) and create uncertainty that would jeopardize financing for public infrastructure and private development projects.

Let me translate that: the “costly litigation” NJ BIA refers to is legal challenges to DEP permits (“State action”) that violate environmental rights. These challenges could stop or increase the costs of proposed development or the operations of existing polluters.

The “uncertainty” NJ BIA refers to involves whether citizens might challenge DEP permits or regulations for failure to protect those environmental rights and thereby block their proposed developments or impose compliance costs on their pollution (“State inaction”)

(and Ray Cantor at NJ BIA should get a spell check or editor – bad form to make those kinds of typos, especially in such a significant statement).

So, by deleting “state action and inaction”, that uncertainty is greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

Basically, the DEP status quo is protected – all the laws, regulations, and DEP permit practices are presumed adequate and the burden on the challenger is increased.

Legal challenges to DEP permits or regulations to enforce those rights can not rely on the specific legal standard that the “inaction” of the State is what the lawyers call “actionable”.

Courts will not break a sweat in (“strict scrutiny”) defining what it means for the “State” to “infringe upon” these rights. They may now even conclude that deletion of “State action and inaction” was legislative intent to take “inaction” completely off the table. That means decades of individual lawsuits on a case by case site specific basis to develop the case law and precedent.

(contrast that with, let’s say, State DEP and BPU regulations that would mandate reductions in GHG emissions to meet the aspirational goals of the Global Warming Response Act and the toothless rhetoric of Gov. Murphy’s numerous self serving Executive Orders on climate and energy. I could offer dozens of more examples of regulatory standards that would put teeth in environmental laws and regulations and hold DEP accountable to democratic demands, while empowering activists, not lawyers and judges.).

(and in contrast to the closed judicial chambers, all those DEP regulatory adoption and permit issuance procedures include public notice, public comment, and public hearings, which activists can use as organizing and political platforms to turn out mass crowds to press for real substantive and structural changes, not aspirational vague platitudes like a “safe climate” as ruled by a judge (with a “compelling state interest” escape hatch)

When I think of all the hard work of young and idealistic and enthusiastic climate activists in particular – and the round of applause given to Smith upon release of the SCR yesterday – it turns my stomach and makes my blood boil.

These people will invest their hearts and souls in working to enact this Resolution.

They’ve been told that this is what democracy looks like.

They’ve been told that this approach will be “a game changer” on climate.

Yet, even if they succeed, their democratic work work will do very little and depend on raising money to hire expensive lawyers and experts to file lawsuits based on esoteric legal doctrines argued in closed courtroom settings and decided by a (likely) conservative old white man in black robes.

This is a gross perversion of democracy. And deeply cynical manipulation by Trenton policymakers and the “leaders” of this initiative.

Worse, it will divert huge activist resources and time from far more effective strategies that actually build democratic political power, hold  corporate polluters and government accountable, and force the kind of changes required to preserve what’s left of our natural environment and damped the climate catastrophe.

In closing, I thought we had hit moral rock bottom and cynicism when Joe Biden described manufacture and provision of 2,000 pound bombs to Israel to murder women and children in a genocide as “investments in a US jobs program” – in swing states no less!

But, manipulation of idealistic young people about the viability of their future might be worse.

[End Note: I intentionally left Chairman Smith’s remarks out, because I was disgusted in how he laid the foundation to blame the activists when this fails (e.g. they failed to convince the legislature). But, because NJ Spotlight reported them (in a boxed quote, no less), I’ll note that because Smith knows that the SCR 43 is DOA, it confirms my criticism that he’s engaging in a cynical performative stunt:

‘You are going to have a big job to convince the Legislature that this is the right thing to do,’ said Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), referring to the proposed constitutional amendment.

Gov. Murphy’s New Statewide State Parks And Open Space Foundation Law Invites Abuse

Virtual Media Blackout Of This Story – No Public Awareness Of The Threats

An Open Pitch To Intrepid Journalists

I follow the excellent work of FBW – Fund For A Better Waterfront.

Their latest newsletter warns of potential abuses in Hoboken:

By leasing the Community Hub building proposed for Maritime Park, the City of Hoboken could generate up to $111,000 in annual revenue for the community room and $55,000 for the roof deck. The City could also “Capitalize on Kayaking”, generating annually up to $77,500 for boat storage and $18,000 through kayak and canoe rentals.

These proposals are contained in Appendix C, Maritime Park Funding Opportunities, prepared by James Lima Planning + Development, in the final report submitted by Dattner Architects and its partners. The Funding Opportunities report proposes monetizing Maritime Park further with lawn areas for pay-to-play soccer, softball and volleyball; fees for birdwatching tours; and rental of the beach area.

These proposals fly in the face of the Fund for a Better Waterfront’s (FBW) decades-long advocacy for a truly public space at the water’s edge, open and free to all. To comply with the City’s Open Space Trust Fund (OSTF) ordinance, leasing the Community Hub building to a private operator would require approval by Hoboken voters, a right that FBW recently bolstered through its settlement with the City of Hoboken.

Very similar abuses currently are going on at Liberty State Park, where billionaire Paul Fireman is seeking commercialization and privatization via a sham astroturf Foundation called Parks For people or some such. This battle has generated enormous public opposition and tons of media coverage critical of Fireman’s abuses.

I sent Ron Hine at FBW an email giving him a heads up that the potential abuses he is seeing in Hoboken were expanded Statewide by Gov. Murphy’ new State Parks And Open Space Foundation law.

Ron replied that his was a local park battle, not a State Park.

So, I had to clarify that the new law applies to ALL local, county and State Parks – including historic sites, Green Acres lands, State forests, and State Wildlife Management Areas.

Yet this law has a gotten ZERO media coverage and the people of NJ have no idea of the threats it poses to their local public parks and open spaces.

So, I pitched the following story to a NY Times reporter who has covered the Liberty State Park controversy as well as the national political ambitions of Gov. Murphy – here is that pitch, and I must say, it is quite as story for an intrepid journalist out there!

Good day XXXX:

I just came across your piece on Gov. Murphy’s national ambitions and the Liberty State Park controversy, particularly the Fireman Foundation.

Given the obvious abuses by Mr. Fireman’s Foundation (i.e. a dark money astroturf operation to inject private commercial influence into public parks decisions – with pay to play dynamics, etc), I was shocked to see that Gov. Murphy signed into law a bill rammed quietly through lame duck that created a Statewide Parks and Open Space Foundation, comprised of private interests, and virtually modeled on the Fireman Foundation, see: P.L.2023, c.256

PL not yet published, but here is final form of bill passed and signed into law

https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/S1500/1311_R2.PDF

Legislative history here

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/S1311

The law applies to ALL state parks, forests, Green Acres lands, local and County parks, historic sites, etc. Liberty State Park and Island Beach State Park were specifically targeted in the law via lame duck amendments.

The Foundation is empowered to raise private funds, and to dedicate those funds to specific projects that they recommend.

The Foundation is not subject to Open Public Meetings Act, Open Public Records Act, NJ Ethics laws or ELEC lobbying law. Pay to play on steroids!

The NJ State Park System has a $720 million unfunded maintenance deficit (per testimony by DEP Commissioner LaTourette to Assembly Budget Committee last year), so it will be virtually impossible for DEP to reject a project funded by the new Foundation.

There is literally NO awareness of this law and I’ve seen no media coverage, which has been consumed by the Liberty State Park controversy.

You may recall that NJ conservation groups “Keep It Green” open space voter referendum stripped the previously Constitutionally dedicated $48 million per year to State Parks capital projects and diverted that money to Open Space (during Christie Administration). The public got duped on that and was never told this would happen.

Similarly, the public knows nothing of this threat to their local and State parks (including forests!).

Can you please look into and write about this story?

Here’s a specific great story as an example of the abuses:

You might want to look into Peter Kellogg, a billionaire who owns Hudson Farm in Sussex County, an elite private hunting club. Ironically, that’s the place where Benton MacKaye conceived the Appalachian trail, see

https://hudsonfarmnj.com/history/

Kellogg has his own private Foundation, Hudson Farm, see:

https://hudsonfarmnj.com/hudson-farm-foundation/

Kellogg, via that Foundation, donated almost $500,000 to NJ Audubon to fund a controversial “forest stewardship” project (logging, including clearcuts) in DEP’s Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area, on preserved public lands purchased with Green Acres money. NJ Audubon provided political cover and a scientifically flawed “conservation” rationale for that logging (in specially protected NJ Highlands Forests, a law enacted to preserve intact forest canopy and stop forest fragmentation – I know, I wrote much of it).

Kellogg’s Hudson Farm also participates in a private carbon trading market and his Hudson Farm lands have generated “carbon credits”. Those economically valuable credits are based on the carbon stored in forests that would be lost if he clearcut the forest, which is something his own Forest Stewardship Plan says he is not going to do!

DEP received $370 million in Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) auction sales (2020 – 2022). Ten percent of those funds are dedicated to “carbon sequestration” so we’re talking about a lot of money.

DEP is now structuring Forest Management policies regarding carbon sequestration, and there is a forestry bill pending in the Legislature, sponsored by Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith.

So, here’s a perfect example of a billionaire using lots of private money in an astroturf operation to shape State public lands, forestry, and climate policies, all behind the scenes and in which issues he has significant economic interests.

And this history of Hudson Farm (public advocacy of MacKaye and Jane Addams involvement) poses an incredible irony to the private elite abuses ongoing now. The old Manhattan progressives are rolling in their graves.

Wolfe

Biden’s Climate Policy Is Exposed As Sham

United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever

That’s not my headline.

Hit the link and see that it comes from the experts at the US Energy Information Administration.

So, as they say, let’s go to the video tape and look at the numbers:

The United States produced more crude oil than any nation at any time, according to our International Energy Statistics, for the past six years in a row. Crude oil production in the United States, including condensate, averaged 12.9 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2023, breaking the previous U.S. and global record of 12.3 million b/d, set in 2019. Average monthly U.S. crude oil production established a monthly record high in December 2023 at more than 13.3 million b/d.

The crude oil production record in the United States in 2023 is unlikely to be broken in any other country in the near term because no other country has reached production capacity of 13.0 million b/d. Saudi Arabia’s state-owned Saudi Aramco recently scrapped plans to increase production capacity to 13.0 million b/d by 2027.

This record production comes under a Biden administration who began by issuing a “pause” on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and called climate change an “existential threat“, and stressed Biden’s commitment to real climate policies to reverse the disastrous policies of his predecessor, Trump.

Biden issued an Executive Order on “Tackling the Climate Crisis” – in which he made a commitment to “listen to the science” – his first day in office, and got great press for it.

But the facts, brought to you by the US EIA, expose the Biden lies and hypocrisy. He’s actually outdone Obama and Trump on that score.

So, while I’m on the Biden hypocrisy theme, let’s not let the moment pass.

One of Biden’s first policy announcements was a White House Statement that stressed his support for “diplomacy”, issued on Feb. 4, 2021.

That Statement was written at a time when he was instigating the proxy war in Ukraine.

Biden subsequently rejected Putin peace plans before the Russian invasion and sabotaged ANY negotiations and rejected “diplomacy” after the Russian invasion.

This warmongering set the narrative, politics, and policy framework for the genocide in Gaza, which just so happens to serve as a diversion from the Ukraine catastrophically bad policy. It also threatens nuclear war with both China and Russia.

Proxy War, significantly increased risks of nuclear war, genocide, and climate ecocide.

Them ain’t small potatoes, but that’s Biden’s record. Fuck him and the democrats (and yes, Trump is a fascist).

Green Activists Scramble To Request Last Minute Amendments In Testimony

Embarrassing Amateur Hour In Trenton

The proposed NJ Constitutional amendment (SCR 43) to provide certain individual rights to a clean environment does not include individual rights regarding a stable climate, protection of public health, and ensuring environmental justice.

The SCR 43 does mention climate, but it defines “climate” not as an individual “right”, but as one of the “public natural resources” that the State holds in Trust (through DEP) under the Public Trust Doctrine, which is legally separate and distinct from Constitutional “rights”. This means that the State (through DEP) is in complete control of the “climate” issue and that people could not bring lawsuits to enforce the climate issue as a right like the other rights created by the Resolution. For example, NJ people could not sue to challenge a DEP permit that failed to consider climate, like the climate case in Montana that is being used by activists.

So “the people” do NOT have this right. This is a glaring error.

Public health is not even mentioned in the SCR 43. Protection of public health is a foundational element of environmental law.

So “the people” do NOT have this right

Environmental Justice is not even mentioned in the SCR 43. The EJ issue has been a priority of the green activists for over a decade and NJ passed an “historic” EJ law just 2 years ago.

So “the people” do NOT have this right

I flagged these key flaws after a 15 minute review of the SCR 43 and wrote about it in my initial post on March 2, see:

• A Constitutional Right To A Healthy Environment: Radical Reform Or Just More Trenton Kabuki?

The green activists say they’ve been working on this Constitutional amendment for more than 8 years. It was first introduced in the legislature in 2016 – 2017 Legislative session as ACR 259

The green activists have formed a national organization to promote these green amendments and the leader has written a book.

So how is it possible that they failed to include “rights” to establish protections for climate, public health and environmental justice in their SCR 43 Constitutional amendment?

This gross incompetence was revealed during testimony to the Senate Environment Committee on March 7, 2024 (listen to the testimony here). Let me walk you through that testimony, including key excerpts (we always have the receipts for what we write!)

The gross incompetence of failure to include these fundamental issues in the SCR 43 was not the only huge error by the green activists. It was compounded by how they requested amendments to repair these huge flaws in the SCR 43. Follow this, it was a circus:

The basic protocols of legislative lobbying in Trenton are that there are “no surprises”. You never blind side a legislator, especially in public on important and controversial issues like climate, EJ and public health. And that goes double for a Committee Chairman.

That means that if you are going to request amendments to a piece of legislation, you must do this before the hearing. You never, ever, waltz into a hearing and during testimony blind side the Chairman (and sponsors) with amendment requests. You first contact the sponsor privately and get their approval and after that you reach out to the Chairman to give them a heads up and request that the amendments be drafted (OLS aides draft amendments in bill form).

So, please read the following excerpts (with time stamps) or hit the link and go listen to how Maya van Rossum, the leader of this “green amendment” initiative (and author of a book on the subject) casually requests major amendments at the very close of her testimony.

Maya’s amendment request shocked Committee Chairman Bob Smith, who immediately issued a warning to her to “watch what she says”. Chairman Smith then asked Maya if she’d discussed these amendments with the sponsors and whether the amendments have been drafted.

Maya then dodges the issue and says that amendments are being handled by the Trenton lobbyist, Dave Pringle.

Dave Pringle later testifies and basically says that he didn’t consult with the sponsors and that he has nothing in writing to circulate for review.

Unbelievable incompetence and bungling.

So, here are the excerpts: lets start with Maya van Rossum at time 1:04:40

I do want to highlight, very quickly, just in closing, the green amendment proposal before you, this was put forth 5 years ago. We have spoken with what I call our legislative champions and other advocates and we really would recommend some adjustments we’ve identified over 5 years since the original proposal in 2017. We think that the right to healthy soils and a safe climate should be added as individual rights. … The human health qualities of the environment we recommend be added as well as an explicit environmental justice statement that says the state shall protect these rights equitably for all people. … the first state where the Constitution speaks directly – directly – to ensuring a safe climate for present and future generations.

Gobsmacked, Chairman Smith, who very tightly controls the climate issue and knows where the third rails are, immediately interrupts:

So, a couple of comments. Number one,  I didn’t mention it, … but every word you are saying is being recorded.We have a court stenographer here. We’re going to provide a record of this hearing to all of the legislators …. so be careful what you say, …. it is being recorded”.

Secondly, Maya, have you sent those proposed amendments to (the sponsors) Senator Greenstein and Senator Zwicker?

Maya replies, with a qualifier:

Yes, we have, through my colleague David Pringle …. I believe we have shared them

Smith comes back with:

Well, you might want to resend them, because I’m not quite sure everyone has them or maybe they got lost in the emails.

Pringle, the last to testify, after being named as the consultant who worked on the “amendments” Maya requested, just flat out misleads the Chairman and says: (2:47:30)

I’d like to say its worth the 6 years wait…

We know this isn’t going to be fast tracked. We hope it will be released from Committee soon. We will follow up with appropriate language we’ve been talking about additional information on case studies (sic). This is just the very beginning of the process. Long way to go.

(Yea Dave, a real long way to go. Heckofajob!

Like Maya, Dave can’t count or is spinning history. The Resolution was introduced in the 2016 – 2017 Legislative session. That is 8 years ago, not 6.)

But that was not all.

The hearing began with testimony from Legislators from Pennsylvania and New York who were supposed to brief the Committee on how the constitutional amendment in their states had been implemented. Both witnesses were not familiar with the law, the litigation, or even basic facts of the cases involving the litigation in their states. It was truly embarrassing. Listen to that yourself, I won’t waste my time and yours with excerpts.

Finally, as I wrote last week in a followup piece, the implementation of the “green amendment” in Pennsylvania has been a disaster, see:

• How’s That “Green Amendment” Working Out In Pennsylvania?

And now, because the NJ proposed green amendment does NOT include an individual right to a stable climate, the Montana green amendment case is not even applicable.  Read the national coverage of that by Bloomberg. Both Maya van Rossum and Dave Pringle are quoted in the story, presumably as “experts”!

• Montana Climate Ruling Boosts Case for States’ Green Amendments

Montana, Pennsylvania, and New York are the only states with green amendments in their bill of rights, said Maya K. van Rossum, founder of Green Amendments for the Generations. But none of those states’ amendments specifically mention climate, relying instead on the environment more broadly.

The Held v. Montana decision was so influential because it paves the way for climate issues, not just water and air quality, to be considered part of states’ green amendments, van Rossum said. Since much of the case was spent arguing that same issue, she said more states could learn to use exact wording in future amendments.

Wow. Maya tells a Bloomberg reporter more states could learn to use exact wording in future amendments” and then the NJ Resolution SCR 43 does not include any wording on a climate right and the wording it does include explicitly does NOT make climate a right, but vests control with the DEP. And then she asks for that amendment during testimony and blindsides the Chairman.

And listen to this fact free whopper from Pringle:

In New Jersey, there’s “strong bipartisan support” for a green amendment, said David Pringle, a consultant and green amendment activist. …

Because New Jersey is so industrialized, “we face environmental problems sooner and more significantly,” Pringle said. He’s optimistic that the state will see a green amendment on the ballot in the next couple of years, he said.

Let me make my own prediction: after the circus testimony (and the business community’s opposition – they came out swinging, which I’ll discuss in the next post) the green amendment is DOA in NJ.

It might get released from Committee to avoid humiliating Chairman Smith, but it will die and never get a Senate floor vote.

Smith was humiliated just weeks ago, when Big Oil and Gas forced him to gut his own proposed Constitutional amendment to ban construction of new fossil power plants, see:

• Chairman Smith Guts His Own Weak Ban On New Fossil Power Plants

Facing industry oposition, he’s also abandoned his proposals to established standards to define, monetize and collect “natural resource damages” and the work of his forestry task force. After decades in the legislature, he has very little power. (I can tell you from personal experience that he only sponsored the Highlands Act because he was ordered to do so by Gov. McGreevey.)

(Lots more to follow on the NY situation, the implications for democracy, the business community’s opposition, unintended consequences, and a comparison of the far more effective approach I recommend .)