WolfeNotes.com

*** Apologies – NJ.Com took down the photos, which were originally published on my “NJ Voices” column at NJ.Com. I was able to save the text, but not the photos. What assholes.

“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Ben Franklin http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
“As a poet, I would have to say that 9/11 changed the language itself … 9/11 is a big abstraction. … In the name of 9/11 and in the name of the war on terror, phrases like “weapons of mass destruction” and “enhanced interrogation” have entered our political vocabulary. These phrases, for me, divorce language from meaning, and thus divorce action from consequence. If you’re engaged in enhanced interrogation you’re not engaged in torture, and thus, we in society come to embrace torture in the name of security. I think we have to do whatever we can to combat this tendency in the language. The fact is that this language is used to foster a culture of fear so that in turn people will act against their own interests. And that’s why we’re now embroiled in two wars“
Martin Espada. Poet and Professor, University of Massachusetts
PBS Newhour – 9/11/08 MP3 http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/09/11/20080911_sevenyears28.mp3
Espada’s website:http://www.martinespada.net/
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”
George Orwell – “Politics and the English Language” 1946
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
On the shoulders of these giants, I share my pedestrian experience.
Yesterday, I went to US District Court in Newark to listen to oral argument in a case filed by Edison Wetlands Association seeking to force a toxic polluter to stop discharging toxic chemicals to the Raritan River. A long and disgraceful story.
But, as I approached the Federal Square complex, a beautiful piece of sculpture caught my eye. Of course – since a core part of my mission is amateur photojournalism – I moved to take a picture.

Bill Wolfe

In response, US Federal marshall Gerald Mauriello aggressively swooped in, sternly advised that I was on “federal property”, and “taking pictures of federal buildings is prohibited”. He demanded personal identification. I asked on what legal basis he did so, under the impression that we have both Constitutional and inalienable rights, and there is no US citizen identification card (at least not yet).
To which he angrily replied: “Don’t you know what f-cking day it is!”

Bill WolfeUS Marshall Mauriello rushes to avert terrorism because – as the Leader and Decider has repeated – the terrorists hate our freedom.

Feel safer now?

Bill WolfeThomas Paine – patriot and truth teller

Bill Wolfe“Don’t tread on Me”

Bill Wolfe
Hey Mr. US Marshall Mauriello – is it now illegal to photo these federal buildings? Just askin’.

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill WolfeUS Supreme Court – note the couple kneeling in prayer on the steps

Sierra Club and Environmental Federation issue harsh statements – builders lobby applauds

Bill WolfeGovernor Jon Corzine

Today, the national press reported that that the Bush Administration publicly announced a massive taxpayer bailout of Fannie May and Freddie Mac to shore up the home mortgage industry and financial markets:
“Wall Street finally got what it’s been angling for: a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could aid a recovery of the broken U.S. housing market and arrest a slide in stock and credit markets worldwide.”
see: Wall Street may cheer Fannie, Freddie bailout
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jy692KLMSLspHP266VKGfJPAR1CgD932FEK00
At the same time here in NJ, there were more giveaways to “stimulate” the building industry. In a sharp contrast to last Friday’s high profile environmental photo-op on the Highlands, Governor Corzine quietly signed into law his own housing market “regulatory relief” bill backed by builders lobby, known as “The Permit Extension Act” (see last line of today’s press release:
http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080908a.html
The NJ builders lobby also “finally got what it was angling for”. And as expected, the business community and Wall Street are cheering the Corzine move too. See: Permit Extension Bill is Now Law
http://www.globest.com/news/1240_1240/newjersey/173615-1.html
Whatever you think about the wisdom of the Bush bailout, at least it was directly related to the causes of a real financial crisis in the housing industry.
In contrast, the bill signed by Corzine was a sham.
Simply put, the NJ builders lobby shamefully exploited a real national financial crisis to undermine completely unrelated State environmental protections.
And just how bad is it when the Bush EPA is opposed to it?

Bill WolfeDEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson whispers in Governor Corzine’s ear. Jackson negotiated the Permit Extension Act

Surprisingly, the notoriously anti-environmental Bush EPA went on record to oppose the “Permit Extension Act”, warning the Governor and the Legislature that the bill would violate federal law. DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson deftly negotiated window dressing amendments to address EPA’s opposition, but the underlying problems that prompted EPA to intervene remain. And the Jackson amendments protected the “green” areas of the state while treating the urban areas of NJ as environmental sacrifice zones. So much for the rhetoric on environmental justice and new green building design to address global warming.
Where is the economic relief for thousands of NJ homeowners facing home foreclosure and bankruptcy?
Read the environmental group statements:
Sierra Club Blasts Governor for Signing Permit Extension Act

Bill WolfeJeff Tittel, Executive Director Sierra CLub, NJ Chapter

“Over the weekend Governor Corzine signed the Permit Extension Act. This was done behind closed doors and without putting out any kind of statement. . “The Permit Extension Act is one of the worst environmental bills ever passed by the New Jersey legislators and one of the biggest giveaways to developers in the state’s history,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “The way in which the governor chose to sign this bill shows just how bad this bill is – he couldn’t even sign it in public or let the public know what he was doing.”
[full statement here: http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/PressReleases/0029.asp
The NJ Environmental Federation’s release said:
Corzine Signs Controversial Bill Undermining Core Environmental Protections
Signed in “Dead of Night”, Announced 2 Days After The Fact Befitting Act’s ‘Dracula Clause’

Bill WolfeDave Pringle, NJ Environmental Federation

Trenton, NJ — Environmentalists today strongly criticized Governor Corzine’s signing of the highly controversial Permit Extension Act (Greenwald/Sarlo). The Governor signed the bill Saturday but only announced it today with one sentence in a press release mentioning several other bills.
“We’ll be seeing the Governor in court. This bill undermines core environmental and public health protections, good planning and the constitution,” stated David Pringle, Campaign Director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation (NJEF), noting the manner in which the bill was signed betrayed the Act’s supposed intent. “If this bill was really going to provide the economic stimulus suggested, where was all the pomp and circumstance typical of such a bill signing?”
Over 30 environmental groups had asked the Governor to conditionally veto the bill on substantive grounds while lawyers for two, including NJEF, did so on legal grounds. The Governor’s office ignored the letters never even formally or informally acknowledging them despite repeated requests.
[see Corzine letter: Download file
We previously wrote about this issue in this post:
A cruel hoax – on many levels
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/07/a_cruel_hoax_on_many_levels.html

Travis WolfeRoy Jones of Camden, Co-Chair of South Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance

Viewer Warning – last two photo’s may cause illness

[Update: 3/28/11 – The press discovered the garbage problem: Trash piling up at Great Falls; Site was approved in ’09 for historic park

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Bill Wolfe

Pollution risk twelve hundred (1,200) times cancer risk standard
[Update #2 (1/25/09] I initially posted on this topic on April 9, 2008 and again on September 5, 2008. Today, after almost a year, the Bergen Record finally got around to covering the story, but somehow managed to let DEP off the hook by focus on the Port Authority:
N.J. pushing for restrictions on diesel trucks at ports
http://www.northjersey.com/environment/NJ_pushing_for_restrictions_on_diesel_trucks_at_ports.html
[Update (1/2/09): here is an excellent article that dicusses the national picture of health and environmental threats from ports:Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/97496/
The NJ Clean Air Council recently released the public hearing transcript and their recommendations on controlling air pollution from our ports. We wrote about the Council’s April 9, 2008 public hearing on “Improving Air Quality at our Ports and Airports” here:
Experts and Advocates: Pollution from Ports A High Cancer Risk to Urban NJ
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/04/experts_and_advocates_pollutio.html
Here is a link to the Council’s full report and hearing transcript.
IMPROVING AIR QUALITY AT OUR PORTS & AIRPORTS
Setting an Agenda for a Cleaner Future
http://www.nj.gov/dep/cleanair/hearings/2008hearing_report.pdf
I urge people to read this Report and compare the NJ Clean Air Council’s recommendations with the California program.
To highlight the significance of this issue, check out the below excerpt of testimony from the California South Coast Air Quality Management District scientist. This is something you won’t hear from DEP or the NJ Clean Air Council.
The public also is not aware of the fact that NJ lacks enforceable cancer risk regulatory standards for air pollution sources. But water and toxic sites cleanup soil standards are based on cancer risk and regulated by DEP based on a one in a million risk standard (for individual lifetime excess cancer risk.)
“In terms of toxics, however, the picture geographically is quite different. A monitoring study the South Coast Air Quality conducted a few years ago, which estimated cancer risks over our region. If we include diesel, we have a very different picture. The average cancer risks in our area are approximately one thousand two hundred in a million is from air toxics. We consider that very significant. Air quality district rules prohibit stationary sources from emitting toxics creating risk in excess of ten in a million for new sources and twenty-five in a million for existing sources so twelve hundred in a million average over the area is considered very high.”
Source: Report @ page 14
Some questions that arise out of this Report:
1. Why isn’t the public warned and provided information about what NJ’s cancer risks are from NJ air and sea ports?
2. Does NJ have as strong a monitoring and regulatory program to control and reduce port emissions as California? If not, why not?
3. Why aren’t air pollution cancer health risks regulated to the same health standard as water and soil? (i.e. one in a million risk)
4. Why is air quality modeling and health risk assessment voluntary for permits issued to major air polluters in NJ?
Here is a link to NJ DEP’s Air Toxics page for addition information related to these issues:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/airtoxics/
California Program info:
Plan May Ease Air Pollution at Ports
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/06/local/me-ships6
South Coast District Air Quality Management Plan
“The combined Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach including sources such as oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, trains, trucks, and cargo handling equipment represent the largest single source of emissions in the Basin, accounting for 60% of SOx, 27% of NOx, and 6% of PM2.5 in 2023.”
[…]
FUNDING AVAIABILITY
The overall costs of implementing the control measures proposed in the Final 2007 AQMP are in the billions of dollars. In-use mobile source fleet modernizations, accelerated retirement of high-emitting vehicles and equipment, alternative fuels and their infrastructure, advanced retrofits, facility modernization, and product reformulations and replacements are among strategies which require significant levels of funding. For illustration purposes, the estimated costs associated with the recently released San Pedro Bay Port’s Draft Clean Air Action Plan and CARB’s Goods Movement Plan targeting ports and goods movement sectors alone are approximately $2 billion dollars and $10 billion dollars, respectively. The costs of implementing the AQMP control measures affecting virtually all source categories in the Basin will add to these estimates. However, the economic values of avoiding adverse health effects are projected to be many times higher than the implementation cost of clean air strategies.
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Executive_Summary.pdf
Full SCAQMD Plan:
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html
EPA Region 9 Progress Report:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/annualreport/05/air.html
Children’s Health
http://134.67.99.14/ncer/childrenscenters/outreach_docs/breath_of_air_trans3.html
Marine Diesel lawsuit
http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/cases/2007/marine-diesel-emissions.html