As reported in the Star-Ledger on Friday Governor Christie vetoed a bill S2946 that would have required New Jersey to stay in a regional program (RGGI) intended to curb greenhouse gases - a program Christie plans to leave by the end of the year.
Nonetheless, in announcing the veto he also said "climate change is real." He added, "Human activity plays a role in these changes," and climate change is "impacting our state."
VOTE TALLY UPDATE 4:36pm:Senator Weinberg's bill is passed 26-13 to restore state funding. Just before the vote, she remarked on the fact that almost every woman spoke in favor of it, "and some good men", and that perhaps these women "know something".
UPDATE: Listen LIVE to discussion about the bill to restore state funding to women's health care - sorry, the feed is not embeddable.
UPDATE2: Doherty, speaking from the Senate floor, just apologized to Sen. Weinberg for accusing her of lying. Says he was "exuberant" at the Right to Life rally and should have said Weinberg was "misleading". I'm not hearing an apology for "Nazi" and "apartheid".
Here is part of what Senator Michael Doherty said today, speaking at a Right to Life rally on the State House steps:
Nobody has any problem trying to have no affiliation with nefarious organizations such as the Nazis or apartheid regimes," said Doherty. "But somehow, we're asked to use our tax dollars to support these type of organizations.
I'd like to say the LD-23 senator has gone 'round the bend. But, horrifying as this is, this is consistent with Doherty's level. This is a guy who fears that kids on school trips to the state house might be freaked out by trans people in the washroom, and who - like Christie - denies global climate change.
Doherty also used today's occasion to pile on (again, like Christie) Loretta Weinberg, accusing Weinberg of lying about access to critical health services if $7.45M state funding for women's health services/family planning is not restored to the NJ budget.
Both Christie and Doherty have been saying women can be steered to hospital ERs and to FQHC's, Federally Qualified Health Centers. But hospital ERs are simply not set up for non-emergent cases clogging their waiting rooms. And 2 weeks ago, Katherine Grant-Davis, president & CEO of NJ Primary Care Association - they represent the FQHCs - said they couldn't keep up with the 124% increase in patient load that they've already had since 2002, and Christie's cuts are already adding to the burden.
The New Jersey Senate votes today on a bill to restore that $7.45M state funding back into New Jersey's budget. Like Star-Ledger said, in an editorial posting today, strongly backing the fight to restore that state funding, Weinberg has the facts on her side. But I suppose that doesn't matter as much to Doherty, who only has to appeal to the right-wing and Christian money that fuels his political engines up in the sticks of Warren and Hunterdon counties.
Last month, Gov. Christie said he thought "more science" was needed to convince him personally that the global warming effect is human-caused. Ignoring, or not being conscious of, real science in favor of 'science' directed by those who stand to gain maintaining the status quo, is a common refrain from the right. We've heard it before in NJ. Rush Holt, physicist and congressman, made an effort to address the Governor's concerns here at Blue Jersey.
Now there's another effort to offer some free tutoring on climate change to our Governor, hosted by a coalition of seven NJ environmental groups. Christie has been invited to attend, but you can go, too. It's open to the public. Given the Gov's busy schedule, the location couldn't be more convenient; it doesn't even require a commute (no fossil fuels burned). It's at the State House Annex. He's also been offered a private briefing at his scheduling convenience by the scientists involved.
Available to the Governor, and speaking at the State House program are Dena Mottola Jaborska (ED, Environment NJ and three well-known experts from Rutgers; Prof. Alan Robock (Dept. of Environmental Sciences) Prof. Paul Falkowski (Institute of Marine Sciences) and Dr. Jim Miller (Dept. of Coastal Sciences). The scientists will present a clear picture of the problem and discuss how climate change will impact NJ in the coming decades. I hope the Governor goes. We can't get ahead using the tremendous opportunity green technology & innovation and energy savings present if the guy at the top doesn't get it.
Climate Change Science Panel Today: 12 pm
State House Annex, Committee Room 1 on 1st Floor Open to the Public
Panel Sponsored By: Environment New Jersey, NJ Sierra Club, NJ Conservation Foundation, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Highlands Coalition, NJ Environmental Lobby, ANJEC and Audubon Society.
Gov. Chris Christie says he's skeptical that global warming is caused by humans. Rush Holt, physicist and congressman, has a few words to say about that. - promoted by Rosi
This year, Republican candidates up and down the ballot questioned the science of climate change and opposed any policies to address it. This widespread platform was summed up well by the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in West Virginia who spoke about the "myth of global warming and the other myth that man is causing global warming."
Doubting or even denying the scientific consensus about climate change evidently now is a "must-do" for all ambitious Republicans, right up there with such Far Right orthodoxies as There's Never a Bad Time to Cut Taxes for the Wealthy (or pay for those tax cuts), Keep Your Socialist Government Hands Off Medicare, and Drill, Baby, Drill.
I was disappointed to see Governor Christie join the growing list of prominent Republicans giving voice to skepticism about climate change and its causes. As quoted by the Associated Press, the Governor told a town hall audience that he believes "more science" is needed to convince him. He added that he's not a scientist and doesn't know what's true on the issue - only that nothing has been proven.
If the Governor doesn't know much about the subject, maybe he shouldn't talk about it. The reason science is regarded as reliable is because it's not subject to the political winds. We should look to evidence, not ideology.
In this instance, the overwhelming consensus of science in the world - including 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences - is that climate change is real and that human activities are contributing to it. According to NASA data released last month so far 2010 has been the hottest year on record so far.
We need "more science" to convince us that climate change is real as much as we need more science to convince us of the realities in Newton's Theory of Gravitation, or Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Instead of trying to tear apart the science and engage in a false debate largely driven by corporate interests, we should be discussing how we can address the reality of climate change.
Collapse of Cap & Trade Is A Good Thing - But for All The Wrong Reasons
Global warming crisis needs Urgency, Movement Politics & Civil Disobedience
Ironically, the death of the cap and trade global warming bill is a good thing, but for all the wrong reasons.
Perhaps the utter capitulation to corporate interests by both political parties will finally convince mainstream environmental groups to abandon both a failed insider political strategy and bad policy.
Politically, the Republican Party is hopelessly under control of the right wing global warming deniers - there can be no hope of courting their support.
But don't blame just the Republicans.
That so called big green liberal John Kerry and the corporate Democrats are equally to blame. Three weeks ago, Kerry spinelessly signaled defeat: "We believe we have compromised significantly," Kerry declared, "and we're prepared to compromise further." (Kerry was following in the footsteps of a humiliating lack of leadership by Obama at Copenhagen). (read another killer by Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone)
So, politically, there's no where to go - the Beltway enviro's are all dressed up, with no one to lobby!
Worse, as a matter of policy, cap and trade is a terrible idea and suffers "multiple unfixable flaws" (see: EPA EMPLOYEES BLOW THE WHISTLE ON FLAWED CLIMATE BILLS - Agency Specialists Say Greenhouse Gas Offsets Unenforceable and Demand Probe.
A little history is instructive.
As is usual, for good or bad, in environmental policy, NJ was there first.
During the Whitman Administration, NJ was one of the first states to adopt the so called "Open Market Emissions Trading" (OMET) model: NEW POLLUTION TRADING FOR FOUR STATES GUTS CLEAN AIR ACT - Whitman Trading Plans Emerge as First EPA Policies
Before the corporatization of the environmental movement, it used to be understood by environmental advocates that market trading schemes are a sham. Recall this 2001 Trenton press conference (I was there as NJ Sierra Club Policy Director).
EMISSIONS TRADING PROGRAM CRITICIZED AS BOON TO POLLUTERS
By ALEX NUSSBAUM, Staff Writer
Date: 02-15-2001, Thursday
The state's industries may be taking advantage of a law that allows them to buy or sell the right to pollute, environmentalists said Wednesday.
The five-year-old system that allows companies to trade air pollution credits has loopholes that make it impossible to tell if factories or power plants are really reducing emissions, critics said at a Trenton news conference.
Due to these fatal flaws, the OMET program was repealed . The termination of the program was announced in 2002, and made formal on February 25, 2004 by DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell. [full disclosure, I worked for Campbell at the time]. (see: NEW JERSEY REJECTS EPA PLAN FOR TRADING POLLUTION CREDITS - Rebuked EPA Weighs Enforcement Against Companies Using Credits
But since then, market trading schemes have been embraced by the national beltway lobby driven environmental groups.
No politics, no policy.
Chris Hedges, in a horrifically painful but necessary piece of truth-telling "Calling All Future-eaters" lays out what it will take politically:
As climate change advances, we will face a choice between obeying the rules put in place by corporations or rebellion. Those who work human beings to death in overcrowded factories in China and turn the Gulf of Mexico into a dead zone are the enemy. They serve systems of death. They cannot be reformed or trusted.
The climate crisis is a political crisis. We will either defy the corporate elite, which will mean civil disobedience, a rejection of traditional politics for a new radicalism and the systematic breaking of laws, or see ourselves consumed. Time is not on our side. The longer we wait, the more assured our destruction becomes. The future, if we remain passive, will be wrested from us by events. Our moral obligation is not to structures of power, but life.
With global warming impacts increasingly obvious to not only the scientist/modeler, but the man in the street, and nowhere to go politically, will the environmental groups go back to movement politics?
We don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows, right?
As if we needed any more evidence demonstrating that anthropogenic climate change is real, that it is occurring right now, and that it poses a major threat to the planet's environment, we now have it -- in spades. Let's begin with the assessment by a Penn State University investigation, which completely exonerated climate scientist Michael Mann from any wrongdoing in the ridiculous, trumped-up, never-any-truth-to-it, pseudo-"scandal" known as "climate-gate." In reaction to this report, former House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) -- full disclosure, Boehlert's on the NRDC Action Fund board -- issued a statement which read:
This exoneration should close the book on the absurd episode in which climate scientists were unjustly attacked when in fact they have been providing a great public service. The attacks on scientists were a manufactured distraction, and today's report is a welcome return to common sense. While scientists can now focus on their work, policy makers need to address the very real problem of climate change.
Well said, Congressman, and keep up the great work, Professor Mann!
"no errors that would undermine the main conclusions in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on possible future regional impacts of climate change"
"the summary conclusions are considered well founded, none have been found to contain any significant errors"
"ample observational evidence of regional climate change impacts, which have been projected to pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, under increasing temperatures"
In fairness, the Dutch report leveled several criticisms of the IPCC report: 1) even the few, minor errors shouldn't have been allowed to slip by; 2) the report's summary statement should have been written to provide a higher amount of transparency regarding its sources and methods; and 3) the report tended to focus solely on the adverse consequences of climate change, not on potentially positive impacts. These are non-trivial issues that need to be addressed. Having said that, as Joe Romm points out, "the overwhelming majority of research since the IPCC has found that the IPCC has consistently underestimated many key current and future impacts, particularly sea level rise (and carbon-cycle feedbacks)."
In the end, the bottom line from these reports is clear: the science behind human-induced climate change has emerged from this entire, ridiculous, episode overwhelmingly intact -- if not strengthened. The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it?
Christie Administration choosing to Die - eliminates DEP's Office of Climate Change
The Unversity of New Hamphsire (UNH) just issued an important and amazingly timely Report: "Trends in Extreme Precipitation Events for the Northeastern United States 1948-2007." (h/t to "Enviroguy" Todd Bates' blog, Asbury Park Press). The UNH Report was covered in a national AP story in today's Bergen Record: "Study: Northeast seeing more, fiercer rainstorms
BOSTON - The Northeast is seeing more frequent "extreme precipitation events" in line with global warming predictions, a study shows, including storms like the recent fierce rains whose floodwaters swallowed neighborhoods and businesses across New England..
The study's results are consistent with what could be expected in a world warmed by greenhouse gases, said UNH associate professor Cameron Wake. He acknowledged it would take more sophisticated studies to cement a warming link, though.
"I can't point to these recent storms and say, that is global warming," he said.
What is more certain, researchers said, is the potential economic impact should the 60-year trend continue and require billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to things in the region including roads, bridges, sewers and culverts.
Todd's blog post and the Bergen Record fail to localize the UNH Report and apply its findings to NJ's recent severe coastal storm damage and flooding.
So, let me take a very brief shot here - and by doing so, perhaps challenge NJ's media and policy makers to engage a more thorough analysis and response. But first, the press just needs to ask simple questions:
Why is no one analyzing the same rainfall and flooding data and correlating it with land use changes here in NJ?
Why is the relationship between global warming and increased storm frequency/intensity/pattern rarely if ever made by the same tired meteorologists quoted in the news stories?
The UNH Report makes two very obvious and fundamental findings we have been repeating for many years (e.g. see this and this and this). We have the same phenomena right here in NJ. Yet, both UNH findings are ignored completely in NJ's media coverage of flooding and global warming issues, as well as in NJ's policy and regulatory responses:
1) global warming is causing increasingly severe and frequent storm events, which are directly related to increased precipitation and flooding events:
Flooding events are relatively rare but naturally occurring in the Northeastern United States. For example, New Hampshire has averaged about one major, destructive flood per decade since the early 20th century. A major concern is that New Hampshire has recently experienced three major flooding events that followed three major extreme precipitation events (October, 2005, May, 2006, and April, 2007)2 (Table 1). As this report goes to press, major, but as yet unquantified, multiple flooding events are taking place here in March, 2010.
Decision makers currently use outdated flood-risk information and floodplain maps, based on historic rainfall and peak-discharge data that do not represent recent historical or current rainfall patterns.3 To facilitate effective planning, decision makers also require information on the future implications of changing land use and climate at a local scale, where climate change impacts are felt and understood most clearly.4 This study aims to provide a quantitative understanding of the current trends in extreme precipitation for the Northeast so that resource managers, municipal, county, state, and federal representatives, and other stakeholders have a baseline of information from which to prepare for and adapt to future climate change. Figure 1. Photographs of flooding following recent extreme precipitation events in the Northeastern, U.S..
2) land use changes - i.e. development - are making the problem far worse
The growth in flood damage is partially due to an increase in impermeable surfaces in our watersheds, combined with more building in flood-prone areas. New England has experienced considerable development in many of its watersheds, with the consequent increase in impermeable surfaces such as asphalt resulting in more rapid runoff. Flooding is therefore more predominate, even with the same amount of rainfall.
The NJ Department of Environmental Protection is well aware of these serious issues and has been issuing warnings for years. For example, here are NJDEP's Coastal Assessment and Strategy Report findings:
"While the precise rate of sea level rise is uncertain, current models indicate that global warming will cause the rate to increase. Recent projections forecast that relative sea level rise at the New Jersey coast will be between 0.31 m and 1.10 m by 2100. The approximate central value of this range, 0.71 m is more than twice the rise that occurred during the last century. This increase would result in the threat of more sustained extreme storm surges, increased coastal erosion, escalating inundation of coastal wetlands and saline intrusion.
Many parts of New Jersey's densely populated coastal area are highly susceptible to the effects of the following coastal hazards: flooding, storm surge, episodic erosion, chronic erosion, sea level rise, and extra-tropical storms. Reconstruction of residential development and the conversion of single family dwellings into multi-unit dwellings continues in hazardous areas... the value of property at risk is increasing significantly. With anticipated accelerating sea level rise and increasing storm frequency and intensity, vulnerability to the risks of coastal hazards will not abate; it will only become more costly.
...in certain instances, structural engineering solutions will not be practical or economically feasible. In these cases future public and private development and redevelopment must be directed away from the hazardous areas. While some derogatorily refer to this option as "retreat," from the perspective of sound planning based on the best available science, the concept actually involves "strategic adjustment." Prudent planning requires that we expand upon the existing studies of the societal, economic, and environmental costs of possible mitigative actions while the greatest number of alternatives exist.
These findings led DEP to hold a September 25, 2006 Insurance industry seminar (see this), at a time that the insurance industry was threatening to walk away from the NJ shore due to huge multi-billion loss risks:
TRENTON- As Corzine Administration officials met quietly behind closed doors with insurance and finance industry leaders to discuss a statewide insurance fund to finance catastrophic shore storm risks, environmentalists called on the Governor to incorporate much needed coastal development and global warming policy reforms in any industry bailout package.
Numerous scientific studies and NJDEP Reports show that the over-developed NJ shore is increasingly vulnerable to hurricane and storm related wind, storm surge, and flooding damage. Those risks are magnified by the effects of global warming induced sea level rise. NJ already is among the worst states in the nation for payouts on repeat claims under the federal flood insurance program. While risks are great and growing, DEP's own studies show that public awareness is low, and local and state disaster planning and emergency response capabilities are woefully inadequate.
Despite these significant risks, continued over-development, particularly in known high hazard areas along the shore, puts more people and property in harms way, greatly increasing not only risks to life and property. The probability is increasing for a catastrophic coastal storm event that would cause huge economic dislocation.
The multi-billion dollar scope of the problem and potential insurance liability has led insurance industry leaders to withdrawn from insurance markets in the tri-state region, and to seek a public bailout of insured liability.
In response to this industry concern, Corzine Administration officials in the Departments of Insurance and Environmental Protection have been meeting to negotiate a policy initiative. There is rumored to be a meeting with industry leaders today.
Coastal risks were a significant justification for NJ's Global Warming Response Act. Adaptation strategy recommendations are found in Chapter 4 of DEP's December 24, 2009 Global Warming Response Act Recommendations Report. DEP calls for the development of a comprehensive adaptation plan:
Despite our best efforts to mitigate climate change in New Jersey, the State must develop a comprehensive plan to adapt to current and future changes in climate. CO2 and other GHGs are known to remain in the atmosphere for decades, and even up to centuries, from the time they are emitted into the atmosphere.99 Even if all emissions were stopped immediately, there would be a lag between mitigation of emissions and cessation of warming. Thus, New Jersey is expected to face many public health, ecological and economic impacts with specific consequences noted by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment.
Predictions are that in coming years, sustained higher temperatures during the summer months will make our citizens especially vulnerable to heat-related illness. Warmer temperatures and increases in short-term droughts are expected to have impacts on agriculture and water supply availability. Warmer temperatures will lead to more intense rain events which, coupled with rising seas, will leave our coastal and riparian areas especially vulnerable to flooding, with additional repercussions for water supply. Sea level rise will impact coastal communities and coastal habitats. Non-climate stresses, such as dense population, high impervious cover, high nutrient loading, and high flooding potential, or a combination of these factors, will exacerbate vulnerability to climate change.101 These are just some examples of the long-term impacts we expect concurrent with our efforts to mitigate GHG emissions.
Thus, a comprehensive adaptation policy must be developed as a key component of any long term climate change action plan. Addressing these issues today just makes sense; they are complicated and require thoughtful approaches. It is hard to predict precisely which of the losses to New Jersey might be irreversible, yet, we must acknowledge that some may be permanent. Still, we cannot, as some say, "wait it out." While climate change might cause irreparable losses in some areas, it may also create economic opportunities in others. For example, spending to construct and/or adapt buildings and homes for storm resilience may be a good investment for property owners in terms of personal safety and financial exposure, while providing a positive outcome for communities in terms of reduced emergency services and preservation of a neighborhood. Similarly, water conservation measures for protection against more intense droughts in the long-term can certainly result in benefits for mitigation of droughts in the shortterm.
Yet, the Christie Administration, to save a few hundred thousand dollars, is seeking to eliminate the DEP's Office of Climate Change, which is the Office that is developing this important programs and planning effort.
So, as I said, I tried to briefly sketch the scope of the NJ issues raised by the UNH Report.
Let's hope these issues get more attention by media and policymakers. There is plenty of information provided above.
Then, perhaps the severely negative implications of the Christie de-funding and regulatory rollback efforts are more widely understood so that they can be stopped and reversed.
Other contributors to the UNH Report: Carbon solutions New England and Clean Air - Cool Planet
Governor Corzine got tons of favorable media coverage and huge praise by environmental groups for signing the "landmark" 2007 Global Warming Response Act.
Does anyone remember the bill signing with Al Gore at a concert in the Meadowlands?
So, will Christie get covered and held accountable for its dismantling?
Read it and weep - news from PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)
Press Release
For Immediate Release: Thursday, March 25, 2010
Contact: Bill Wolfe (609) 397-4861; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
Christie Shreds New Jersey Climate Change Programs
Kills Emission Reporting, Diverts Green Energy Fund & Defunds Climate Office
Trenton - New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has taken a wrecking ball to the state's touted Global Warming Response Act, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In recent weeks, the Christie administration has blocked required reporting from greenhouse gas sources, diverted $300 million in Clean Energy Funds dedicated to energy efficiency and proposed to zero out the state's Office of Climate Change and Energy.
"New Jersey's Global Warming Response Act is now a dead letter," stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, referring to 2007 legislation regarded as the crowning environmental achievement of the Corzine administration. "Whatever progress on climate change we can expect will have to come from Washington, because Trenton has gone AWOL."
Apparently by mutual agreement of the ongoing Corzine and incoming Christie administration, a proposed rule to require monitoring and reporting of emissions of greenhouse gases was allowed to quietly die on January 20, 2010 - one year after it was first proposed. This emission monitoring regime is a key mandate of the state's Global Warming Response Act. Without monitoring and reporting, New Jersey cannot track emissions or develop a regulatory program to meet the reduction milestones set forth in the Act.
On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted its first federal greenhouse gas monitoring requirements. Compared to EPA rules, however, the New Jersey law (and its now abandoned monitoring plan) is broader, covering more gases, more emissions sources and with lower thresholds. Ironically, in its public comments this fall, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) urged EPA proposal to integrate more stringent state rules.
Sweeping executive orders imposing a regulatory moratorium, cost-benefit analysis requirements, and a policy of rolling back to minimum federal standards in the first weeks of the Christie administration make it unlikely that any new plan for greenhouse gas monitoring will ever emerge again from DEP. Several other major environmental and public health policies, such as the recently shelved drinking water standard for perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, are apparently also destined for the scrap heap.
This Christie anti-regulatory stance is compounded by diversions of $300 million in Clean Energy Funds dedicated to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. In addition, Governor Christie's proposed budget for FY 2011, beginning this July, will eliminate funding for the Office of Climate Change and Energy which is responsible for implementing the Global Warming Response Act, even diverting revenue from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) emission credit auctions to the General Fund.
"The current governor has decided that investment in a clean energy future for New Jersey is a luxury that we can no longer afford," added Wolfe. "In terms of public health and welfare, New Jersey will soon start to resemble states like Mississippi that can only provide minimal state services."
###
Look at the now moribund greenhouse gas reporting plan
New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability
A panel discussion hosted the other day by Monmouth University's Urban Coast Institute and co-sponsored by the Jersey Shore Partnership and Monmouth-Ocean Development Council said that climate change is forcing changes in everything from insurance costs to community planning:
City planners are looking to protect critical infrastructure from sea-level rise, conservatively projected at 1 to 2 feet in this century, he said.
Even if storms don't increase in strength and frequency, that sea-level rise will mean that today's storm floods of about 8 feet above mean low water will occur five times as frequently, Horton told the gathering in Wilson Hall.
And the first people to feel the impact of the changes will be towns along the shoreline:
"Coastal communities are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to global warming," said Belmar Mayor Kenneth E. Pringle, who talked about mitigation plans for his town, such as redirecting storm water drainage away from Silver Lake, and even developing a contingency plan to pump storm overflows from Lake Como into the sea.
These plans have to take place now, but a bigger problem may be who is ultimately responsible when the changes occur:
Legal issues will loom along with the advancing ocean. Under common law, the state owns all lands washed by tidal waters, and "in a rising sea-level context . . . those two feet that go underwater, who will own that?" said lawyer J. Wylie Donald, who handles climate change and energy issues for the law firm McCarter & English.
A 1900 state court decision held that natural shoreline changes - or "alluvial formations," as those judges called them - can alter tidelands boundaries, and "'that rule is going to be very important for a rising sea level jurisprudence," Donald said.
But tidelands law is complicated, and the last time the Legislature tried to resolve a major dispute, it took 15 years until the state finally staked all its tidelands claims in 1982, he recalled.
"You may have that same kind of problem," Donald added. "Several billion dollars of property transferred to the state under common law? That could be problematic."
So not only does planning have to go on over how to adapt as the landscape literally changes at their feet, the law will have to keep up in the process to determine who is responsible without another major dispute.
About 80 citizens, a handful of local officials, and two state legislators came out to discuss environmental issues with Gubernatorial candidates (or their representatives) last night in Westfield, in a forum sponsored by Environment NJ, the Highlands Coalition, and Clean Ocean Action.
There were no corporate flacks or lobbyists in sight. No one shouted or called anyone a Nazi. Citizens passionately but rationally asked informed and important questions. The candidates didn't attack each other, pander or appeal to hate or fear, but instead discussed their ideas about public policy.
Given the political context and the in the gutter conduct of the Gubernatorial campaign thus far, the event was a huge success. Thank you Environment NJ for taking the high road, not doing the traditional shallow endorsement rag, and instead forcing the candidates to discuss issues and to be accountable to voters.
Let's see if the press can follow your lead, rise to the occasion, and focus on the issues instead of the horse race.
According to the Washington Post, Senator Bob Menendez has placed an anonymous hold on two Obama appointees: Harvard physicist John Holdren and Oregon State marine biologist and Jane Lubchenco. Holdren is Obama's pick to direct the White House Office of Science and Technology, while Lubchenco would lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admninistration (NOAA). The Post's sources say that Menendez has objection to these nominees, and that he is holding them up in order to garner concessions on Cuba policy from Senate leaders. Menedez's office has declined comment, stating their policy "not to speculate or comment on anonymous holds or rumors of anonymous holds, across the board."
If the Post has its facts right, Menendez's tactics are unacceptable and disappointing. The Senator should release his hold immediately so that these appointees can get to work cleaning up the mess left by the Bush administration as soon as possible.
Update: Menendez objects to a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would loosen restrictions on trade and visits to the island nation. His remarks on the senate floor (see video below) are eloquent and heartfelt, but they still do not justify holding up key scientific appointees who have nothing to do with Cuba or Cuba policy.
In Monmouth County, NJ the Marlboro Republican Club, in Conjunction with the Manalapan Republican Club, is hosting Green Awareness Event, ?An Event to Educate and Benefit our Environment? Tuesday, December 9, 2008 @ 7:00 PM, Marlboro Recreation Building - 1996 Recreation Way, Marlboro Township.
I write on energy policy for Popular Logistics, on the web at http://www.PopularLogistics.com. I ran for school board earlier this year on a solar energy platform - on the web at http://www.furmanforschoolboar... I'd like to thank the Manalapan Republicans and the Marlboro Republicans for holding this event.
I'd like to talk about Nuclear Power and Coal, and clean sustainable energy.
In April of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Environmental Protection Agency must regulate carbon emissions unless it presents scientific proof that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global climate change. On Nov. 13, the EPA?s Environmental Appeals Board ruled it would do so. We need alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power, if for no other reason than to obey the law.
It's interesting to see that Rob Andrews is working as a whip to help Michigan Congressman John Dingell remain as chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. He's being challenged by liberal Henry Waxman because Dingell is generally viewed as working to water down fuel economy standards and broader global warming legislation, though he publicly supports some legislation on global warming.
Tom Wyka took the 6:33 a.m. Morris & Essex Train from Dover to Summit on Tuesday to talk to voters about public transit and a green economy. Wyka for Congress volunteers were at the stations to hand out literature to commuters who were waiting for the train. Wyka, a Democrat from Parsippany, is challenging 7-term incumbent Rodney Frelinghuysen for New Jersey's 11th district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Diane Burns, of Hanover Township, wore a full-size Wyka for Congress lawn sign hung on a cord around her neck "which caught people's eye. I just said, 'Here is information about Tom Wyka, who is running for Congress in our district. He will be riding on your train this morning introducing himself to people, and answering any questions you may have.' All but one person took the flyer."
Geoffrey Thomas of Madison was handing out literature at the Madison train station. "You can't really expect to have a political discussion with many people before 7 in the morning, especially on a cold rainy day like today, but most people accepted the literature to read on the train. Several people said that they knew about Wyka and are going to vote for him."
Eric Carlson, a Wyka for Congress volunteer from Harding Township who rode the train with Wyka, said, "A few commuters huddled together waiting for the train to New York in the dark, on the cold and rainy morning were asked by Wyka what their biggest worry was, and they answered in chorus 'MONEY!' Tom Wyka cheered some folks up, and received a few smiles, after explaining that they had a choice for a change come November. For some, it was an easy sell once they realized that Tom Wyka was running on the same ticket as Obama."
Public transit development is an important part of the new "green" economy that Wyka advocates. Wyka says, "When it comes to energy efficiency, nothing beats electrified rail transit. This year, a lot more people have wanted to ride the train. But New Jersey Transit has actually been cutting service, because of budget problems. When we can't afford to do the single most effective thing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and avoid global climate change, it shows that our government hasn't been spending our money on the right kinds of things. So far, the taxpayers in this district are stuck with a bill of $3.2 billion for the Iraq War. Just think of what we could have done locally to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil for that amount!" According to recent estimates from the National Priorities Project (www.costofwar.com), taxpayers in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District will pay $3.2 billion for total Iraq war spending approved to date.
The Robbinsville Professional Fire Fighters Local 3786 have purchased two TerraPass carbon offsets for our front line emergency response vehicles, Engine 40 and Ambulance 140-10, in the hope of sparking community awareness about the seriousness of global warming and climate change.
Robbinsville's career fire fighters are doing their part to reduce the adverse impact of their emergency vehicles on the planet.
They say they are the "first public safety entity" in the country to "purchase TerraPass carbon offsets for front line apparatus." The firefighters are leading by example by lowering the thermostat, using more efficient light bulbs and more. They created this video to tell their story and inspire others to do their part for the environment:
Do you live in Sussex, Warren, Burlington, Somerset, Salem, Cape May, Union or Essex county? If so, thankfully, you aren't breathing air that is too polluted for human beings to breathe safely, according to a new EPA report. But for every other county in N.J. and much of the Eastern seaboard, and several more state's counties (345) in total, there are too many carcinogens and hazardous materials in the air to make it safe to breathe.
Ethanol is to Iowa as the shore is to New Jersey. Here's proof that Joe Cryan was right and we are relevant afterall. Hillary Clinton responds to a Press of AC story:
"This morning's Press of Atlantic City report about rising temperatures across South Jersey and the northeast, combined with studies indicating that climate change could change the face of Atlantic City and the New Jersey shoreline as a whole, should serve as a fresh reminder for all of us: the environmental and economic consequences of global warming are real, and if it is left unchecked, they will become even more severe and far-reaching.
That is why I have made addressing global warming a central element of my campaign. I have a plan to reduce global warming pollution by 80% below 1990 levels by mid-century through a market-based cap and trade program, reduce electricity consumption 20 percent by 2020, and to invest $50 billion in research into alternative energies.
New Jersey's beaches are a national treasure and are essential to the state's economy, and we need to do all we can to protect them - that's exactly what I intend to do if elected."
New Jersey already has an ambitious global warming-fighting plan in place, but it's fun to be pandered to for a change. Eat your heart out, Iowa.
Governor Corzine signed legislation today that prohibits the sale of yo-yo waterballs. It's the best thing to happen to NJ since the fight to ban aluminum bats.
The Assembly and Senate judiciary committees unanimously approved bills to enhance the state's hate crime and school bullying laws. The bill will add "gender identity or expression" to our hate crime laws in addition to strengthening the laws for all minority groups. Update: it just passed the Senate unanimously, 35-0.
An Assembly panel passed legislation that would establish the first CO2 cap-and-trade program in the country - the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiaitive (RGGI) - an alliance of 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. "Under the RGGI agreement, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would be capped at current levels starting in 2009, with states eventually reducing emissions incrementally to achieve a 10-percent reduction by 2019."
Corzine's school funding plan made it through the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. Retired Supreme Court Justice Gary Stein wrote to legislators that "a vote in favor of the bill is, in reality, an invitation to a series of lawsuits that will embroil the state and the advocates for for the groups that oppose the bill in contentious litigation that will last for many years."
A trio of bills aimed at reducing gun trafficking passed an Assembly committee today. The bills would explicitly make gun trafficking illegal and make carrying (concealed or not) an unlawful firearm illegal. A third bill takes aim at bulk purchasers who sell weapons on the black market.
The Village Voice says that in the last 10 years, Jersey City's Little India "has bloomed like a rosewater lassi."
There were 99 murders in Newark in 2007, a slight drop from 107 in 2006.
Iowa votes in a few hours. My uneducated guess is: Obama: 35, Edwards: 32, Clinton 30. What are your Iowa predictions?
As if we needed any more evidence demonstrating that anthropogenic climate change is real, that it is occurring right now, and that it poses a major threat to the planet's environment, we now have it -- in spades. Let's begin with the 
