WolfeNotes.com

An Activist’s Activist Discusses Lessons Lost In The Environmental Mist

A Must Watch Story

(Caption: Jeff Tittel (R) and Bill Wolfe (L) – Hopewell/Merrill Lynch/BMS/ELSA battle, circa late 1990’s)

My good friend and former Sierra Club colleague Jeff Tittel was interviewed by Alan Steinberg.

All I can say is watch it.

Jeff traces his incredible personal background and professional and activist development through the evolution of the environmental movement. There are many lessons to be learned -all of which can be encapsulated in his telling of the back story of the amazing fight to preserve Sterling Forest.

Alan is a former US EPA Region 2 Administrator and Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission.

Here is Alan’s intro of Jeff:

In our latest episode, we welcome Jeff Tittel as our guest. He is recognized as one of the greatest champions for the environment. For 23 years, Jeff worked as the Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, retiring in 2021. In this episode, Jeff shares how he became involved in civic engagement at a young age and that his passion for the environment grew from that early start. In addition, he spoke about some of the legislation he helped to get passed in New Jersey, including the indoor smoking ban. We also discuss the current environmental issues with him, especially with President Trump in the Oval Office. Jeff also shared his critique of the various governors in office while leading the New Jersey Sierra Club.

I met Jeff around 1998. At the time, I was Acting Director of the Sierra Club NJ Chapter. The prior year, I had worked as Policy Director and was serving as Acting Director until Jeff took the helm. Jeff replaced Tim Dillingham.

Tim was not well liked by several Sierra Board members because he did not work well with the volunteers and local activists and preferred the inside Trenton top down political compromise game.

Jeff was hired to restore grassroots activism at NJ Sierra and increase membership, media visibility, and the political influence and effectiveness of the Club. He did all of that and much more.

At the outset, I sensed that Jeff didn’t completely trust me, primarily because I had been hired by former Director Dillingham, had spent the prior 10 years of my career as a DEP policy, planning, and regulatory wonk, and had little local political activist experience, aside from being elected as a School Board member in North Hanover. My work was more on the pollution or dirty side, while Jeff was more focused on land use and the green side.

Similarly, at the outset, I didn’t know Jeff at all, but sensed he was very politically oriented and a science and policy lightweight.

But it did not take long for us to get past our false assumptions about each other and become close friends. We worked as a powerful team. I did most of the issue and policy work and writing, while Jeff did the lobbying, media, fundraising, and activist support. We shared the strategy work.

Jeff is a genius when it comes to not just pithy sound bites (“dirty dirt” and “Viagara falls” come to mind), but understanding what’s really going on and communicating and advocating for regular people and the natural environment.

I’ve travelled extensively with him and he has an incredible recall and encyclopedic mind on local issues, history, and places –  from awesome hikes, to politics, to good pubs – and not just in New Jersey but across the country.

Jeff has no use for the current crop of “environmental leaders” – he tags them as “Foundation driven” and with another famous sound bite as “Zoom – Chair Warriors” that just want to go to the meetings where they get screwed! (Ouch!)

His allusion to Trump as “Agent Orange” was another classic. And his warnings about the dangers of Trump was on the mark.

Jeff’s scathing criticisms of the Murphy DEP was on point as well, and something you will not hear from any NJ environmental group (around time 35:00).

Finally, he gives an informed assessment of the Gubernatorial candidates and the current political climate that will shape their politics.

Listen closely to what he has to say. There is much wisdom there.

DEP Might As Well Pave The Logging Road In Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area

Private Logging Contractors Can Not Be Trusted To Comply With Unenforceable Terms Of A Contract

No DEP Regulations – No DEP Permits To Enforce Gross Violations

Take a look at these photos: (provided courtesy of NJ Forest Watch, the first taken on 3/11/25 and the second on 3/12/25):

The first photo shows deep rutting, but at least the natural soils and vegetation are present, as the old unused logging road is recovering and will at some future point in time be converted to forest.

The second photo shows gravel. The soils and vegetation are destroyed, the vegetation will not grow back, and it invites and provides access to illegal off road four wheelers and illegal dumping (violations I documented long ago, see:

• Take A Look At DEP & Audubon “Forest Stewardship” On Sparta Mountain

I’ll track down the specific document and language (no pun intended), but I recall reading either a DEP contract or the DEP Forest Management Plan. It casually mentioned that the contractor would conduct a very limited application of gravel at the point where the existing paved road cul de sacs and meets the old long abandoned forest road.

The objective and very limited use of gravel was to avoid rutting and off site tracking of soils from logging trucks at the intersection of the old abandoned road and the paved road.

The use of gravel depicted in the photo is an obvious violation of this limited use.

But there is no permit for DEP to enforce.

There are no regulations for DEP to enforce.

The rutting must be repaired, the gravel must all be removed, damaged vegetation replanted, and the site fully restored to initial conditions

But the only thing DEP has is a logging contract! Good luck with “enforcing” that! (and probably no performance bond or escrow account to fund damages).

This is another example of how the DEP is mismanaging NJ’s forest. 

This is another example of why stronger laws and regulations and permits must be mandated for any destructive activity in NJ’s forests and why logging forests is totally inappropriate.

Bill Would Do Nothing To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Supporters Are Misleading The Public

I was busy Monday, so didn’t listen to the Assembly committee hearing on the proposed Climate Superfund Act. The bill was released by the Committee.

The Senate version is buried in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, the place where all good environmental bills go to die under Senator Sarlo’s dirty thumb. As I wrote on Sarlo and climate: (4/28/11)

Last week, Sarlo publicly stood with the Koch Brother’s billionaire funded TeaBaggers (Americans for Prosperity)and assorted global warming deniers in attacking the ten northeastern states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Today the Bergen Record reported the story: Many turn out at rally to end NJ’s participation in regional cap and trade agreement

Sarlo sought to kill RGGI (~~~$75 million/year) – which is chump change compared to this bill (NY law is $3 BILLION/year)!

The bill’s supporters are like crickets on Sarlo. Will they take him on publicly? Or continue the Kabuki?

I note that the Assembly bill was similarly Referred to Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee. I don’t know the Assembly Chair – likely a Sarlo wanna be – but the bill likely will suffer a similar fate.

I wrote about my problems with that bill last Sunday, see:

• Assembly Committee To Consider Flawed Climate And Warehouse Bills Tomorrow

In just now Googling for press coverage, I found just one “article” – actually, it is a press release by the bill’s supporters – at Insider NJ:

• NJ Climate Superfund Act Clears Key Assembly Committee

I was pleased to see that activists were rallying in Trenton.

But, once again, I need to go on the record to call out the bill’s supporters, not only for strategic errors but for misleading the public. And they are intentionally using nuanced language to create this deception, by conflating emissions reduction (mitigation) and climate impacts (cause) with adaptation (effect).

This conflation is not some minor error in logic or sloppy use of language. It is essential and suggests manipulation and abdication of efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

And the analogy to the federal Superfund law is not apt and misleading as well.

Congress passed the Superfund law in 1980.That law funded the cleanup of toxic waste sites.

But 4 years prior to passage of Superfund, Congress passed the Resource Conservation And Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. RCRA regulates and prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances and toxic wastes.

Superfund was part of a previously enacted broader program that prohibited and regulated toxic waste and hazardous substances, designed to prevent the creation of more Superfund sites and more Superfund cleanup expenses.

The Climate Superfund bill is NOT part of a previously enacted program that prohibits and regulates greenhouse gas emissions to prevent additional climate damages and the need for more money to adapt to impacts from the climate emergency. The NJ Global Warming Response Act is toothless and DEP does NOT regulate GHG emissions to meet the goals of the Act.

The DEP CO2 regulations are adopted under the NJ Air Pollution Control Act, are NOT tied to GHG emission reduction goals, do NOT apply to fossil infrastructure (e.g. pipelines), do NOT apply to buildings or transportation, and apply to only a tiny tiny fraction of total GHG emissions, from power plants that produce electricity for the grid.

So, the Superfund analogy also is misleading.

I’ll highlight just 2 quotes as examples of that deception:

This bill ensures those that have benefited the most and reaped billions from emitting the pollutants causing the damage pay more of their fair share of the costs and needed mitigation,” said Senate co-sponsor and Legislative Oversight Chair Andrew Zwicker, Ph.D. (D-South Brunswick).

Senator Zwicker is being disingenuous by his use of the term “mitigation”.

He has a PhD and has been involved in climate science and policy for a long time, so I can only assume that it is intentional deception.

The bill (Climate Superfund Act,) DOES NOT USE THE WORD “MITIGATION” and is limited to “ADAPTATION”.

In contrast, a similar federal bill includes adaptation and other related programs that COULD reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The recently reintroduced proposed federal Polluter Pays Climate Fund  – which has ZERO chance of passage in the current Republican Congress and Trump fascist regime – is similarly focused on adaptation, but it has broader uses of the funds, which include projects that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency, distributed energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and public health. Why isn’t the NJ bill at LEAST as broad as the federal bill?

Accordingly, the NJ bill does NOTHING to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In climate policy, the word “mitigation” refers to emissions reductions. The word “adaptation” refers to efforts to address the damages from climate. Sen. Zwicker and climate activist are misleading the public.

We are in a climate emergency and are losing the battle to reduce GHG emissions. Yes, polluters must pay, but they also must reduce and phase out GHG emissions.

Sen. Zwicker can start by backing legislation to ban new fossil infrastructure and mandate GHG emissions reduction (i.e put teeth in NJ Global Warming Response Act). This bill misses the mark.

Sen. Zwicker also could use his Committee to hold oversight hearings on DEP’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lack of effective regulation and enforcement.

Here’s another example – the reader can only interpret this to mean that passage of this bill would alleviate air pollution in Newark. This is a false impression:

Isn’t it about time the largest corporate polluters pay for some of the damage to our lungs and property instead of sticking it to taxpayers, ratepayers and consumers?” said Kim Gaddy, Executive Director of South Ward Environmental Alliance. “The Legislature needs to pass the Climate Superfund Act before more extreme weather and bad air arrives this summer.”

Newark will continue to suffer from air pollution and extreme weather.

Perhaps Ms. Gaddy should focus on weak DEP regulations, lax DEP enforcement, and new legislation with teeth that would actually reduce existing pollution (instead of grandfathering it all, like the fatally flawed NJ ENvironmental Justice law and DEP regulations she also supported do).

EPA Bypassing Legacy Media And Feeding Right Wing Media Propaganda Outlets

“The U.S. DOGE Service, billionaire Elon Musk’s initiative to slash the size of the federal government, also commended Zeldin on X for an ‘awesome job’ on saving taxpayer money.”

‘The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over.’”  (EPA Administrator Zeldin)

The Trump EPA is beginning to get some negative press coverage and political pushback, particularly in response to EPA Administrator Zeldin’s recommendation to repeal the “Endangerment finding”. That finding was mandated by the US Supreme Court opinion in 2007 and serves as the legal and scientific basis for EPA regulation of greenhouses gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

But what the press has NOT been reporting could be even worse.

First, a minor diversion for some relevant history.

People forget that Bush EPA Administrator Christie Whitman’s EPA reversed the Clinton EPA’s legal analysis on whether CO2 was a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act.

That is essentially the same thing as Trump EPA Administrator Zeldin just did with respect to the Endangerment finding. For the links and receipts on all that, see:

• Setting the Record Straight on Christie Whitman and Global Warming

The Supreme Court cited Whitman’s EPA General Counsel – a lawyer Whitman brought to EPA from her NJ Governor’s Office – Robert Fabricant’s opinion in the text of the 2007 opinion, (@ p.8) citing EPA Federal Register notice 68 Fed. Reg. 52924 – . 52925–52929 (2003 ):

On September 8, 2003, EPA entered an order denying the rulemaking petition. 68 Fed. Reg. 52922. The agency gave two reasons for its decision: (1) that contrary to the opinions of its former general counsels, the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, see id., at 52925–52929; and (2) that even if the agency had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would be unwise to do so at this time, id., at 52929–52931.

But not even Whitman tried to do anything remotely as corrupt as Zeldin.

Getting back to our current focus, for a good summary overview of the EPA rollbacks thus far, see:

• The EPA Under Lee Zeldin

For the wonks, this review is what you should read:

• First Month of the Trump Administration: Environmental Summaries and Insights

Second, every move EPA Administrator Zeldin has made was at the specific direction of prior Trump Executive Orders.

There are many more disastrous rollbacks in the pipeline as mandated by Trump EPA and DOI and Energy Executive Orders that have not been reported or covered superficially so people are unable to understand what’s going on or how it would impact their lives (other than by Trump slogans, like “Drill, Baby Drill” or “Terminating The Green New Scam”).

As Trump himself has bragged, this is only the beginning (of the horrors).

Third, as this could be the most twisted EPA action of all, EPA’s Press Office has created an alternative reality, echo chamber, and media landscape.

EPA is overtly feeding Trump MAGA propaganda outlets.

I’ve never seen anything like this. EPA has joined the “alternative reality” universe and destroyed any shred that remained of their credibility.

Check out this EPA press release on the “dumping gold bars off the titanic” scam that laid the foundation for the DOGE/OMB clawback of $20 billion in Biden Infrastructure funding.

Keep in mind that this illegal scam trigged the resignation of Justice Department lawyers.  The Trump attack dog FBI intervened and issued some kind of extraordinary and likely illegal Order to a US bank to freeze billions of dollars.

In their rollout of this scam, look at the media outlets that EPA quotes in the body of the press release! (they left out Project Veritas who fabricated the scam):

• New York Post EXCLUSIVE
• Blaze Media
• Breitbart
• Daily Caller
• Daily Mail
• Daily Wire News
• Fox News
• Newsmax
• PJ Media
• RealClear Politics
• Washington Examiner
• WAPO
• Washington Times

Flood the zone and feed the maggots.

Given the climate emergency, vague long term goals that lack implementation requirements are no longer acceptable.

[Update: 3/10/25 – the recently reintroduced proposed federal Polluter Pays Climate Fund is similarly focused on adaptation, but it has broader uses of the funds, which include projects that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency, distributed energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and public health. Why isn’t the NJ bill at LEAST as broad as the federal bill? ~~~ end update.]

The Assembly Environment, Natural Resources, and Solid Waste Committee has a big agenda for tomorrow’s hearing (see the bills to be considered).

Climate, EJ, environmental lobbyists, and any media coverage are very likely to focus on the flawed Climate Superfund Act.

Of course it is important to hold Big Oil responsible for the costs of the damage caused by their greed and criminal negligence, but the bill would do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the funds generated would be limited to adaptation, not emissions reduction.

By focusing activist resource so heavily on money related issues, we are falling further behind in the battle over the need for steep and rapid emissions reductions.

This is a huge strategic error for NJ climate activists, given the upcoming Gubernatorial election. Activists and the Trenton groups who do endorsements should be pressuring candidates to make clear and rock solid commitments to support a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure and direct DEP to implement mandatory GHG emissions reductions, along the lines of recent NY State legislation.

Activists also must highlight the fact that – while the NJ Global Warming Response Act is toothless – DEP has this authority under existing law but is not using it. Instead, they have given DEP Commissioner LaTourette a pass and become DEP cheerleaders.

When I recently shared that analysis and strategic recommendations with a leader of one of the climate groups supporting the bill, I got strong pushback and falsely criticized. So, I shared the text of the bill and the prime sponsors own words.

During the Senate hearing, when the bill was introduced, Senator McKeon emphasized the narrow scope:

“This is a cost recovery act – solely that” (listen at time 50:00)

The prime sponsor (Senator McKeon) has repeatedly emphasized that the Climate Superfund Act: 1) is NOT intended to address and is NOT applicable to emissions reductions; and 2) the money is to be used for adaptation, not emissions mitigation. (see text of section 5.(a)5. regarding use of the revenues):

“(5) disperse funds to implement climate change adaptation projects”

During the Senate hearing, McKeon practically ridiculed industry critics who falsely claimed that the bill would end the use of fossil fuels. He noted that Exxon earned over $100 billion in profits and that bill would recover only a small fraction of those annual profits.

McKeon said that on the record in this Associated Press story:

“This is simply a cost recovery tool,” said the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. John McKeon. “This is about who pays for the damage: either the taxpayer pays, or the polluter pays.”

“This money will be used by mom and pop who need to elevate their house because of flooding, or to build a sea wall,” McKeon said.”

Senator, we don’t need any more seawalls or reconstruction of multiple flood damaged properties in hazardous locations!

I wrote about all those flaws last December, when the bill was heard in the Senate, see:

• NJ Senate Hears Climate Superfund Act – The Bill Would Do Nothing To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

But in addition to the Climate Superfund Act, there is an important and controversial bill up on Monday regarding DEP regulation of warehouses, A4679

Requires certain high-traffic facilities to obtain permit from DEP and annually implement measures to reduce air pollution caused by facility.

I reached out to the sponsors to flag serious flaws and request amendments, see:

Dear Senator McKeon –

Tomorrow the Assembly Env & NR Committee will hear A4679, the Assembly version of your warehouse bill, S3546.

I’d like to suggest a minor technical amendment to correct an inconsistency in the bill, and some broader policy related amendments for your consideration. I ask that you convey this request to the Assembly sponsors and OLS aides, as I lack their email contact information.

1. No Deadline for DEP rulemaking

Section 3 of the bill mandates that DEP establish an indirect source review program within 12 months of enactment. Any such program would require regulations to implement. But Section 9 of the bill, which authorizes and mandates adoption of DEP regulations, does not include a 12 month deadline.

Given the history of extensive delays in DEP rulemaking and the fact that the program can not be implemented in the absence of regulations, Section 9 needs to be amended to include the Section 3 12 month deadline.

2. No mandatory permit consistency or numerical crosswalk (or implementation schedule) between the 2050 zero emission program goal and the DEP point system.

As drafted, the bill does not require that DEP permits issued shall be consistent with the 2050 zero emission goal of the Act. This flaw makes it virtually impossible for DEP to deny a permit or impose mandatory emission reduction requirements.

The bill does not require that the DEP point system – or mitigation measures and permit conditions – be based on data that supports attainment of the 2050 zero emission goal. This flaw makes the point system vulnerable to technical and legal challenge, as their is no nexus between the points and emissions reductions or the 2050 zero emission goal of the Act.

The bill does not establish a schedule to attain the zero emission goal. This would allow DEP to defer emissions reductions to future long term goals.

The Legislature and DEP have failed to design and implement programs that meet long term goals (e.g. the Global Warming Response Act). A significant flaw driving these failures in a lack of quantitative integration of goals, timetables, and program requirements.

Accordingly, as drafted, the bill is unworkable and will not meet the stated 2050 zero emission goal, unless specific permit consistency, quantitative point system, linkages between goal and program requirements, and a phased timetable are included.

3. Exemption of greenhouse gas emissions from permit fees

Section 6.a. explicitly exempts greenhouse gas emissions from DEP permit fees.

Given NJ’s failure to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals under the Global Warming Response Act, what is the basis for that?

Greenhouse gases are explicitly regulated as “air contaminants” (pollutants) under the NJ Air Pollution Control Act. The DEP has failed to apply this regulatory authority to regulate GHG emissions under various air pollution permits. The DEP also has failed to include GHG emissions in current mandatory emissions fees for certain air pollutants.

The bill would perpetuate these major flaws.

4. No Land Use planning and regulation components

With the exception of including an indirect allusion in DEP’s annual reporting on “contribution to flooding risks” in Section 7, bill lacks consideration of NJ’s Municipal Land Use Law, the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, the Highlands Act, the Pinelands Act, and DEP’s land use planning and regulatory programs.

As such, it will do nothing to prevent unacceptable land use impacts from new warehouse development.

I understand that the intent of the legislation is focused on air pollution impacts, but it does include many other broader issues. Failure to consider land use planning and regulation is a major flaw.

5. No Consideration of Water Resources and Flood Impacts

Same flaw as #4 above.

I suggest you consider a broader and more workable bill. Given the climate emergency, vague long term goals that lack implementation requirements are no longer acceptable.

Bill Wolfe