Once Again, Paulsboro NJ Plays The Sacrifice Zone

Still Fourth And Long In Paulsboro NJ

(Caption: June 10, 2023: Children play at Fort Billings Park in the shadow of the Paulsboro Refinery. Oil refineries would be given an extended grace period to transition to PFAS-free alternatives, under the terms of proposed legislation. (Source: NJ Spotlight)

Look at the photo above – would you want your children playing there?

That photo was randomly inserted (with no comment) in a NJ Spotlight story today about legislation that would phase out – with huge loopholes for the oil and chemical industries – toxic firefighting foam contaminated with “forever chemical” PFAS.

NJ Spotlight was so eager to write again about their favorite chemicals that they missed the toxic elephant in the playground.

Those children are being exposed to a witches brew of toxic chemicals and heavy metals emitted by the Paulsboro refinery, and DEP is doing very little about all that, see:

• Murphy DEP Fails To Consider Climate Or Public Health Risks Of Multiple Toxic Air Emissions From Paulsboro Refinery

The risks to their health posed by exposure to these chemicals far exceeds the risks from exposure to PFAS and “forever chemicals” in their drinking water.

The NJ Spotlight story – despite publishing this shocking photograph – completely ignored those risks. No mention of them at all!

This is typical of the blinkered coverage by not only NJ Spotlight, but the entire NJ media.

And it is no accident: their failure to even mention these risks lets powerful corporate polluters and their captured DEP regulators completely off the hook.

• A Shameful (And Continuing) Toxic Legacy: From Lodi And Paulsboro, NJ To Palestine, Ohio

Current DEP air quality standards and permit limits for major hazardous air polluters like refineries and chemical plants are far to lax and do not consider the cumulative impacts of multiple toxic chemicals, especially on children.

This would not happen in Princeton or Montclair.

But it happens in a working class community like Paulsboro, which I’ve described as a “Sacrifice Zone”, see:

• Sacrifice Zone: Fourth and Long for Paulsboro, NJ

But the lobbyists and lawyers at the NJ Chemistry Council, Petroleum Council, and Big Pharma – who emit millions of pounds of these toxic chemicals and poison communities across the State – have a stranglehold on media and their captured DEP scientists and regulators, so don’t expect to see any reporting about any of that jive.

DEP Funds And Hides Regulatory Failures Behind Rutgers’s Flood “Resiliency Primer”

Voluntary Local Approach Has Failed Miserably – Not One Stormwater Utility Created

Time For State Mandates & Development Impact Fees To Fund Mitigation

(Caption: In case its too small to read, the red arrow about points to the “500 Year Floodplain”)

Fairy Tale

• something resembling a fairy tale in being magical, idealized, or extremely happy.
• a fabricated story, especially one intended to deceive.

We’ve written many times over the years to criticize and explain the serious flaws in a suite of DEP planning and regulatory programs that exacerbate NJ’s severe flooding problems. Those flaws have been magnified by the climate change driven increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather.

Most recently, we focused on DEP’s highly touted flooding and stormwater rules, particularly their reliance on outdated rainfall, runoff and flooding data and statistics, especially DEP’s continued reliance on the obsolete 100 year statistical interval, see:

• Billions Of Dollars Spent On NJ Infrastructure “Resilience” Is Already Obsolete, As DEP Fails To Update Regulations To Reflect Climate Science

• Murphy DEP Flood Rules Are Full Of Holes

So we were not surprised by today’s NJ Spotlight story on flooding – which is another in reporter Jon Hurdle’s longtime misleading Fairy Tale efforts to find the positive local needle in the haystack of State government and DEP failures.

Specifically, Hurdle uses the release of a DEP funded Rutgers voluntary “Primer” for local governments to paint a favorable and highly misleading portrait of the status of NJ’s flood prevention programs. This kind of misleading and diversionary fairy tale media coverage is exactly why DEP funds these kinds of projects.

But right there in plain sight – NJ Spotlight printed a graphic – is the elephant in the room: that shows the 500 year flood (see above).

The Spotlight story also included this on point quote about the implications (i.e. failure) of reliance on inadequate engineering design standards (like the DEP 100 year statistic):

“They work to their design-engineering specifications. The problem is that storms are predicted to exceed those. You have this false sense of security, you have a sea wall, but it didn’t do anything for you during Sandy.

“Once you exceed those specs, you are going to flood.

But despite the graphic, and this quote, and the fact that NJ Spotlight has written many stories praising DEP’s flood and stormwater regulations, no mention was made of the fact that the DEP still relies on the obsolete 100 year storm (plus 25%) – “specs” which are exceeded by today’s storms, never mind the increasingly extreme climate change driven weather.

Compounding that misleading reporting (by omission), Hurdle also managed to find one town – Lambertville – that is considering (and not yet adopted) the failed stormwater utility model for finding stormwater management and flood mitigation.

Not one of NJ’s 566 Municipalities and 21 Counties have adopted the stormwater utility model created in enabling legislation several years ago. But Hurdle found the single needle in that haystack of failure.

I wrote him the following notes on DEP regulatory flaws and funding, with copies to legislators, DEP, and environmental groups:

Jon – your story today has a good quote about engineering design standards being exceeded and the graphic shows the 500 year flood, so why no mention of the fact that DEP’s recently adopted flood (and stormwater) regulations that have gotten so much (misleading) praise are based on the 100 year flood and are clearly obsolete and under-designed?

NJ municipalities’ Master Plans, zoning, and stormwater management requirements are all based on the seriously flawed DEP regulations, not this voluntary Rutgers technical guidance.

I’ve been trying to warn the public and policymakers about these flaws for many years and instead of highlighting them, your story obfuscated these risks and regulatory flaws.

On the funding issue, why not do a story on the use of off-site impact fees on existing and new development to provide funding for flood mitigation?

This development and the impervious surfaces create the runoff that causes the flooding.

The so called “rain tax” legislation is a total failure, because it was enabling and not mandatory and no one has adopted it.

Towns were given a chance to voluntarily do the right thing and failed to do so, so now its time for the State to step up with mandates.

DEP could also do a lot more on the regulatory side with stricter standards for wetlands, stream buffers, stormwater management, CAFRA, flood hazard and forestry regulations.

Bill Wolfe

Renewable Energy Will Not Replace Fossil Fueled Power Under The Murphy Energy Master Plan

Here is the egregiously false and misleading headline of NJ Spotlight’s story today on the collapse of the so called “clean energy” bill (emphasis mine):

Clean electricity bill put on hold — at least until next year

TOM JOHNSON, ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT WRITER | DECEMBER 19, 2023 | ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

Legislation that would speed clean energy and shut down fossil fuels pulled from committee by sponsor, ‘not ready for prime time’

At  a time when climate activists are demanding a real “shut down of fossil fuels” and the COP 28 just failed to reach consensus on a “phase out of fossil fuels”, it is simply unforgivable journalistic malpractice for NJ Spotlight to make that false claim in a headline.

There is a huge difference between legislation that would require that retail sales of electricity be from renewable energy versus legislation that would shut down in-state fossil fuel energy production.

I’ve written about that difference several times, because there is a huge misunderstanding and false assumption that the development of renewable energy capacity will displace or replace fossil fuels on a one to one basis. That is just wrong. And climate activists and media are actively promoting this falsehood or allowing this misunderstanding to proliferate uncorrected.

First of all, existing fossil power plants in NJ produce power for the regional PJM electric grid. Nothing in the pending “clean energy” bill would stop them from continuing doing so. Nothing in the bill would stop the existing plants from expanding and nothing would stop even new fossil power plants being build to export power on the regional PJM grid. This goes for power generated by garbage incinerators and so called fossil fueled “co-generation” or multiple forms of fossil energy production that is not converted to electricity that is sold to the grid.

In addition to no legislative or regulatory limits on fossil fueled power plants, market and economic incentives virtually guarantee that those plants will continue to operate and emit greenhouse gases. For example, the NJ BPU’s Energy Master Plan projects a more than doubling of demand for electric power as a result of electrification of transportation and buildings. Regional PJM demands will grow as well, creating huge demand growth and markets for power exports.

The projected expansion of renewable power will serve this growth in demand. It will not displace fossil power.

Further, under the Murphy Energy Master Plan, the engineering design of the renewable energy system (wind production and large scale solar) and electric grid call for continued reliance on fossil fueled gas fired power plants for “reliability” and peak demand.

Here is the Statement from the bill, S2978  – note that the bill itself says nothing about “shutting down fossil fuels”:

The bill would also extend the Class I RPS to require that, beginning in 2045, 100 percent of the energy sold at retail in the State be from Class I renewable energy sources.

So, I fired off this note to NJ Spotlight to demand that they correct their major error.

Dear NJ Spotlight – the headline for today’s Tom Johnson story includes this claim (which is NOT made in the text):

“and shut down fossil fuels”

That claim is factually false. Even the bill’s statement does not make that claim (see:

https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/S3000/2978_I1.PDF.

The bill would NOT “shut down fossil fuels”.

Please correct your error immediately – especially as many people only read the headline and will get a completely false understanding.

Bill Wolfe

An Open Letter

Today, the Senate Environment Committee will meet in what is probably the last episode in the lame duck session.

Chairman Smith just abandoned his so called “clean energy” bill.

Climate activists are clueless and will hold some kind of event in Trenton – they scrambled to change it from a rally in support of the bill (celebrating a “huge win”) to a lobby day. So it goes.

The NJ media won’t ask Chairman Smith why he killed his own bill and the climate activists, who have egg all over their faces won’t  admit a huge defeat (even though the bill was seriously flawed).

NJ based climate scientists are hiding under their desks and self censor.

DEP leaders and scientists are well paid cowards or corrupt political hacks.

The COP 28 just ended in failure.

So, today, we bring you a dose of scientific reality:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, Ken Dolsky <kdolsky@optonline.net>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “tom@njconservation.org” <tom@njconservation.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, “dpringle1988@gmail.com” <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, “agoldsmith@cleanwater.org” <agoldsmith@cleanwater.org>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, Matthew Smith <msmith@fwwatch.org>, MJ King <trhugger@yahoo.com>, Mark Lohbauer <mlohbauer@jgscgroup.com>, Margo Pellegrino <outriggerone@me.com>, “kaplan@envsci.rutgers.edu” <kaplan@envsci.rutgers.edu>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>, “Tittel, Jeff” <jeff.tittel@verizon.net>, Maya K van Rossum <maya@forthegenerations.org>, “tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org” <tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>, Silvia Solaun <ssolaun@gmail.com>, “Shanley, Georgina” <shanleyg2001@yahoo.com>, SUSAN RUSSELL <selizabethrussell@verizon.net>, “FENICHEL, Steven” <stevenfenichel@yahoo.com>, “sitka@comcast.net” <sitka@comcast.net>

Date: 12/17/2023 7:54 PM EST

Subject: Bad science and good intentions prevent effective climate action

Dear Chairman Smith and Commissioner LaTourette:

After reading the below scientific paper, I felt compelled to distribute it widely to NJ policymakers.

We are now bearing the fruit of President Obama’s Paris COP sellout, which gave us the voluntary framework of individual national commitments untethered to any climate science or enforceable linkage to the 1.5 degree goal.

“The Paris Agreement is built entirely around voluntary country pledges—as different as the countries they are coming from—which are still far from adding up to achieving the objectives the agreement defines. In its basic architecture, the Paris Agreement is a complete victory for the United States which has obstructed effective climate action for more than two decades but now claims leadership credentials for its role in getting all countries to sign off on this global accord.” (Source)

That compromised trajectory brings us to today’s impunity, where the COP was held in an oil producing country, led by an oil industry CEO, stacked with hundreds of oil industry lobbyists, and which failed to reach consensus on the need to phase out fossil fuels (which would be purely a rhetorical exercise and aspirational goal anyway, as there are no binding requirements and no enforcement mechanisms, thanks to Obama).

So, with that context in mind, please read this devastating paper (abstract below):

Bad science and good intentions prevent effective climate action

https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6244/

Abstract

Although the 2015 Paris Agreement climate targets seem certain to be missed, only a few experts are questioning the adequacy of the current approach to limiting climate change and suggesting that additional approaches are needed to avoid unacceptable catastrophes. This article posits that selective science communication and unrealistically optimistic assumptions are obscuring the reality that greenhouse gas emissions reduction and carbon dioxide removal will not curtail climate change in the 21st Century. It also explains how overly pessimistic and speculative criticisms are behind opposition to considering potential climate cooling interventions as a complementary approach for mitigating dangerous warming.

There is little evidence supporting assertions that: current greenhouse gas emissions reduction and removal methods can and will be ramped up in time to prevent dangerous climate change; overshoot of Paris Agreement targets will be temporary; net zero emissions will produce a safe, stable climate; the impacts of overshoot can be managed and reversed; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models and assessments capture the full scope of prospective disastrous impacts; and the risks of climate interventions are greater than the risks of inaction.

These largely unsupported presumptions distort risk assessments and discount the urgent need to develop a viable mitigation strategy. Due to political pressures, many critical scientific concerns are ignored or preemptively dismissed in international negotiations. As a result, the present and growing crisis and the level of effort and time that will be required to control and rebalance the climate are severely underestimated.

In conclusion, the paper outlines the key elements of a realistic policy approach that would augment current efforts to constrain dangerous warming by supplementing current mitigation approaches with climate cooling interventions.“

Please proceed in light of this science. However, I do not endorse the paper’s findings and recommendations concerning climate cooling (geo-engineering) interventions.

Bill Wolfe

Senate Democrats Throw In The Towel On Codifying Gov. Murphy’s Energy Goals

A Late Friday Afternoon Massacre For Clean Energy

The original two rounds of email Agenda Notices from the Senate Environment Committee stated that the controversial and highly touted S2978 – the so called “100% clean energy bill” – was scheduled for hearing at the Monday December 18, 2023 Environment Committee meeting.

I just received the third e-mail revising that agenda – the revision deleted S2978 from the Agenda.

I previously wrote to criticize that bill as deeply flawed substantively and an abuse of process to move through a lame duck session, see:

• NJ “Clean Energy” Debate Rife With Errors And Misconceptions

• NJ Legislature Considering Another Misleading Climate Bill That Sets Aspirational Goals

When the bill was posted for consideration on 12/18, the Committee Agenda Notice stated that there would be no public testimony, given the prior extensive testimony. I wrote Chairman Smith to object:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “senscutari@njleg.org” <senscutari@njleg.org>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, “kduhon@njleg.org” <kduhon@njleg.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, “dpringle1988@gmail.com” <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “Tittel, Jeff” <jeff.tittel@verizon.net>, “david@njglobe.com” <david@njglobe.com>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>

Date: 12/12/2023 7:07 PM EST

Subject: S2978 – 12/18/23 Senate hearing

Chairman Smith – I’d like to go on record to object strongly to the process for consideration of the bill S2978 during the December 18, 2023 Senate Environment Committee hearing (during a lame duck session).

According to the public notice for that hearing: (emphasis mine)

“Please note that public testimony regarding S2978 was previously taken at the November 20, 2023 meeting of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee, and no additional testimony will be taken regarding S2978 at the meeting.”

It is my understanding that prior testimony involved a Senate Committee Substitute (S2978 SCS), not the original version of S2978 – so the notice is misleading.

The bill posted for the 12/18/23 hearing is the original introduced version of S2978, not the SCS that was the subject of the prior hearing.

Therefore, despite the many confidential negotiations on the introduced version that led to the SCS, it is impossible for the public to know what legislation is under consideration.

You obviously are aware that ramming critically important and controversial legislation through a lame duck session undermines the public’s trust in the legislature.

To compound that problem by banning public comment on an unknown version of the bill – regardless of the merits and extensive prior testimony – is totally unacceptable.

I urge you to reconsider this approach.

Bill Wolfe

More recently, I wrote to criticize a NJ Spotlight Op-Ed supporting the bill by Sierra Club and NJCF:

——— Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <t>

To: Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, tom@njconservation.org, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov, Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov, ferencem@njspotlightnews.org, jonhurdle@gmail.com, asmScharfenberger@njleg.org

Date: 12/14/2023 8:00 AM EST

Subject: EO 315 – today’s Op-Ed

Anjuli – In today’s NJ Spotlight Op-Ed, you made this (false) claim: (emphasis mine):

“The goal of reaching 100% clean electricity by 2035 became state policy last March, when Gov. Phil Murphy signed Executive Order 315. This bill established the goal of 100% clean energy in law, and for the first time, required that the vast majority of clean resources should be located in New Jersey.”

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/12/op-ed-nj-should-lead-speedy-energy-transition/

EO 315 is not a “bill” and it established no “law”.

https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-315.pdf

Executive Orders do not carry the force and effect of law, establish no substantive regulatory requirements that must be met, and are not enforceable. As a former DEP professional, surely you must know this. So I must assume your false claim was intentional, or a lie.

That false claim must be corrected immediately (copy to NJ Spotlight).

Rhetorically, you also managed to essentially dismiss “traditional” Clean Air Act regulated air pollutants, like mercury, lead, fine particulates, and hazardous air pollutants to “co-pollutants”. That is not a lie, but it misleads the public and lets polluters and DEP off the hook by downplaying traditional air pollution permit and regulatory issues and the public health impacts and risks these pollutants cause and contribute to. It also undermines public participation in DEP air permitting.

Do better.

Bill Wolfe

It is unclear why Smith abandoned the effort – and I certainly can’t claim credit for it – but given the substantive policy flaws and the abuse of the lame duck session, it was the right thing to do.

But it is another serious political setback of Gov. Murphy’s so called climate leadership.