If you can make it into Manhattan tomorrow, turn out to this event at noon, at 16th and 5th Avenue

Countdown to N30:

Actions for Climate Justice are Just 3 Days Away!

The goal of our participation in the MCJ is to send a warning shot across the bows of corporate ‘greens’ who distort climate science on behalf of major polluters. As climate legislation gets redrafted next year, it is critical that these groups are challenged by a new more mobilized and informed environmental movement. We must make clear to them that we will not accept false solutions or inadequate targets, even after Copenhagen fails to result in a meaningful agreement. The new climate bill, which will be drafted for the next Congressional session (2010), must have science-based targets that give our planet and its species a fighting chance and don’t peg our survival on carbon markets, pie-in-the-sky techno-fixes, or ‘solutions’ that guarantee the long-term viability of oil, gas, or coal industries.

Wind turrbine, Atlantic CIty NJ

Senator Van Drew (D-Cape May) recently introduced legislation S3012 to promote wind power by easing current DEP coastal set back rules:

This bill allows construction of wind dependent energy facilities within 500 feet of the mean high water line of tidal waters pursuant to the “Coastal Area Facility Review Act,”(CAFRA)  provided all other requirements of law, rule or regulation are met.  Current DEP regulations permit only water dependent energy facilities to be constructed within 500 feet of the mean high water line.  This bill also directs DEP to adopt rules and regulations concerning such permits within 30 days after the date of enactment of the bill into law.

The intent of the Van Drew bill drew praise from Dave Pringle of the NJ Environmental Federation, who took the opportunity to blast DEP CAFRA wind rules:

Dave Pringle, NJ Environmental Federation

David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation says despite concerns over the impact of windmills on migratory birds, the structures are less invasive than large housing developments, casinos or other structures built on piers. Pringle says current restrictions on clean energy are too stringent.

“They (state government) hold clean renewables like wind energy to a higher standard than the Borgata (casino) or a large housing development,” he said. “That doesn’t pass the straight-face test.” [link to Philadelphia Inquirer article]

But we note that on September 9, 2009, DEP proposed new CAFRA regulations, which would ease current set back rules, among other things:

SUBCHAPTER 7. USE RULES
7:7E-7.4 Energy facility use rule

The Energy facility use rule contains the standards specific to various energy uses. N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.4(b) contains standards relevant to siting of any new energy facilities, whereas N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.4(d) through (s) contain standards specific to a particular type of energy use. The Department proposes to amend the energy facility siting standards at N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.4(b) to reduce the existing setback for wind and solar energy facilities. The rule currently requires that new energy facilities that are not water dependent be located at least 500 feet inland of the mean high water line of tidal waters. Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.4(b)3 would reduce the setback to 50 feet for wind and solar energy facilities, since these facilities would not be anticipated to have the same mass and impact as other energy facilities addressed by this rule. The Department believes that reducing the setback from 500 to 50 feet will facilitate siting of these renewable energy facilities while providing an adequate setback for wildlife use of tidal waters.

The DEP CAFRA rules are virtually identical to the Van Drew bill with respect to easing the current 500 foot set back to promote wind and solar power.

The Van Drew bill drew support of Pringle – the DEP CAFRA rules were denounced by Pringle.

We realize that there may be other provisions of the DEP CAFRA rules that are not addressed by the Van Drew bill. But as a matter of good government, such technical issues should be resolved by DEP in regulations, not micromanaged by legislative amendments.

Regardless, passing the straight face test requires that one read the Van Drew bill and the DEP rules, and understand the issues.

Additionally, Governor Elect Chris Christie’s proposed moratorium on new regulations would block adoption of the proposed DEP CAFRA wind rules.

Yet the Van Drew bill directs DEP to adopt rules within 30 days of passage.

In the unlikely event that the Van Drew bill were to pass quickly, it too would be blocked by the Christie moratorium.

Passing the straight face test requires full disclosure as well.

groundwater monitoring well, has become NJ's symbol of pervasive toxic contamination (on farmland no less), forms foreground of church steeple (Hopewell Borough)

[Source: Wikipedia]

Steeple (architecture)

A steeple, in architecture, is a tall tower on a building, often topped by a spire. Steeples are very common on Christian churches and cathedrals and the use of the term generally connotes a religious structure. They may be stand-alone structures, or incorporated into the entrance or center of the building.

Architectural

Steeples generally serve as bell or clock towers. Towers were not a part of Christian churches until about AD 600, when they were adapted from military watchtowers. At first they were fairly modest and entirely separate structures from churches. Over time, they were incorporated into the church building and capped with ever-more elaborate roofs until the steeple resulted.

Towers are a common element of religious architecture worldwide and are generally viewed as attempts to reach skyward toward Heavens and the Divine.[1]

can you find the monitoring well?

Old barn, porta pottie, and toxic site cleanup truck. Hopewell Borough, NJ

the old (background) and the new come together in Hopewell Borough, NJ

sign of the times - are we reaching toward the divine?

Salem, NJ nuke plant

In a critically important article aptly titled “Zombie Nuke Plants“, The Nation magazine – spurred by recent radioactive leaks from the Three Mile Island plant – is focusing national attention and catalyzing a debate on the risks from aging nuclear power plants.

And  NJ’s own Oyster Creek is the poster child for the problem:

Oyster Creek Generating Station, in suburban Lacey Township, New Jersey, opened the same month Richard Nixon took office vowing to bring “an honorable peace” to Vietnam. This nuke plant, the oldest in the country, was slated to close in 2009 when its original forty-year license was ending. It had seen four decades of service, using radioactively produced heat to boil water into high-pressure steam that ran continuously through hundreds of miles of increasingly brittle and stressed piping.

If constructed today, Oyster Creek would not be licensed, because it does not meet current safety standards. Yet on April 8 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)–the government agency overseeing the industry–relicensed Oyster Creek, extending its life span twenty years beyond what was originally intended.

Nuclear power has been spun as a technological solution to the global warming crisis.  But regardless of the debate about the so-called “nuclear renaissance”, (which we wrote about in “Final Nair In Nukes Coffin?”), far more significant risks are posed by the nation’s aging fleet of 1960’s and 1970’s designed nuclear power plants that are operating beyond their design life.

Money Island - distribution lines just north of Salem plant

Nuclear industry capture of and control over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), a lax safety culture, deregulation, and economic drive for profits are creating huge risks as these plants age and are “up-rated” to produce far more power and operate at unsafe levels.

Read the complete article here:

And a few words while  we are on the topic of Oyster Creek.

BEFORE the election, I received the below “Vote Christie”  statement from the NJ Environmental Federation.

Note the deceptively parsed language alleging a contrast with Corzine on installation of cooling towers at Oyster Creek nuclear power plant to protect Barnegat Bay:

On Election Day Vote Environment-Vote Chris Christie

Contrary to Corzine, Christie has committed to the following as you already know:
• Increasing protections for our most vulnerable and important waterways through the state’s Category 1 program;
• Replenishing the state’s bankrupt open space program;
• Requiring the state’s nuclear plants to stop their destruction in and around Barnegat Bay and the Delaware River;
• Opposing the proposed coal plant in Linden; and
• Issuing an executive order to reduce killer diesel soot pollution.

Noting a lot of ambiguity and unsure of what NJEF meant by the weasel words “stop their destruction“, I went over to the Christie web page and – curiously – found a much clearer commitment with respect to the Oyster Creek cooling tower issue. Christie strongly implied a promise to install cooling towers, although the word smithing still gave him an out on the basis of “putting the taxpayers on the hook”. Regardless, one still must ask: why would a candidate – a person expected to hedge on controversial issues – express a clearer commitment than an environmental group?

Here’s what Christie promised on cooling towers:

Restoring the Delaware and Barnegat BayI will make it a priority to identify and implement strategies for better cooling systems at Oyster Creek and Salem. We cannot ignore this issue. I will not. There has to be a better way to cool Oyster Creek and Salem without putting – New Jersey taxpayers on the hook, and we will do it.

But JUST DAYS AFTER the election, Christie was asked point blank by Kirk Moore (environmental writer for the Asbury Park Press) about his views on cooling towers at Oyster Creek, to which Christie replied:

“For Barnegat Bay, Christie said he will seek a solution for the issue of cooling water discharge from the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, though he stopped short of an outright commitment to requiring that cooling towers be built at the 40-year-old reactor.”

So, WTF is going on here?

1. Why has Christie been given a pass from running away from a major – and one of his only environmental – “commitment” upon which the NJEF endorsement was based?

2. The Asbury Park Press has extensively covered and editorialized on the Oyster Creek cooling tower issue. Yet it looks like the Kirk Moore story with the Christie Oyster Creek statement was not published in the APP. It instead ran in the Nov. 7 Courier Post under an inflammatory and diversionary headline: “Christie: COAH “has to be gutted”.

Why didn’t this story run in the APP? (the headline could have been “Christie Waffles on Oyster Creek Cooling Towers”

3. Why is no one calling out Christie and NJEF for this deception?

[12/5/09 update: Mixed reviews for Christie environmental group

Yesterday, we were disappointed but not surprised by the NJ Environmental Federation’s press remarks. NJEF joined the chemical industry, NJ Builders Association, and business groups in supporting Governor elect Chris Christie’s controversial proposed moratorium on state regulations and state mandates.

Dave Pringle of NJEF seems to fail to understand the difference between refraining from criticizing Christie, versus supporting his policy. Guess Dave will have to learn the hard way – and do some thinking on where his loyalties lie. Credibility is at stake as well, because the policies Christie has already announced have long been condemned by NJEF when implemented by Christie Whitman and prior Governors.

We assumed that this rancid political cover was a result of the NJEF endorsement of Christie.

Dave Pringle – token enviro on Christie transition team

But today we learn things are both more complex and corrupt – Dave Pringle of NJEF was named as the token enviro on the Christie “Environmental Protection” transition team. Previously, we wrote about the lack of balance and environmental representation on the original Transition Team announced by Christie (see: “Christie Transition Team – MIA on the Environment”)

No wonder Pringle provided cover on the regulatory moratorium – the transition team appointment was the reward for the  endorsement. Of course Dave couldn’t be expected to tell the inconvenient truth about his new boss or get out front of his new corporate pals on the “team” .

The environmental committee is chaired by Marcia Karrow, who we described last week here:

Christie, by the way, just announced that Marcia Karrow, a Hunterdon County legislator and vigorous opponent of the Highlands Act and DEP regulations, will chair the transition team’s environment subcommittee.

(see this for an example of Karrow’s style and take a look at some of the bills she sponsored: 1) an overt attempt to gut DEP rulemaking or 2) this radical property rights bill or 3) the Polluters Defense Act) or 4) this all out attack on the Highlands Act, the Council and DEP regulations: 0r 5) repeal of core elements of the Highlands Act and DEP water regulations; or 6) farmers water giveaway (and I left out lots of other crazy right wing stuff, like mandating English as the “official” state language (I wonder how environmental justice advocates feel about that), restoring the death penalty, expanding gun rights, radical property rights, attacks on urban NJ and public employees, and promotion of the dysfunctional California minority rule.)

So, meet the Christie environmental transition team – we must note one error: I worked with John Trela while he was at DEP and he was never DEP Commissioner. I worked with John Spinello while he was at DEP (before he went to EPA with Christie Whitman) – he is highly competent, but has been known to be an “environmental hitman“. I worked with Rhea Brekke while she was at DEP and will be kind and just say I am not impressed. Anthony Mauro has right wing tendencies – he accused NJ environmental groups of “providing cover for eco-terrorists“. See this blog post and exchange I had with Mr. Mauro.

We will be writing more about the backgrounds of each member in subsequent updates – I’ve provided quick Google links below to corporations (warning: these are not confirmed). My initial take is that this looks like a high powered corporate anti-environmental group.

Environmental Protection
Chair, The Honorable Marcia Karrow
Former State Senator, 23rd District

John Abene President,
Delphi Energy

Peter deNeufville
Chairman, Voltaix, L.L.C.

Anthony Mauro, Sr.
Chairman, New Jersey Outdoor Alliance

David Pringle Campaign Director,
New Jersey Environmental Federation

Steve Santola, Esq.
Executive Vice President/General Counsel, Woodmont Properties

John Spinello, Jr., Esq.
Former Associate General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Edward Walsh
President, The Walsh Company

Anthony Slimowicz
Director, WCD Capital Partners, LLC

John Trela, Ph.D.
Former Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection

Rhea Brekke
Executive Director, New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology

Tony Monteiro
CEO, Dynamic Insurance Inc.

John Sartor
Exectuvie (sic) Vice President, Paulus, Sokolowski & Sartor, LLC

Joseph Riggs
Group President, K. Hovnanian Homes

Bruce Katcher, Esq.
Partner, Manko Gold Katcher & Fox LLP