WolfeNotes.com

DEP Forest Fire Spokesperson Flat Out Lies To Press In Defending Plan

Conservationists Who Signed Off On This Are Embarrassed

Friends of Murphy DEP, Loggers, And Professional Foresters Pushing Back Hard

Theres’ been quite a large public response, mostly expressing outrage, on the Pinelands Commission’s approval of the DEP wildfire logging plan that would cut and remove 2.4 million tress from about 1,400 acres, create 13 miles of 50 foot wide clearcut “firebreaks, and apply toxic herbicides on over 1,000 acres in the heart of protected Pinelands forests.

Not surprisingly, those responsible for preparing, approving and signing off on the plan are looking quite bad.

I)  Some metrics, just days after the story broke:

1) Longtime veteran investigative reporter and columnist Bob Hennelly’s expose at Insider NJ is getting a lot of volume. Over 1,350 readers have read the story. The reader comments are brutal!

2) In less than 24 hours since it was posted last night, my petition at Change.org has been read 3,757 times and endorsed by 211 people. Those numbers will grow as NJ’s grassroots advocacy groups circulate  the petition to their members.

[Update – Sorry, I just learned that change.org is a commercial fundraising operation. Sorry for that. I am taking the petition down right now.]

I don’t know how many people have called the Gov. at 609-292-6000 to demand he veto the minutes, but I’ve spoke in depth with the Gov.’s office constituent relations staff.

3) My website (Wolfenotes.com) posts have had over 400 NJ hits.

4) Other reporters from major metropolitan newspapers are working on the story, so more shoes are likely to drop.

5) Pinelands resident and Democratic Party operative Bill Caruso sent me a Facebook post that is generating a lot of comments, many of which defend the logging plan and object to it being called a “clearcut”. Comments are restricted and Bill has no responded to my request that he allow me to reply to comments there. I interpret this as evidence of political pushback (instead of Russian trolls, there are conservation group members manipulating and distorting the conversation!).

[Update – Bill tells me:

I don’t have any control over the post or commenting abilities.  I’m not the moderator

6) Emile DeVito on NJCF has not responded to several questions I posed to him, including how the plan contradicts a recent op-ed he wrote on Pinelands wildfire. I interpret that avoidance as an attempt to duck criticism for signing off on and/or not opposing this disastrous plan. The same goes for Carleton Montgomery of PPA.

They all kept this disaster under the radar, instead of blowing the whistle on it and fighting to stop it.

They, like the Pinelands Commission, caved to the blatant political pressure of the DEP Firemen (i.e. “it’ll be YOUR fault if a wildfire kills someone”).

II)  Lies, Junk Science, And Spin – Some troubling developments:

1. NJ Forest Fire spokesperson Caryn Shinske flat out lied to reporter Bob Hennelly when she said this:

Tree removal will focus on the smallest snow-bent pitch pine trees first, and an intact canopy will be maintained across the site.”

That is absurd and flat out false.

An intact canopy will not be maintained. Here’s how the Pinelands Commission’s approval documents quantified the significant tree canopy reductions:

• The proposed “low and from below” thinning will reduce the forest from 2,075 trees per acre to 204 trees per acre. Canopy cover will be reduced from 68% to 43%.

• Approximately 255 acres of pine-shrub oak forest type will be subject to a variable density thinning treatment. This thinning will reduce the forest from 1,940 trees per acre to 74 trees per acre. Canopy cover will be reduced from 74% to 30%.

• The applicant indicates that this type of thinning creates a gradual transition in tree density from zero trees per acre created by the proposed forest firebreak to 33 trees per acre for a distance back from the proposed forest firebreak of 75 feet. Canopy cover will be reduced from 74% to 19% by the “feathered” variable density thinning treatment.

 2. I am working an another separate post about junk science, so let me just highlight a few points here.

The DEP is ignoring, misconstruing, and distorting US Forest Service and Rutgers research, and they do that in a coordinated fashion, first in DEP’s “80X50 Climate Science Report” (see p. 156) and in the sham justification for this logging project.

First of all, in the carbon sequestration section of DEP’s Climate science Report, DEP cites and relies on Rutgers professor Richard Lathrop’s published research to quantify carbon storage and sequestration in NJ’s forests.

The DEP logging plan and the Pinelands Commission’s review and approval of it failed to even consider climate impacts, including carbon storage and sequestration.

So I wrote Prof. Lathrop an email asking for his thoughts on this neglect, as well as his assessment of the science supporting DEP claims about “unnatural tree density” and attributing the susceptibility to pine bark beetle infestation.

In contrast to his immediate reply to my recent question to him about conflicts between USDA and his land use data on agricultural land cover and land loss,  Lathrop has not responded to my questions about DEP’s failure to consider his research on carbon.

I interpret his avoidance as an indicator of the huge scientific stakes and the political risks of speaking out critically about flaws in a Murphy DEP plan.

The US Forest Service published research (See Box 2.3 – The Southern Pine Beetle Reaches NJ Pinelands) attributes the susceptibility of Pinelands forests to southern pine beetle infestation due to the northern migration of the range of the beetle, as a result of warming due to climate change

(Ironically, this view is backed up by a NJ Department of Parks & Forestry fact sheet  and a public briefing by the Pinelands Commission).

In contrast, DEP implies that this is due to “unnatural tree density” and prescribes chain saw medicine, supplemented by toxic herbicide treatments:

I could find no USFS scientific support for the DEP claim that the forest in question is “unnnaturally dense” – or whether DEP even has published scientific basis and data to support what “natural” tree density is in the Pinelands..

DEP also gets the science on the relationships between their proposed “forest thinning” and wind and wildfire wrong: (Hennelly piece)

“Across the  project, the goal is to stop the spread of fire by removing dense undergrowth and preventing fire from getting into the treetops where wind can rapidly spread and intensify fire.

“Thinning” a forest increases sunlight hitting the forest floor, which dries out soil and vegetation, making them more prone to combustion. It also reduces wind resistance, thus INCREASING wind that promotes rapid spread of fire, as recent science and hundreds of scientist warn, see:

• Open Letter to President Biden and Members of Congress from Scientists: It is essential to Remove Climate-Harming Logging and Fossil Fuel Provisions from Reconciliation and Infrastructure Bills

https://johnmuirproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/ScientistLetterOpposingLoggingPro

Finally, DEP suggests that the logging is “badly needed”.

In contrast, Pinelands Commissioner Doug Wallner, a retired National Park Service expert on wildfire, noted that the DEP plan failed to provide a justification and failed to consider the “no alternative” option. Wallner noted that he had reviewed the maps and that there was little of no people or property at risk or benefit from the logging and firebreak plan.

And logging forests releases more carbon than wildfires do, see

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/30/opinion/california-wildfires-oak-fire-yosemite-sequoias.html

We’ll keep you posted as this debate unfolds.

Murphy DEP In Fine Company, Indeed!

DEP says proposal “will provide significant economic relief to permittees”

As the Clean Water Act celebrates it’s 50th anniversary, the Murphy DEP recently proposed major amendments to NJ’s Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS).

The SWQS are the heart of the Clean Water Act. They establish legally binding limits that polluters must meet to protect the “physical, chemical, and biological” health of the nation’s waters.

The Murphy DEP proposal quietly includes the most significant rollback of those NJ water quality standards since the Whitman DEP’s failed “Mega Rule”. That proposal triggered strong opposition by environmental groups and generated significant media attention and bad press that forced its withdrawal.

The loophole is buried deep in the weeds of the DEP proposal. It is known as a “variance”.

I wrote about that back in August when the rule was proposed, see:

• Murphy DEP Proposed Huge Loophole In Clean Water Standards

The DEP makes it very clear that a variance is designed to avoid the costs of compliance with water quality standards:

Simply put, a “variance” allows polluters to avoid compliance with a water quality standard if the cost is too high. DEP makes that clear throughout the proposal: (interestingly the word “cost” is mentioned 64 times in the proposal):.

The Department anticipates that the WQS variance will be useful to address implementation challenges for situations when the water quality criterion for a substance or the designated use of a waterbody/waterbody segment(s) cannot be attained due to the lack of feasible treatment technologies, lack of analytical methods to measure the substance to the criterion thresholds, or the potential to cause widespread social and economic impact, if implemented. (proposal @ p.32)

[Note the word “or” preceding economic impacts. Only one of those conditions need be present to qualify for a variance. That means even if there are feasible treatment technology and analytical methods available. Cost alone can justify a variance.]

The new requirements to incorporate WQS variance provisions will allow the Department to adopt temporary in-stream criteria or effluent conditions that will provide significant economic relief to permittees facing currently unattainable SWQS, (@page 51)

Cost savings could occur for permittees that apply for WQS variances, as a variance could be a means to addressing contested permit limits instead of accruing penalty violations. When the SWQS cannot be met … current regulations offer no options for the permittee other than incurring potential permit violations or enforcement actions, while the water quality of receiving waters continues to degrade. This creates considerable operational and financial uncertainty with respect to the cost of compliance and need for treatment upgrades. Examples of a regulatory compliance issue that creates an uncertainty for permittees include standards for certain pollutants, such as arsenic, that may be lower than natural ambient conditions, or lower than what existing technologies can feasibly measure or treat.

All this shortsighted and misguided emphasis on allowing the costs of compliance to undermine protection of clean water harkens back to exactly the same argument Richard Nixon used to veto the Clean Water Act passed by Congress – thankfully, Congress over-rode Nixon’s veto:

Veto of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

I am also concerned, however, that we attack pollution in a way that does not ignore other very real threats to the quality of life, such as spiraling prices and increasingly onerous taxes. Legislation which would continue our efforts to raise water quality, but which would do so through extreme and needless overspending, does not serve the public interest. There is a much better way to get this job done.

For this reason, I am compelled to withhold my approval from S. 2770, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972–a bill whose laudable intent is outweighed by its unconscionable $24 billion price tag.

The Murphy DEP “variance” loophole comes as the DEP and the DRBC are seeking to reduce discharge of ammonia and nitrogen from sewage treatment plants.

The DEP variance loophole is perfectly timed to let polluters off the hook for upgrading pollution control technology for those new ammonia/nitrogen limits, as well as new limits coming down the pike for unregulated toxic chemicals and new limits on “forever chemicals” PFNA’s.

It also will likely be used to delay and forgo compliance with DEP’s toothless stormwater CSO permits.

[End Note: And while we’re focused on history, the DEP proposal is based on 1995 US EPA Guidance (27 years old!!!)

• USEPA Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards

In contrast, the recent DRBC ammonia study is based on 2022 EPA Guidance:

Democratic Legislative Leaders Urged To Reform NJ’s Administrative Law

Transparency, Accountability And Public Participation Sorely Lacking

Climate Impacts And Environmental Justice Issues Are Not Considered Under Current Law 

If NJ Governor Murphy – who has issued scores of toothless Executive Orders purportedly to implement his policy agenda – were serious about governing (instead of posturing by press release), here are some of the in the weeds but critical reforms he would be championing.

Similarly, if NJ had a functioning democracy, a legitimate press corps, a public interest law bar, law schools populated by Deans and professors who recognized an obligation to the public interest, or competent environmental leaders, they too would be seeking these kind of “good government” reforms.

But nobody advocates for the “public interests” or does real governing anymore. (which is something to think about in light of the historic failure and gridlock of Weimar Germany, which paved the way to the Nazi fascists, an historic dynamic now underway).

Neoliberal market based schemes (think “divestment movement” and “cap and trade”), corporate technological utopianism (think “carbon capture” and “geo-engineering”), false solutions (think “plastic recycling”), slogans, press releases, symbolic gestures, virtue signaling, and social media are a lot more fun and profitable. Real stuff like you can read below is way too wonky.

As a result, government and democracy have been hollowed out. Merely a facade remains. Professor Sheldon Wolin called it “Managed Democracy” and “Inverted Totalitarianism”.

The private corporate interests have captured DEP, the revolving door is swinging, and private interests are in complete control.

I just sent the letter below to Senate President Scutari (former Chair of the Judiciary Committee) and Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith. It’s about the most important law you never heard of, the NJ Administrative Procedure Act.

I’m not holding my breath for a reply:

Dear Senate President Scutari and Chairman Smith:

I am writing to seek your support of amendments to the NJ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to modernize and strengthen that core law in light of recent policy, science, and legal developments and Governor Murphy’s Executive Orders.

Policies and procedures ripe for reform include, but are not limited to the following issues:

1. Climate Impact Statements

President Biden and Governor Murphy have both emphasized the need for a “whole of government” approach to the climate crisis.

One key element in such an endeavor is State agency rulemaking in accordance with the APA.

As you know, current APA analytical impact statement requirements include social, economic, environmental, jobs, agricultural industry, regulatory flexibility, housing affordability, smart growth development, and Racial and Ethnic Community Criminal Justice and Public Safety impacts.

Surely, in light of the climate crisis, the goals of the Global Warming Response Act, and Governor Murphy’s Executive Orders, climate considerations warrant similar impact assessment in State agency rulemaking.

2. Environmental Justice Impact Statements

The legislature recently passed and Gov. Murphy signed “groundbreaking” environmental justice legislation.

However, that law applies narrowly to certain DEP permit programs.

One means of strengthening the implementation of environmental justice goals would be to include an EJ impact statement requirement in the APA.

3. Petitions for rulemaking

The current provisions of the APA include petition content requirements and delegation of authority to State agencies to establish individual regulatory petition requirements for the content and agency review of petitions.

There is no uniformity in agency implementation requirements of these provisions, leading to inconsistent and conflicting petition content standards, review procedures, and policies.

For example, I recently flied identical rulemaking petitions jointly to DEP and the Pinelands Commission. Both were accepted by DEP but both were rejected as “incomplete” by the Pinelands Commission. The Commission even goes so far as to mandate inclusion of specific regulatory language, among several other content requirements that are far broader and more burdensome than the statutory content requirements of the APA.

Neither the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) nor the Attorney General’s Division of Law is supervising consistency across state government, and OAL has no statutory authority to do so.

Additionally, DEP does not solicit or accept public comments on petitions they public notice in the NJ Register. In a revealing and highly unusual move, DEP accelerated their 7 day deadline to respond to OPRA requests and in less than 24 hours arrogantly wrote this:

“The NJDEP does not solicit or collect public comments on a petition for rulemaking.”

They don’t respond to them either. That is an anti-democratic practice that must change.

Current law could be strengthened by establishing uniform content requirements across state government and requiring agencies to solicit and respond to public comment, which would then be subject to judicial review as final agency action.

4. Stakeholder Processes and Negotiated rulemaking

DEP has conducted numerous informal “Stakeholder processes” in the absence of legislative authority or safeguards to assure transparency, accountability, disclosure, ethics, scientific integrity and conflicts of interest.

These processes effectively constitute negotiated rulemaking under the APA.

In one case, a NJ Court ruled that Stakeholder participation and concurrence with draft regularly language during the Stakeholder process precluded litigation challenge. Participants are completely unaware of these kind of risks.

Reforms are badly needed.

5. Standing To challenge Agency Action Before OAL

The current APA standing standard undermines public interest advocacy and weakens  judicial review and agency accountability.

Reforms need to be explored to relax this standard,

6. Enhanced transparency, accountability, and public participation

The APA framework needs to be comprehensively reconsidered in light of how it advances or frustrates these objectives.

Reforms need to be explored.

7. Rulemaking calendars

DEP, and I assume other state agencies, simply ignores the rulemaking calendar requirements of the APA and routinely provides a 60 day comment period, thereby defeating the intent of the calendar requirements.

8. Emergency Rules

The current controversy over DEP “emergency” rule proposals of climate PACT regulations highlights the importance of more clearly defining the conditions that constitution an “emergency” under the APA.

The COVID pandemic raised similar issues.

9. Readoption without change

The effective timeframe, or expiration date of regulations, was recently extended from 5 to 7 years.

While I understand the need for predictability and reliance on a regulatory framework, that’s a long time and a lot changes over 7 years, including facts on the ground, scientific knowledge, policies, and laws.

State agencies should not be able to merely readopt without change.

A good start on exploring these issues would be a series of joint oversight hearings by the Judiciary Committee and the Committee of jurisdiction over each State agency.

I appreciate your favorable consideration and timely response and look forward to working with OLS and interested parties in advancing these reforms to the APA.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

DEP’s Logging Plan Would Cut And Remove 2.4 Million Trees

Logging Pinelands Forests Makes A Mockery Of Gov. Murphy’s Climate Policies 

An Open Letter To Gov Murphy – VETO THE MINUTES!

The ecological and climate values of those forests must not be sacrificed by narrow minded plans or the negligence and neglect of NJ State government agencies under your watch.

Dear Gov. Murphy:

I support the stated intent of your Executive Orders with respect to addressing the climate crisis and steeply and rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the goals of the Global Warming Response Act in light of the most recent science.

Sadly, I must bring to your attention the fact that these goals and policies have been ignored by State agencies that are bound by these Executive Orders.

Specifically, I am writing to you regarding a recent approval by the Pinelands Commission of a DEP “forest management” plan that would effectively clearcut (90 – 96% tree removal) 1,300 acres of Pinelands forest and literally clearcut an additional 78 acres for 13 miles of 50 foot wide “firebreaks”.

Over 2.4 million trees would be cut and removed.

There was no analysis conducted by the DEP or the Pinelands Commission with respect to the climate implications of this massive logging, in terms of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The DEP’s forest management and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan do not include any standards or review requirements that consider climate issues or the science of forest management for carbon storage and sequestration.

The DEP’s “Forest Management Plan” and the Pinelands Commission’s approval of it make a mockery of the intent of your Executive Orders on climate, as well as conflict with the carbon storage and sequestration science and data of DEP’s own “80 X 50 Climate Report”.

The Pinelands Protection Act provides authority to the Governor to block decisions of the Pinelands Commission by vetoing the minutes of the Commission. The Act delegated this power to the Governor to block parochial, short sighted or flawed actions of the Commission that conflict with Statewide objectives or the Governor’s policy agenda.

As Governor, you also have Constitutional Executive authority and basic management obligations to assure that your policies, Orders and goals are implemented by State agencies.

The Pinelands Commission is scheduled to approve the minutes at their next meeting on November 10 and submit them to you. A 10 day clock would then run before the Commission’s decision takes effect (in the absence of your veto).

I strongly urge you to veto the minutes and block implementation of this DEP Forest Management Plan.

In addition to blocking this decision, you should also direct DEP and the Pinelands Commission to revise the Plan in light climate science and the goals of the Global Warming Response Act and your Executive Orders. Ideally, both Agencies should revise their policies and regulations to reflect these objectives as well.

The Pinelands forests are a unique ecosystem that have been recognized by the UN as a World Biosphere Reserve and by Congress and the nation’s first National Reserve. Recently deceased NJ Congressman and former Governor Florio was the sponsor of that Legislation.

The ecological and climate values of those forests must not be sacrificed by narrow minded plans or the negligence and neglect of NJ State government agencies under your watch.

The whole world is watching.

Respectfully,

*Bill Wolfe

* Retired DEP planner and former Policy Director of Sierra Club, NJ Chapter and Director of the NJ Chapter of Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Memorial Dedications Deserve Respect & Solemn Reflection, Not Smiles And Blue Jeans

Florio’s Legacy Celebrated Just Hours Before It Was Betrayed

[Update below – see especially Update #2]

Reader Warning: We’ve literally been losing sleep over this, so we lance the boil. For readers who are triggered by conflict; or who view criticism of black and brown people as racist, or criticism of women as misogynist, or view criticism in general as an ad hominem form of “symbolic  violence“; or who view all legacy white heteronormative male created and dominated institutions as inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, and unjust; please just hit the delete button now. Be forewarned: this is not a “safe space”.

Before I begin, I’ll put my biased cards on the table.

I strongly opposed Gov. Murphy’s nomination of Laura Matos to the Pinelands Commission (she now serves as Chair). It is my opinion that she lacks substantive subject matter expertise or experience; that she is a highly partisan Trenton political operative beholden and loyal to Gov. Murphy; that she would elevate political loyalty above her duty to preserve the Pinelands; and that her appointment was based upon identity politics and “diversity” objectives that have zero science and public policy relevance to the Pinelands (e.g. as Gov. Murphy’s office explicitly stated publicly in defending the nominations: Matos and McCurry were selected to bring “diversity” to the Commission).

Here’s how Gov. Murphy’s press office justified and defended the Gov.’s nominations (source: Michael Zhadanovsky, Deputy Press Secretary:

After collaborative talks this afternoon with Pinelands advocates, we are moving forward with two nominees to the Pinelands Commission. The Governor is committed to diversifying the Commission and ensuring that its actions promote environmental justice and accountability to those most impacted by its decisions.

The later objections stem from my beliefs that government service is not an opportunity for crony appointments and symbolic political gestures, and that policy substance and qualifications take precedence over individual identity. There are plenty of well qualified and independent black, latino/a, and women who could serve on the Commission. Chris Hedges explains:

W.E.B. Du Bois argued that white society feared educated Blacks far more than they feared Black criminals.

“They can deal with crime by chain-gang and lynch law, or at least they think they can, but the South can conceive neither machinery nor place for the educated, self-reliant, self-assertive black man,” he wrote.

Those, like Du Bois, who was blacklisted and driven into exile, who pull the veil from our eyes are especially targeted by the state. Rosa Luxemberg. Eugene V. Debs. Malcolm X. Martin Luther King. Noam Chomsky. Ralph Nader. Cornel West. Julian Assange. Alice Walker. They speak a truth the powerful and the rich do not want heard. They, like Bynum, help us find our song.

I predicted Matos would be a loyal Murphy lackey and not a defender of the Pinelands.

I was not alone in those views.

The moderate outlet NJ Spotlight provided harsh coverage:

• Murphy wants new names with corporate ties for Pinelands Commission

A former Pinelands Commissioner wrote a critical Op-Ed:

• Op-Ed: Murphy appointees to Pinelands Commission tip balance toward development

And the Star Ledger editorial board excoriated the Gov.’s nominations as “a craven power play”, a “brazen” attempt to “gut the Commission during lame duck”, and a “scheme” that was similar to the “bullying” by Gov. Christie.

Now, to the merits – beginning with the photo above (and subsequent press release).

A man’s life, death, and legacy is a serious thing.

A ceremony dedicating public space to a man’s legacy is a solemn moment that must exude dignity and somber reflection.

The photo above does not attain those basic standards of decency.

The photo op, the smiles, and the blue jeans are totally inappropriate (that goes for Commissioner Avery too).

(“the queen effects the behavior of all the bees“)

Shortly after this photo was taken, Ms. Matos Chaired a meeting of the Pinelands Commission, at which the Commission passed a Resolution lauding Florio’s legacy.

This was the first Commission meeting I’ve viewed with Matos presiding as Chair. Sadly, my objections to her nomination have just been validated. Let me briefly explain how.

I was appalled by her numerous totally inappropriate outbursts of giggling. Watch the whole 2 plus hours and count them if you think I exaggerate.

In contrast with the photo and Ms. Matos’ repeated giggling, the Resolution the Commission adopted was excellent: it was substantive and dignified.

But worst of all, just moments after Matos and the Commission recognized Florio’s Pinelands legacy, they betrayed it by approving DEP’s massive fatally flawed 1,300 acre forest clearcut and 13 miles “firebreak” plan that would cut and remove 2.4 MILLION trees!

On top of all that, in an extremely revealing move, when Matos opened the public comment period after the Commission approved that forest massacre, she allowed less than 1 minute for people watching on line to call in. She then noted that there were no calls, quickly closed the comment period and rapidly moved on to other business.

But moments later, staff had to interrupt and advise Matos that there were 2 callers on the line, forcing her to awkwardly re-open the comment period. She got caught rushing the close of comment!

And then, again revealingly, after 2 Commissioners agreed with some of my public comments – including the deficiencies in the CMP regarding climate and forest management, the lack of Staff expertise, and the denial of the OPRA request and “secret” meeting with DEP – Matos defended the indefensible.

Like I said: she is an unqualified partisan political hack that is loyal to Gov. Murphy in spite of duties to preserve the Pinelands, and she has no clue about how her actions impact the marvelous Pinelands forests and ecosystems.

[Update 1: And for those who buy the diversity argument, what have Ms. Matos and Mr. McCurry done to implement diversity objectives?  Is there a “diversity” agenda in policy? Are there funded programs to bring poor black and hispanic kids from Camden, Trenton, and Atlantic City into the Pinelands to experience nature? Are there CMP amendments to consider social justice and environmental justice impacts? Require applicants to mitigate injustice? CMP amendment to mandate affordable and diverse housing? Is there a funded new center on Indigenous culture and history? Nope, none of that and none of it is even being discussed. Instead, all Matos and McCurry have done is serve as tokens for Gov. Murphy’s political interests, rubber stamped the Murphy DEP clearcut plan, and advanced the Gov.’s agenda and their own personal careers.  They serve power, not principle or Pinelands preservation. The clearcut forest is the same outcome, whether approved by a white man or Latina woman Chair. That’s the sham known as “Progressive Neoliberalism” (Google Professor Nancy Fraser’s work on that), which uses identity politics to mask a Neoliberal corporate economic and regulatory agenda.

[Update 2: 10/19/22 – For those who may think I am just denying racism, or may even be a racist:

It is very easy to establish racist intent and racist impact when DEP permits garbage incinerators, fossil power plants, regional sewage plants, junkyards (now Orwellian called “recycling centers”), chemical plants, and garbage transfer stations in poor black and brown cities like Newark, Camden, and Trenton.

Similarly – although Ta-Nehisi Coats is widely noted for this, he was not close to breaking the story about racist schemes to “red line” black communities in US cities – it is very easy to establish racist patterns of investment, development, and land use based on government policies.

And its similarly easy to document racism in FDR’s concessions to southern racist Dixiecrats in excluding black people from the benefits of the New Deal.

And it’s easy to see racism in NJ’s highly segregated school systems and wealthy white suburbs – which were created by white flight and huge federal highway and water and sewer infrastructure subsidies – along with legacies of exclusionary zoning and racial covenants and deed restrictions.

I’ve written about all these issues for many years.

But please, by all means, tell me what the racist motives and impacts are when the Pinelands Commission approves logging of forests, restricts the allocation of water, or protects rare and endangered species?

Please then tell me how “diversity” on the Pinelands Commission can redress and fix these alleged social and racial; injustices. Please. And be specific.

All we have now on the Pinelands Commission is diversity in serving the Gov.’s political agenda and selling out the Pinelands.

EJ and Social justice activists are being played, and they don’t even know it.

[End Note: for comparison, I don’t see any blue jeans in this photo and a lot more preparation went into the more well attended ceremony (and Candy was still alive!)