More Fake Solutions On Climate Change
New Legislation Designed To Divert From Fossil Moratorium & Phase Out
Once one understands how the elite charade is played, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
I’ve been writing a lot about the concept of “the elite charade” lately, and today another classic example just appeared.
A close look at the timing, the content, and the press coverage revealingly peels the mask off and exposes the latest – and most egregious – elite charade. Let me explain.
After ignoring the climate activist campaign to demand that Gov. Murphy impose a moratorium on fossil infrastructure – and just days after I wrote to criticize that neglect – today NJ Spotlight reports that Senate Environment Committee Chairman Smith introduced legislation to “implement” the failed 2007 Global Warming Response Act (GWRA):
(for readers interested in a forensic autopsy of the 2007 GWRA, see: A Decade After Passage of The NJ Global Warming Response Act: From “Toothless” to a “Dead Letter”)
The Smith bill (S3207) is a charade and proposes classic “fake solutions”. I put that term in quotes, as it is not mine.
A core feature of what author and former New York Times columnist Anand Giridharadas calls the “elite charade” is the concept of what he calls “fake solutions”. Fake solutions are the mechanism by which the elite charade operates.
Fake solutions share common features. They:
1) allow the advocates of them to feel virtuous that they are “changing the world” and garner good publicity;
2) are “win-win” solutions, meaning that they do not involve tradeoffs, impose any costs, or require sacrifice in terms of individual career, personal lifestyle, or income;
3) do not involve corporate taxes, government regulations, or income or wealth redistribution;
4) divert attention from and displace more effective real solutions, especially regulations and taxes;
5) marginalize and undermine the “radical” or “politically unrealistic” or “idealistic” individuals and groups that advocate real solutions; and
6) are “politically safe”, i.e. they lock in the status quo and pose no threat to powerful elites, corporations, or politicians.
Now lets apply the “fake solutions” framework to Chairman Smith’s bill and compare them to real solutions. I’ve already written about the fossil moratorium as a real solution, so will not repeat that today and instead focus on other real solutions.
I) Real Solutions: DEP Regulation of GHG Emissions
Just like the failed GWRA – which I criticized at the outset – Smith’s bill limits the scope of DEP regulations to emissions monitoring and reporting and merely directs DEP to prepare a Report.
According to the bill’s statement:
This bill would establish new timeframes for the completion of the Legislature’s directives in the GWRA. Specifically, within 12 months after the date of enactment of the bill, the DEP would be required to adopt rules and regulations establishing a greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting program. Additionally, within 18 months after the date of enactment, and biennially thereafter, the DEP would be required to prepare a report on the status of the greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting program, the current level of greenhouse gas emissions in the State, and the progress made toward compliance with the goals established in the GWRA. Finally, within one year after the date of enactment, the bill would require the DEP to prepare a report recommending additional measures necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the 2050 goal.
That’s like filing a tax return to IRS that identifies your income, but pays no tax. Like having IRS submit a Report to Congress about total US income, but not authorizing IRS to levy and collect any taxes.
In other words, the bill is not serious.
Regarding actual GHG emissions, Smith’s bill merely requires DEP to develop a “strategy”.
According to the bill’s statement:
This bill would establish new timeframes for the implementation of certain requirements in the “Global Warming Response Act” (GWRA), and require the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adopt a strategy to reduce short-lived climate pollutants.
A strategy is NOT an authority to adopt regulations to limit GHG emissions or impose emissions fees on GHG emissions.
NJ Spotlight makes a big deal about the fact that the bill purportedly applies to and “goes after” methane –
Going after methane
Among other things, the bill would require the state Department of Environmental Protection to develop a comprehensive strategy to curb emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane. Methane, a component in natural gas that often leaks from pipelines, is much more potent that other greenhouse gas pollutants, such as carbon dioxide.
This is false and misleading.
It is a sop to naive and incompetent anti-pipeline activists (like Rethink NJ) and designed to create the false appearance that it would regulate methane emissions from proposed pipelines or gas fired power plants. This is false and cynical – a classic “fake solution”.
As I’ve written, DEP regulations do not regulate methane emissions from pipelines, or GHG emissions from any pollution sources, see:
The bill does not regulate methane and is NOT “going after methane”.
While it is highly misleading to claim that the bill is “going after methane”, even worse is the fact that the claim ignores the fact that DEP has long regulated methane, but in a very flawed way that is loaded with loopholes.
In 2005, the DEP adopted regulations that defined greenhouse gases as air pollutants. DEP wrote:
consistent with the definition of the term at N.J.A.C. 7:27-21, Emission Statements, thereby classifying carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air contaminant….
That 2005 DEP regulation also defined methane as a greenhouse gas:
New Jersey’s decision to expand its emissions statement rules to require reporting for CO2 and methane resulted in Maine and Connecticut following suit, and other states are actively considering comparable requirements.
The real problem is that the DEP’s 2005 regulation explicitly exempted greenhouse gases from DEP air permit emissions regulations and air pollution emissions fees.
Here are the 8 exemptions and loopholes in that 2005 regulation. DEP wrote:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 20 THROUGH 23: It was not the Department’s intent to establish CO2 emissions permitting and regulatory requirements through the proposed amendments. The Department has modified the rules on adoption to except CO2 from existing air pollution regulatory and reporting requirements. See the response to comment 61 for a description of the specific changes made on adoption.
Those specific exemptions of GHG emissions include the following:(see the DEP adoption document, at page 53)
- A requirement to include in a permit application information about CO2 emissions
- A requirement to obtain a permit under N.J.A.C. 7:27-8 or 7:27-22
- A limitation on CO2 emissions in a permit
- A requirement for a state-of-the-art analysis with respect to the control of CO2 emissions
- A fee
- A facility being considered a “major facility”
- An item of equipment or a source operation being considered a “significant source”
- The applicability of any other requirement under 7:27, other than the requirements of 7:27-21 (which require facilities to which subchapter 21 applies to report CO2 emissions in their emission statements).
A real solution would be to repeal those 2005 exemptions, close those loopholes, and direct DEP to regulate GHG emissions like other major pollutants.
Chairman Smith’s bill does not do any of that and instead proposes the same failed non-regulatory policies of the 2007 GWRA, while diverting attention from real solutions.
That is a classic fake solution and elite charade.
Similarly, the Spotlight article creates the false and misleading impressions that the Smith bill aggressively oversees DEP, accelerates GHG emission reductions, and holds Gov. Murphy accountable.
In reality, as we document here, exactly the opposite is true: the bill provides cover, does absolutely nothing to impact GHG emissions, protects polluters from DEP regulation and emission fees, and protects the Gov. from criticism and diverts attention from massive DEP regulatory failures.
II) Real Solutions: DEP Air Pollution Fees
DEP mandates air pollution emissions fees – DEP just issued a notice to updated them:
In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(j), the Department has published a notice of the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) relative to the 1989 CPI and the resultant per-ton emission fee for FY 2019 in the November 19, 2018 New Jersey Register. …
The annual emission fee, paid by each major facility subject to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22, is calculated each year according to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(b), which applies the CPI percentage increase to a base amount per ton of emissions. For FY 2019, the Department calculated the CPI percentage increase as 2.42 percent, resulting in an annual emission fee of $122.45 per ton of regulated emissions.
A facility subject to this fee must multiply $122.45 times the quantity of regulated air contaminant emissions (VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, highest TPY of TSP, PM10, or PM 2.5) emitted in tons during calendar year 2017 (January 1 through December 31, 2017). The result is the fee the facility must submit to the Department by January 31, 2019. Invoices are being mailed to major facilities based on emissions reported in the Emission Statement submitted for calendar year 2017.
But DEP exempted greenhouse gas emissions from those fees! (see above list of exemptions).
Compare the DEP’s $122.45/ton air pollution emission fee to the current paltry Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) emission fee, which is in the ballpark of just $3 per ton.
Gov. Murphy has embraced RGGI – which, as I’ve written many times, is a fake and ineffective solution (most recently, see The RGGI Blues)
If Gov. Murphy were serious, he would impose current DEP air pollution fees to GHG emissions. But no “green group” is calling for that and no NJ Spotlight stories have ever reported on current DEP emissions fees or questioned why DEP exempted GHG from them.
According to the most recent DEP greenhouse gas emissions inventory, statewide GHG emissions exceed 100 million tons:
According to the latest greenhouse gas emissions estimate (2015), Statewide releases were a little over 100 MMT CO2e
Do the math: (100 million tons of GHG emissions) X ($122.45/ton) = $12,245,000,000
That’s $12.245 BILLION if all GHG emissions were subject to DEP’s current air pollution emissions fees.
Of course, I am not suggesting that DEP should or could regulate ALL GHG emissions sources that contribute to NJ’s 100 million tons of emissions. But DEP doesn’t currently regulate or impose fees on any GHG emissions sources.
If just the RGGI regulated emissions – which are about 20 million tons/year – were subject to the current DEP air pollution emissions fees ($122.45/ton), that would represent over $2 BILLION per year in revenue that could be reinvested in the transition to 100% renewable energy, construction of a smart grid for distributed local energy, and a phase out of fossil.
So there’s a lot of room between 100 million tons and zero for a real solution: a realistic GHG emissions fee program that is more robust that RGGI $3/ton.
III) Real Solutions – Eliminate BPU Exemptions and Subsidies
It’s not just DEP that has exempted GHG emissions from regulatory and pollution fees.
As I wrote (See: Time to Pull the Plug On BL England), in an April 29, 2013 Order, the BPU quietly granted huge tax breaks and subsidies to the Rockland Capital BL England Plant:
The BPU granted the plant an exemption from RGGI fees and SBC charges.
This BPU BL England Order also provided secrecy to cover up the amount of huge ratepayer subsidies to Rockland Capital.
In addition, the BPU has ignored the Social Costs of Carbon in their economic review of energy projects. Instead, Gov. Murphy signed legislation that allowed PSEG and the nuclear industry to hijack the concept of SCC. The law turns the concept of SCC on its head.
Instead of polluters paying the public to offset the SCC of their emissions, e.g putting a price on carbon, the Murphy law requires that the ratepayers pay to subsidize nuclear power via “zero emissions credits”. Orwellian. Absurd.
How many other gas plants have been exempted from RGGI and provided other subsidies? Ask Senator Smith. Or NJ Spotlight.
The Smith bill requires that DEP act in concert with BPU. That’s another misleading effort, because there is no policy or legislative standards or requirements that BPU or DEP must comply with – while at the same time ignoring major flaws and loopholes in current BPU and DEP policy.
Real climate solutions will require that many BPU loopholes and subsidies be eliminated.
The Smith bill doesn’t do that, but instead creates the false appearance on integrating BPU energy and DEP regulatory policy.
IV) Real Solutions: California Dreaming – Phase Out of Fossil
Finally,I closed my most recent moratorium post with this challenge to emulate California’s fossil phase out:
[End Note: in addition to a Moratorium, the campaign should include a demand for a timetable for phasing out existing fossil power, similar to California Gov. Brown’s policy.]
So, I find it no coincidence that both the bill and the NJ Spotlight story misleading allude to greenhouse gas and climate policies in California. (bill statement):
The requirement to adopt a comprehensive strategy under this bill is based on legislation adopted and implemented in California.
It’s almost comical how Spotlight was so eager to get the California comparison into the story that they got it wrong.
I referred to California with respect to the fossil phase out. But the bill refers to California with respect to the DEP “comprehensive strategy”.
But Spotlight make the California connection to methane:
The legislation to deal with short-lived pollutants like methane is modeled after a bill adopted and implemented in California.
I find that mistake revealing. Classic fake solutions that divert from real solutions in California: the phase out of fossil power.
V) Apply The Fake Solutions Framework
So, let’s look at the content of Senator Smith’s bill, the timing of its release, and the NJ Spotlight coverage, in light of the elements of the “fake solutions” framework:
1) allow the advocates of them to feel virtuous that they are “changing the world” and garner good publicity;
Check – Senator Smith got good press. NJ Spotlight creates the impression among its readers that they are doing real journalism. Doug O’Malley at Environment NJ can report back to his Foundation funders that he got the quote on a major climate bill. Foundations just love those kind of ‘metrics”.
2) are “win-win” solutions, meaning that they do not involve tradeoffs, impose any costs, or require sacrifice in terms of individual career, personal lifestyle, or income;
Check – The Smith bill involves no tradeoffs, imposes no costs, and requires no sacrifice
3) do not involve corporate taxes, government regulations, or income or wealth redistribution;
Check – the Smith bill imposes no new taxes or air pollution fees, does not authorize new regulations of close loopholes in exiting regulations, and has no impact on inequality.
4) divert attention from and displace more effective real solutions, especially regulations and taxes;
Check – the Smith bill diverts media ad public attention from the moratorium campaign, from the California phase out, and from major flaws and massive loopholes in current laws and DEP regulations.
5) marginalize and undermine the “radical” or “politically unrealistic” or “idealistic” individuals and groups that advocate real solutions; and
Check – the Smith bill marginalizes the radical idealistic folks in the moratorium campaign and diverts from my critique.
6) are “politically safe”, i.e. they lock in the status quo and pose no threat to powerful elites, corporations, or politicians.
Check – NJ’s energy, pipeline, petro-chemical and transportation and housing industry lobbyists are happy and not opposing the bill.
Once one understands how the elite charade is played, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.