Beyond Gaslighting And Tokenism: NJ Conservation Foundation Flat Out Lying About DEP Urban Tree Grants
Murphy DEP Rebranded And Took Credit For A 15 Year Old Climate Law
NJ Conservation Foundation Now Lying To Obscure That Fact
Planting 1,000 Trees Is Tokenism And Manipulation, Not Transformational Change
Human Health Impacts
Rising temperatures will increase heat stress, especially for vulnerable urban populations, such as the elderly and urban poor. Climate models predict an increase in the number of days per year with temperatures above 90oF in the New York City metro area, with a potentially significant impact on human health due to heat stress… By the 2020s, climate change could result in an increase in summer heat-related mortality of 55% and a more than doubling in related mortality by the 2050s. ~~~ (NJ DEP, 2004)
NJ Spotlight today published a piece by their WHYY affiliate about the Murphy DEP’s so called “Natural Climate Solutions” carbon sequestration program:
The WHYY story is spun to emphasize the environmental justice and traditional urban forestry issues like canopy cover, while completely ignoring the “urban heat island” public health effects, including huge increases in heat related mortality and downplaying the carbon sequestration issues.
But the story goes beyond gaslighting and spin and engages is straight up falsehoods and lies.
Lies are used to obscure the truth. If environmental justice activists and urban communities understood these truths, they would make real demands for real change, not accept token gestures.
There is a reason that NJCF is lying and its to cover up and obscure the facts and criticisms I’ve made.
Here is the telling lie:
According to DEP’s own press release, the tree planting program is funded by the sale of RGGI carbon allowances:
Projects announced today are funded through New Jersey’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multi-state, market-based program that establishes a regional cap on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants.
But WHYY reported – obviously based on NJCF input – that the program is funded not by RGGI, but by license plate sales and a NJ Forest Service program:
The money is provided by the Natural Climate Solutions grant program funded by “Treasure Our Trees” license plate sales and New Jersey Forest Service No Net Loss Compensatory Reforestation Program.
That factually false spin is no accident. It is designed to obscure important issues, like these:
1. I’ve written to explain how the DEP rebranded a 15 year old climate law that created the funding for the carbon sequestration program.
DEP merely repackaged and rebranded a carbon sequestration program created way back in 2007, under the Global Warming Solutions Fund Act, see P.L 2007, c.340:
“(4) Ten percent shall be allocated to the department to support programs that enhance the stewardship and restoration of the State’s forests and tidal marshes that provide important opportunities to sequester or reduce greenhouse gases.”
This rebranding is part of a larger cynical Murphy DEP gaslighting project to use environmental groups to provide green cover and create the false impression that they are policy innovators and leading on climate and environmental justice issues.
2. I exposed the fact that DEP knew 18 years ago that urban heat island effects would dramatically increase mortality (death) of urban poor and elderly people.
I wrote about that DEP failure a decade ago:
People living in urban areas, especially children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to rising heat
Despite this knowledge, I explained how DEP has failed to use existing regulatory authority to require “mitigation” of climate impacts in DEP permit programs, including urban reforestation and air pollution control (ozone SIP).
3. I noted that the RGGI carbon allowance price is a paltry $13 per ton of carbon emissions, while the DEP grant program is paying over $700 per ton to sequester that carbon in trees and urged that polluters be required to pay far more for RGGI carbon pollution allowances.
As I noted last week on the GHG emission “metrics” of this DEP’s patronage program parading as a “natural” carbon sequestration program:
DEP claims that the grants will sequester “32,710 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) by 2050.” (that’s about $733 per ton sequestered while the RGGI carbon price is about $13 per ton emitted. That’s a valid point, because the source of funds for today’s DEP grants are proceeds from the sale of RGGI allowances. It would be far more cost effective and equitable to simply ratchet down on the RGGI cap to make polluters pay, or to impose regulatory mandates on carbon emissions, or to invest in energy conservation in low income homes or simply stop logging NJ forests.)
4. I’ve noted that DEP’s Forest Action Plan actually promotes logging in direct contradiction of climate carbon sequestration goals and that the DEP’s existing urban forestry program is totally ineffective in responding to the urban heat island effect. To begin to address the flaws, I’ve recommended a million tree urban forestry program.
In a 2014 followup, I urged that legislation be amended to begin to address the problem:
2. Recognize urban “heat island” and related energy, clean air, public health, environmental justice, and aesthetic benefits of an urban forestry program
The basis for these recommendations is provided here:
3. Establish an urban forestry program and set a time bounded numerical planting goal – 1 million trees in NJ’s cities.
Urban forestry is justified not only by science and public health, but by environmental justice, redevelopment, and aesthetic concerns.
Those recommendations were ignored.
5. I’ve noted that if DEP were serious, they would be doing far more in using existing regulatory authority to address climate and environmental justice issues.
By lying about the source of funding for the program and not mentioning RGGI, all the facts and criticisms above are obscured. Polluters are not threatened by increases in RGGI allowance prices or by new DEP regulatory mitigation requirements.
DEP bureaucrats dodge any accountability for their historic failures. Real reforms are derailed.
By lying that the source of funding is the license plate and no net loss program, DEP and NJCF creates the false impression that those programs are effective. DEP bureaucrats gaslight the public about their lame performance and dodge accountability and pressure to reform.
By lying about the source of funding, NJCF gaslights and repeats the Murphy DEP propaganda. That’s why Murphy DEP funds these organizations, like NJCF, to manipulate and gaslight the public and reinforce the false perception that DEP is leading and aggressive on climate and environmental justice issues, when exactly the opposite is true.
See how all that works?
[End Note: New study just published in The Lancet in European cities confirms DEP’s 2004 increased heat stress related mortality findings – note that the study also evaluated the benefits of increasing canopy cover to 30%. Trenton canopy cover is just 7% and 1,000 small young trees will not significantly increase that and won’t come close to 30%:
Findings
The population-weighted mean city temperature increase due to UHI effects was 1·5°C (SD 0·5; range 0·5–3·0). Overall, 6700 (95% CI 5254–8162) premature deaths could be attributable to the effects of UHIs (corresponding to around 4·33% [95% CI 3·37–5·28] of all summer deaths). We estimated that increasing tree coverage to 30% would cool cities by a mean of 0·4°C (SD 0·2; range 0·0–1·3). We also estimated that 2644 (95% CI 2444–2824) premature deaths could be prevented by increasing city tree coverage to 30%, corresponding to 1·84% (1·69–1·97) of all summer deaths.