WolfeNotes.com

The Huge Story The NJ Press Corps Fails To Cover

Christie Waives The Future Goodbye

We’ve written numerous posts about across the board failures by the Christie administration to engage in environmental planning – whether via the NJ State Planning Act or the various individual environmental laws that mandate program plans, such as the Water Supply Management Act.

At the same time the Christie Administration ignores its legally mandated State planning obligations under those environmental laws, it has weakened existing regional planning bodies in the Highlands and the Pinelands via the Governor’s appointment and budget powers.

Similarly, the Governor has opposed legislation that would create a new regional planning body for the coast, and he has simply ignored the need to prepare climate change adaptation plans to better protect NJ from extreme weather events and other projected climate change impacts.

And perhaps most critically, the Gov. has rejected planning as a tool in Sandy recovery.

Amazingly, virtually none of this pattern of unprecedented failure has been reported in the NJ press corp. I won’t speculate why in this post, but just make the observation.

Here’s how Gov. Chrisite’s failure to plan is looked at from a national perspective – a story that is not reported in NJ:

RISK:

Feds buy house hurt in Sandy, but critics say program is flawed

Evan Lehmann, E&E reporter

Published: Friday, October 18, 2013

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. — New Jersey and federal officials finalized the first public purchase of a home damaged by Superstorm Sandy on Tuesday, accelerating a buyout program that could make more than 100 additional offers over the next two weeks, according to Dan Frankel, the business administrator of Sayreville.

The purchase marks a new phase for the state’s aggressive effort to buy 1,000 homes wrecked by the historic storm that struck nearly a year ago, using $300 million in state money and much more from the federal government to create open space in the floodplain. An additional 300 homes that have been repeatedly inundated, but not by Sandy, are also targeted in the buyout program, which requires structures to be razed.

“We had our first closing on Tuesday,” Frankel said. “It characterizes, hopefully, residents trying to move on. It’s very emotional and very trying for the residents.”

Even as the program rapidly moves into the buying phase, flood experts criticized the state for offering buyouts to residents on a first-come, first-served basis. They said the state might be missing houses that are more vulnerable to stormwater — and more expensive for taxpayers — by offering a voluntary program rather than identifying the riskiest homes and then trying to acquire them.

Chuck Latini, the state president of the American Planning Association, told about 200 floodplain managers and other practitioners at a gathering here this week that some of the state’s rebuilding decisions are influenced by politics rather than sound land use policies.

“When you start looking at a $300 million buyout program [that’s] not strategically planned, what will the outcome be? It will be wasted money,” Latini said. “It likely will be a crapshoot on its success. Yes, there will be some good outcomes, of course, because you can’t throw that kind of money around and not have some success. But probably we’ll have just enough [success] so on Election Day we’ll have enough sound bites to get through that cycle.”

The criticism fits into a broader frustration among some land use planners and flood protection professionals who believe the administration of Gov. Chris Christie (R) hasn’t taken the time to fit all the recovery efforts into a comprehensive design. They believe that everything from building dunes and siting homes to surrendering flood-prone land should be linked together under a strategy outlined for local officials by the state.

Administration says voluntary buyouts are ‘scientifically done’

 

David Kinsey, a former director of the state Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Coastal Resources, said there’s no sign that the Christie administration will provide that kind of navigation. Instead, he said, individual towns are deciding where and how to build without knowing what all the future hazards are.

The buyouts fall into the same category: Towns are making the decisions about where to tear down homes instead of the state, which steers state and federal funding into the project.

“It’s first-come, first-serve and voluntarily. That’s not strategic,” Kinsey said.

“There are a lot of interests that need to be weighed,” he added. “Personal-property-type interests, sure. But there are some public interests as well. So if the storm comes again and knocks a structure off its foundation and that structure runs into another structure, which is what happens, maybe that first house is in a hazardous location and it’s in the public interest to think that through.”

The Christie administration rejects those criticisms, saying the homes targeted for buyouts were identified using sound science to avoid future damage. The state, for example, has sought to buy out entire streets in Sayreville, a river town that’s seen repeated flooding over the past several years.

“It’s definitely not random. It’s definitely scientifically done,” said Larry Ragonese, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection, which is administering the program. “In future storms, emergency teams won’t have to be sent in there.”

Altogether, 129 homes in Sayreville are targeted for buyouts. The mitigation program is considered one of the best ways to reduce financial risk to taxpayers by lowering losses in the National Flood Insurance Program and through disaster recovery costs. The Sayreville house purchased Tuesday will be razed within 90 days, according to rules established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

‘Not everything needs to go back there’

 

Still, several New Jersey flood experts see a troubling theme in the buyout program: It’s not being used along the coast where the most severe damage occurred on barrier islands that were sometimes dramatically reshaped by Sandy. And although making it voluntary might have political appeal, it doesn’t mean the riskiest homes will escape future storms, they said.

Mark Mauriello, a former commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, believes vacation getaways like Ortley Beach in Toms River should be prioritized. Three rows of beachfront homes there were pulverized into splinters during Sandy. Instead of rebuilding them on the narrow barrier island, the state should perhaps use that space to build bigger dunes, he said.

“I think you have to look at Toms River and say, ‘Not everything needs to go back there,'” Mauriello said, adding that the state should identify an “acquisition zone” from which homes would be removed over a long period.

David Conrad, a water resources consultant who’s studied federal land use policies for years, said the affluent town of Mantoloking is another good candidate for buyouts. Mantoloking is located on a narrow section of a barrier island, and Sandy breached it in more than one place.

“I think it will be critical to take a regulated approach and identify the highest-risk areas,” Conrad said. He said the state’s criteria should be based on “geological and hydrological processes” rather than political ones.

Others think it’s a fool’s errand to talk about buying out people who don’t want to go. Christie made it clear in the wake of Sandy that he would not force people who suffered damage to surrender their property.

“There’s almost no interest at all from people living along the shore,” Ragonese said of buyouts. “Those properties are valuable. They like living along the shore. They know the risks.”

Despite Denial By Some Leaders at the NJ Pinelands Commission and NJ DEP

Source: NJ Pinelands Commission

Wolfe argued the effects of fossil fuel should figure into the commission’s decision.

“The effect of climate change on forests is well documented” in the Pinelands and elsewhere, he said.

“Our standards don’t directly deal with it,” Witteneberg (sic) affirmed Thursday.

The Pinelands plan was written at the beginning of the 1980s, before climate was widely seen as an issue, and “as much as they (critics) like to say we have the means to do that, I’m not sure we do,” she said.  ~~~ Asbury Park Press, 10/18/13

Lets take a look at what the science says about climate change impacts on forests, from the international; to the US; to the regional Pinelands scales – in that order – in light of Director Wittenberg’s denial:

I)  IPCC  Climate Change Impacts on Forests    

Corporate Money and Corporate Partnerships Force Resignations

Will Heads Similarly Roll in NJ?

Or Will Government and Environmental Regulation Continue to Be Privatized and Outsourced?

I had a beer the other night with an environmental professional who is active on his local Sustainable NJ “Green Team” (SNJ).

When I told him that I had big problems with the SNJ model, he was very surprised and demanded that I defend those views, in detail. Long story short, by the end of the conversation, he shared some of my concerns (and I learned a few things about energy planning).

So, looking for a hook to hang this conversation on, I tweeted this story last week, and now feel the need to say a few words about it in hopes of sparking a discussion like the one I had over a few beers with my SNJ friend.

Last week, the not widely read Philanthopic News Digest reported a story with parallels and implications for NJ’s environmental scene – a scene I have harshly criticized as becoming increasingly corporate, entrepreneurial, craven, and revenue driven, to the huge detriment of the avowed mission of environmental advocacy groups as well as the public interest (e.g. see this and this and this).

In the typically murky, private, and discrete word of what I like to call the Green Mafia, there was a huge explosion of public controversy, transparency and  accountability, which actually led to positive change: (see story)

Heinz Endowments President to Step Down

 

Heinz Endowments president Robert Vagt has informed the foundation’s staff and board that he has decided to step down, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

Vagt’s decision to leave the Pittsburgh-based foundation follows the departure of its director of environmental programs, Caren Glotfelty, and communications director, Douglas Root, in August, leading to speculation that the shakeup is tied to endowments’ backing for the Center for Sustainable Shale Development. Glotfelty and Vagt spearheaded the creation of the center — a coalition of foundations, environmental groups, and gas developers — as a way to bring environmentalists and the gas industry together to establish new standards for extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale formation that lies under much of southwestern Pennsylvania and the Appalachian Basin. Vagt, who has headed the foundation since 2008, came under fire from environmentalists for not fully disclosing his ties to the energy industry, which include serving as a board member for and holding stock in a Texas pipeline company.

Could that happen here?

I wish the implications of this tale of disgrace could be explored here in NJ, where similar corporate partnerships, corporate relationships, corporate values, Foundation driven agendas, and conflicts of interest abound.

I’ve tried to cultivate that kind of discussion and accountability in various blog posts, having had my work undermined by NJ conservation groups that either share Heinz’s “corporate partnership” worldview, are reliant on corporate funding, engage in entrepreneurial based initiatives, or who are driven by Foundation funding that is grounded in corporate and private sector values.

In some ways, the dynamics I see operating in the NJ environmental community parallel radical right wing efforts to privatize and destroy the social safety net and government regulation.

For example, radical right wing market fundamentalists reflexively believe that privatization is inherently good and that private charity can replace things like governmental foods stamp programs. These same groups emphasize “choice” and vouchers and Charter schools as an alternative to the public school system. Some are actively pursuing the privatization of Social Security and  elimination and privatization of the US Postal Service.  These ideologues systematically advocate private alternatives to government programs in furtherance of that ideology.

Within a governmental framework, the right demands that the smallest, least effective, and local level of government is the only acceptable form – government small enough to be drown in the bathtub. So of course it makes sense for the right to favor State’s rights over national government and for State government obligations to be delegated to local government.  That’s where government is weakest and corporate interests can best control the game.

In general, the ideological component of these right wing privatization and localization efforts is transparent and fairly well recognized.

Similar to this attack on social program, there are right wing ideologues that feel that the private sector, individual consumer based market decisions, and voluntary “Corporate Stewardship” are superior to and can displace government public health and environmental regulation.

But, contrary to the perception of the right wing social program agenda, these right wing environmental advocacy efforts are rarely understood, linked to, or viewed as driven by radical right wing ideology or corporate interests.

For example, the Sustainable NJ program and Audubon “Stewardship” programs perfectly reflect this right wing ideological framework of privatization and emasculating localism.

That’s why corporations and passive state governments fund them. They are not threatening to corporate power and they serve to reduce activist threats while promoting corporate interests

The SNJ model is based on individual consumer market choices (buy more compact fluorescent lightbulbs! turn down the heat! Buy a hybrid Prius!) – a person is put in the role of a consumer acting through markets, not as a citizen activist acting democratically through government.

As a result, it is no surprise that the SNJ program elements are voluntary, private, local, and they displace State government regulation and even local government mandates.

So instead of focusing on how DEP State regulations or local Master Plan and zoning ordinances can promote “sustainability”, instead SNJ emphasizes literally a replacement of government by corporations and private consumer behavior – the entire SNJ model is an ideological form of privatization and outsurcing.

But nobody views it this way – instead it is perceived as all good and all upside.

So, in my humble view, NJ corporations have used funding of conservation groups in a very destructive way.

Corporate funding has co-opted good organizations and good people, shaping what issues groups work on; what tactics they use; what they are allowed to say and not say;  issues selected and groups that get funded; and the setting of priorities in media and public policy circles.

The NJ examples abound and they need to be called out in the same way that environmental groups called out the Heinz Foundation’s various problems with conflicts of interest, failure to disclose financial relationships, and a just flat out flawed model of advocacy (e.g. to negotiate with corporations, behind closed doors, on narrow technocratic issues, while withholding criticism of those same corporations).

There is a quiet behind the scenes war going on regarding the role of corporations in public policy – it’s time that debate surfaced and groups that believe in corporate values and non-adversarial forms of advocacy at least be forced to disclose and defend those financial relationships and philosophical views to their own memberships, funders, and the larger public.

Whether it be NJ Audubon’s “Corporate Stewardship Council” or acceptance of Dupont funding, or the entrepreneurial “Forest Stewardship“:  or Sustainable NJ’s  WalMart and South Jersey Gas fueled initiatives; or the “Keep It Green Coalition’s” reticence to call out Governor Christie’s failures in hope of securing open space funding; the Dodge Foundation’s  values and policy agenda setting; the $1 million DEP funded work by American Littoral Society and how that impacts advocacy on Barnegat Bay and Sandy recovery; or the newest corporate game in town at the Duke Foundation – and this list just scratches the surface of the problem.

We need to have an honest, open, and ethics based discussion about how funding shapes the work we all do and whether we need to rethink things at a very fundamental level.

People and organizations need to be accountable and transparent – whether acting as a corporate lobbyist or as a so called non-profit “conservation” group.

When Hal Bozarth testifies on a bill that would impact the chemical industry or is quoted in a news story, everyone knows that his position is driven by industry interests and bottom line corporate profits.

But, when conservation groups do the same thing, very, very few people even remotely consider that what they say could be shaped by funders – including Foundations and State government, not just corporations.

Shocking and Blunt Discussion By Commission Unknowingly  Caught On Audio Tape

[Update: 10/19/13 – Kirk Moore, Asbury Park Press connects the dots: Report: Pinelands Commission Sidestepping Protections

I need to make one clarification, however, and it is important. Kirk reported that the tape was during Executive Session. That is not my understanding. The discussion on that tape occurred during the public session. This is important because the Commission will want to keep the substance of that discussion confidential and exempt from OPRA (see letter below), while creating the false impression that I somehow violated that confidentiality.

But even if the discussion cured during executive session – which it did not – the Commissioners were violating the narrow subject matter that can be discussed in Executive Session. end update]

A source recently provided me an audio tape of a 14 minute discussion by the Pinelands Commission, recorded during the September 13, 2013 meeting.

I was disturbed by what I heard and will share that entire tape just as soon as I can get a link made.

The Commissioners had just resumed from Executive Session and re-opened the meeting. The room was empty, the public having long gone home.

The Commissioners seemed unaware that they were being recorded and engaged in frank and deeply  disturbing discussions.

In a stunning and highly significant moment, legal Counsel to the Pinelands Commission, Ms. Roth, advised the Commission that they lack legal jurisdiction to review climate change related impacts and risks associated with the proposed 22 mile gas pipeline across the Pinelands to re-power the BL England power plant at Beesley’s point.

[Update: here is how the approved minutes whitewash that 14+ minute discussion:

Commissioners briefly discussed pre-application meetings and next steps for the South Jersey Gas application. – end update]

That legal guidance was conveyed – verbally – to Commissioners.

How is that even possible? How can a legal issue of this significance be conveyed casually, in an informal conversation?

Roth’s guidance was challenged immediately by a Commissioner, who is an experienced environmental lawyer.

Earlier, during the preceding Commission hearing that day, prior to Ms. Roth’s verbal guidance, I had testified to request that the Commission direct staff to build a legal and scientific nexus between pipeline emissions of greenhouse gases, the secondary impacts from the BL England plant’s GHG emissions, and the Commission’s enabling statute and relevant provisions of the CMP and implementing regulations.

[Update: per the approved minutes:

Bill Wolfe, New Jersey PEER, provided comments on the pre-application process. He also urged Commissioners to hire an independent consultant. He closed by urging staff and counsel to build the links both scientifically and legally to the Commission’s jurisdiction with regard to climate change. -end update]

I suggested direct climate change related impacts and linkages to forest ecosystems and fire risks.

I suggested that the Commission had clear enabling authority.

As I wrote, the US Forest Service has documented climate impacts and risks to Pinelands forests(see this) and is conducting research on these impacts (see this).

Ms. Roth’s legal guidance is hugely significant and it obviously can not stand unchallenged.

See the below letter to Chairman Lohbauer, which is the first step in challenging this absurd and irresponsible legal advise:

October 15, 2013

Dear Chairman Lohbauer:

At a prior public hearing, during my testimony, I asked the Commission how to navigate OPRA requests for Commission documents and was told that requested information is provided on an informal basis. It is with that commitment in mind that I make the following requests in lieu of filing a formal OPRA request.

It has come to my attention that Pinelands Commission Counsel, Ms. Roth, advised the Commissioners, on the public record and during an open portion of the the September 13, 2013 public meeting, the the Commission lacks jurisdiction and a legal basis to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases or the impacts of climate change on the Pinelands.

Commissioner X, an experienced environmental attorney, rejected that analysis and stated he could make a legal argument to the contrary.

I’d be glad to provide the specific quote from Ms. Roth and Commissioner X, verbatim, from a transcript of the recorded hearing.

The portion of the hearing I refer to is after the Commission reconvened from Executive Session and before a motion to adjourn was offered.

Because this legal advise Counselor Roth provided during public session and on the record has major implications, I must inquire upon what legal basis and by what legal reasoning Ms. Roth so advised the Commission.

Of course you realize that legal advise provided during public session is not a “deliberative” exemption under OPRA or otherwise protected by attorney client work product confidentiality.

Specifically:

1. has the Attorney General’s Office issued a legal memorandum of law regarding the Commission’s jurisdiction in this regard? If so, please provide a copy of that Memorandum of law.

2. Has the Commission requested such  legal advisory opinion from the Attorney General’s Office? If so, please provide the relevant correspondence.

3. Has Ms. Roth rendered a written legal opinion to support her advise to the Commissioners? If so, please provide a copy of that written opinion.

4. On what basis did Ms. Roth provide that legal opinion? Please provide the written basis.

5. Has the Commission accepted Ms. Roth’s opinion that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to regulate either the emissions of greenhouse gases of the impacts of climate change? Please provide the Commission’s legal analysis or policy statement in this regard.

Surely you understand that the above legal questions are highly significant, substantive, germane to the Commission’s ongoing review of the pending South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline application and the development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

Surely you also realize that the above documents requests are within the scope of OPRA and are public records.

And surely you will agree that the principles of transparency, rule of law, and sound decision making require response to the above questions and provision of the requested legal opinions, should they exist.

I look forward to your earliest and favorable response, certainly with sufficient time to prepare for the next public meeting of the Commission.

Sincerely,

The Responsibility of the Scientist in an Age of Denial

Responding to a Governor that openly brags about not being briefed on climate science

“I know there are some folks at Rutgers who are looking at whether climate caused all this, but I certainly haven’t been briefed in the last year, year-and-a-half on this,” [Gov.] Christie told WNYC’s Bob Hennelly last month. ~~~ (listen to WNYC story)

[Important Update below]

Yesterday, I attended a conference at Rutgers, sponsored by the Climate Institute: “Bridging the Climate Divide: Informing the Response to Hurricane Sandy and Implications for Future Vulnerability.’’

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight was there and wrote a good story that hit many of the most significant and relevant public policy issues. I won’t repeat the ground Tom covered, so suggest you read his story: RUTGERS CONFERENCE QUESTIONS WHAT NEW JERSEY LEARNED FROM SANDY

Another fine NJ environmental reporter, Kirk Moore of the Asbury Park Press, also attended and wrote a similar story, but Kirk picked up on a very significant point that has  been ignored for the most part in the news coverage thus far, which has focused on the ocean side, and limited back bay coverage to the so called “good news” that FEMA relaxed the large majority of proposed “V” (wave hazard) zones on the back bays:

Back-bay areas will be New Jersey’s “Achilles’ heel,” said research professor Michael Kennish. “They have no really good way to protect against back-bay flooding.”

[See also, Sarah Watson’s story at the Press of Atlantic City]

I’ve written about most of these issues for some time now, but one big policy point I would add to those stories was a statement made by prominent Rutgers economist Joseph Seneca during his opening remarks.

In stressing the need to develop a price for carbon, Seneca listed a number of federal air pollution and energy efficiency regulations (vehicle CAFE, power plants, buildings, and various equipment) which he then used to characterize the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions as “ubiquitous” (a radical view shared by the Chamber of Commerce).

I had read Seneca’s seminal textbook on environmental economics as an undergraduate in 1980, and have since spent a lot of mental energy on the issues of markets versus regulation as policy tools, so I understand that economists tend to criticize regulation in favor of market forces, but still, my jaw dropped and I almost fell off my chair.

So, during the Q&A session, I challenged him on that: “surely you  realize that we do not currently directly regulate greenhouse gas emissions at the federal or state level – so how could that be called “ubiquitous”?

[Clarification: EPA has made an ‘endangerment finding” required by the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts decision, regulated the efficiency of passenger vehicles, and asserted jurisdiction to regulate GHG power plant emissions, but has yet to actually do so, a set of preliminary regulatory decisions the US Supreme Court just agreed to review in 2014.]

Seneca basically stood by his characterization and responded by saying that EPA recently proposed to regulate emissions.

Never  mind that those proposed EPA rules are not in effect, but more importantly, they would not impact ANY existing power plant, would cost nothing, and would not reduce CO2 emissions by one pound.

I managed to speak with him for a few moments after the first break as he was leaving, and as we walked outside, I gave him the details of EPA’s recent proposed rule for emissions from new plants and EPA’s announced approach to rely on states for setting the technical requirements for existing plants.

We had a nice conversation. Seneca did not challenge my analysis and he made it clear to me that he was not familiar with the details of EPA’s regulatory initiatives and he thanked me for the info.

Later, during one of the breaks, a friend informed me that Jim Hansen would be speaking later at 4:30 at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, so I enjoyed both Hansen’s talk and the Rutgers conference.

Therefore, I would like to make a few observations about both, particularly the strong contrast on the issue of the role of the scientist in public policy.

Rutgers

I went into the conference with an expectation that the scientists would emphasize what the academics like to call the “policy relevance” of their science.

The title of the conference itself emphasized “informing the response” to Sandy.

Similarly, Rutgers houses the NJ Climate Adapation Alliance – the mission of the group includes:

• Developing recommendations for state and local actions through collaboration with policymakers at the state, federal and local levels;

So, given this Rutgers mission and focus on “policy collaboration“, I was baffled by last week’s legislative testimony of Rutger’s most prominent climate scientists, Tony Broccoli (watch that testimony here) who opened his testimony with this:

I’ll begin by saying that I did not come to endorse or criticize specific policies. My objective is to provide information that can be used to inform policy decisions. Thus the approach that I’ll take when discussing this topic is to limit my remarks to the science  of climate change.

How does that “bridge a divide” or advance “policy collaboration”?

Such a “pure science” stance might be appropriate in certain circumstances –

However, when there are pervasive attacks on the science, and the failure to heed the science will result in catastrophic global scale results which include the end of civilization, and when the policy makers are in denial and the Governor openly publicly brags about not being briefed on climate science which he dismisses as an “esoteric” issue that he has no time to consider in policy, THEN A SCIENTIST HAS A MORAL AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER.

At one of the breaks, I asked a panelist about this. She responded that climate scientists had received death threats.

I offered up Jim Hansen as a model of the responsible scientist. Again, this Rutgers professor strongly disagreed and essentially dismissed Hansen. She said that Hansen had become an advocate, had made “normative” claims, and had discredited his own work and undermined climate science. Wow.

After several panel presentations that largely dodged such “trans-science” (Weinberg) “normative” and policy issues, there was a brief Q&A session where I got to ask a question along these lines.

I specifically challenged Professor Broccoli regarding his testimony and asked the rest of the panel as well to weigh in on the issues of the responsibility of the scientist and the role of the University in public policy.

I was deeply disappointed at the response.

Basically, the response was that once a scientist had been labelled “an advocate”, then he was no longer respected in the scientific community and would not be invited to meetings or allowed to be a public spokesperson for the science. He would also be subject to right wing attacks.

Wow.

A combination of the fear of being labelled “an advocate” by corporations and right wing climate deniers, along with certain research funding, professional reputation, and career ambitions, was driving their decisions on scientific ethics and responsibility.

I tried to push back, but clearly alienated the Rutgets crowd – but I was approach by several people who agreed with what I said, however harshly I said it.

I left the Rutgers event with an even deeper sense of pessimism.

Princeton

Thankfully, after listening to Dr. Jim Hansen speak at Princeton, some of my hope was restored.

Hansen was introduced by Michael Oppenheimer (see his bio).

Oppenheimer discussed Hansen’s work in historical context, and traced the arc of his predictions, which have been validated by recent events, from the melting of sea ice to extreme weather and temperature.

Oppenheimer stressed Hansen’s ability to do cutting edge science and present it in a “policy relevant” way, never flinching from the implications of his research.

Hansen then spoke – his talk was titled (paraphrase) ” From an itinerant farmer to being arrested at the White House: The views of a scientist on climate change”.

Hansen wove a moving tale of his early personal life and family experience as an itinerant farmer, how he came to pursue climate science as a PhD student at the University of Iowa, early work at NASA, his seminal climate research papers, and the pushback he got in media and political circles for that work.

He talked movingly about how the birth of his grandchildren affected his life and scientific work. There seemed to be no conflict with the “normative” and the scientific.

Hansen then went on to present key scientific findings about climate change impacts, especially the extinction of countless species, using monarch butterfly and migratory species as illustrations.

Hansen mentioned the Bush Administration’s notorious attack on his work, and how his thinking had evolved and come to civil disobedience and climate activism.

In closing, Hansen outlined his view on policy solutions, specifically what he described as a “conservative” market based approach known as “fee and dividend” to  establish a price on carbon (see this for details on that). 

Hansen also supported expansion of modular nuclear and criticized those who he said think we can solve energy problems via efficiency and renewables.

I disagree with most of Hansen’s policy recommendations, but enjoyed his talk and really appreciated his acceptance of responsibility as a scientist to explain and engage the implications of his work.

Maybe the folks up at Rutgers can learn of few things from Hansen – and the folks in Trenton too.

The only thing I was disappointed by was Hansen’s reluctance to talk more about the activist and civil disobedience tactics that he has worked with 350.org on.

[End note – I had a brief lunchtime exchange with a Rutgers engineering professor. He said he knew me and had read the blog. I asked what he knew about me. He replied that he knew that I had worked for government. What the hell does that mean?

I really didn’t know how to interpret that or respond, and asked him to elaborate. He repeated that he knew I worked for government.

I didn’t know how to respond other than to advise him that I began my academic training in an engineering school as a chemical engineering student and was familiar with and comfortable with science and math.

He then suggested that I should advise readers of my background – so here it is. I would also take time to add that I was a National Merit scholar and that Carnegie Mellon offered me as full scholarship back in 1975, which I declined.

I chose to abandon engineering and science in college after reading books like “Small is Beautiful”, “The Closing Circle”, “Limits to Growth”, “Design with Nature”, “The Politics of Cancer”, “Expendable Americans”,  “Soft Energy Paths”, and Lewis Mumford, all of which convinced me that policy and planning were more relevant and meaningful pursuits.

 [Update – I want to make 4 very distinct exceptions to the timid and irresponsible approach of Dr. Broccoli.

Ken Miller was very blunt, and repeatedly called out the Gov. for false statements. Prof. Psuty was very clear and comfortable in talking about the implications of his science, and had the best quote in the AC press story:

“I’m afraid when I hear our local politicians talk about the dunes, they think the dunes solve everything and that is just not the case.”

I did not hear that during the conference, so it may have been in response to my calling out the failure to take on the politicians.

Also, Mike Kennish is a “scientist with stones” I respect and have praised his work here.

Last, as I previously wrote, Professor Jennifer Francis has been outspoken, with strong warnings like this:

As the Arctic warms at twice the global rate, we expect an increased probability of extreme weather events across the temperate latitudes of the northern hemisphere, where billions of people live,” said Jennifer Francis, Ph.D, of Rutgers.

Francis’ panel presentation explained 5 specific ways that climate change made Sandy a far worse storm than would otherwise have been:

1. sea level rise

2. warmer oceans

3. warmer air

4. more water vapor

5. arctic sea ice loss – impacted storm track, left turn into NJ (see above warning)- end update-

[Update #2 – apologies to readers trying to post comments – the screening software I installed is not working and makes comments impossible. Trying to fix, so I’ll post this comment from a reader:

Dear Mr. Wolfe,

A friend of mine on facebook shared your latest latest post about the Rutgers panel & Jim Hansen’s talk.  I tried to leave the following comment but gave up on Captcha after several tries failed:

Bravo!  posted at Global Warming Fact of the Day FB page:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/336682515937/

Jim Hansen is my hero so I was especially glad to see your praise of his activism.  Scientific reticence is really out of place when we’re staring at an emergency.  But I have a rather large quibble with him because he is stuck on the issue of CO2 and climate change – naturally, he’s a climate scientist – whereas to my mind it is but one of several converging catastrophes, such as overpopulation and habitat destruction and peak everything from fish to oil.

Not least, I am saddened that he won’t acknowledge that there is a serious problem of tree decline from pollution, which we have discussed in the past.  I think it stems partially from a widespread refusal to recognize that forests are all in decline, and specifically because Hansen’s prescription for surviving climate change is to draw down the current level of CO2 to 350 (to begin with – possibly even lower) by planting trees.  In his papers he states that this is essential because at 400 we are already well past a safe level.  Obviously, admitting the trees are dying from pollution would render that plan problematic.

Since you live in New Jersey, as do I (Oldwick), you may have noticed this fall that the leaves aren’t turning bright colors – instead they are shriveling up and falling off prematurely.  This has been the trend for several years as the background level of tropospheric ozone has become intolerable to vegetation, but this autumn it’s especially noticeable.  I’m afraid that New Jersey is in the vanguard of a deeply troubling global trend.

Anyway, if you have any interest in this topic please check out my blog Wit’s End for a time-lapse of a maple tree and feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks for all your work and I look forward to following your posts now.  PEER is a terrific organization.

Sincerely,

Gail Zawacki

Oldwick, NJ