Kellyanne Conway at the White House this month. House Democrats on the panel requested Ms. Conway’s testimony after the Office of Special Counsel recommended in a report released earlier this month that President Trump fire Ms. Conway.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Catie Edmondson reports for the New York Times June 26, 2019
WASHINGTON — A House panel voted on Wednesday to subpoena Kellyanne Conway for her testimony after she failed to show to a hearing at which a special counsel told the committee she should be fired from the White House for her “egregious, repeated, and very public violations” of federal ethics law.
The House Oversight and Reform Committee’s action against Ms. Conway escalates the standoff between the Democratic House and President Trump as the White House stonewalls Democratic oversight inquiries, moving to keep the deliberations of its top officials confidential. The White House blocked Ms. Conway, a counselor to the president, from testifying about allegations of repeated violations of a federal ethics law that prohibits government officials from engaging in political activities at work
Her failure to show set up yet another clash between the executive branch and Congress that may end with an administration official held in contempt of Congress. Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, the one Republican who has called for President Trump’s impeachment, joined Democrats to vote for the subpoena, 25-16.
In pointed testimony, Henry J. Kerner, the special counsel, whose work is unrelated to the office that was run by Robert S. Mueller III, detailed how the White House counselor’s conduct created an “unprecedented challenge” to his ability to enforce the federal ethics law, known as the Hatch Act.
The coastal ridge in Malibu where U2’s The Edge wanted to build a residential compound of five houses. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Steve Lopez is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times
He’s rich.
He’s famous.
He wanted to build a colony of castles on a Malibu hillside, despite the years-long screams of conservationists.
But David Evans, who strums a guitar for U2, has become an exception to the rule that with money and power, you can buy anything your heart desires.
It’s been two weeks since the California Supreme Court delivered a near-fatal blow to Evans’ planned rock and roll colony on Sweetwater Mesa, which overlooks the Malibu pier and offers heavenly coastal views on a plot just outside the city of Malibu.
The court decided not to review a lower court ruling that the California Coastal Commission, which gave Evans the go-ahead in 2015, did not have the authority to do so.
So what happens next?
Unclear. I asked Evans’ attorney and he said he had passed along my query to his client. But in all the years I’ve been on this story, I’ve never been able to get hold of Evans. Maybe I should have gone to a U2 concert in Ireland, like Mark Vargas did. He’s the California Coastal Commissioner who met with Evans in Dublin and then came home to cast a vote in favor of the project. He said he paid for the Dublin trip and concert himself.
The Edge, also known as David Evans. (Evan Agostini / Associated Press)
It just so happens that I have a few suggestions on what Evans might do next, but let me back up before I move forward, because there’s a David and Goliath story to be told.
Evans and his wife bought the 150 acres of land for just under $9 million in 2005 and were part of a plan to erect five ridiculously gigantic homes on an otherwise pristine ridge. If that’s not offensive enough, he wanted to call the compound Leaves in the Wind.
The Coastal Commission took a look at Evans’ plans—which included running a long water-service line through the hills, and sinking dozens of caissons into a cliff to support an access road — and said, in effect, you’ve got to be kidding. The commission rejected Evan’s claim that there were five separate owners, contending instead that limited liability corporations were used to mask his role as the only owner.
But legal maneuvering aside, Peter Douglas, the agency’s executive director at the time, zeroed in on what was really at stake.
“In my 38 years with the commission,” Douglas said at the time, “I have never seen a project as environmentally devastating as this one.”
Robert Jackson on a trip in the Pinelands in 2011 . Photo by Pinelands Preservation Alliance
Robert Jackson, a former commissioner, is being nominated for another term on the Pinelands Commission, a nomination that brings to five the number awaiting confirmation by the state Senate.
Jackson’s nomination by Gov. Phil Murphy was praised by conservationists, who have pressed the governor to appoint new members who care more about preserving the 1.1-million-acre Pinelands National Preserve than opening it for development.
In recent months, Murphy has sought to address that goal by nominating new candidates to serve on the commission, but as of yet, none have been confirmed by the state Senate.
Jackson, who served on the commission from 2008 to 2015, was onboard during disputes over the South Jersey Gas pipeline, a 22-mile-long project through parts of the Pinelands to supply fuel to the B.L. England plant in upper Cape May County.
Dead in the water
That project, long litigated in the courts, appears dead after the owners of the former coal plant abandoned their efforts to convert it to natural gas. The initiative has been remanded to the Pinelands Commission, which is expected to decide it sometime next month.
“The governor has made another great nomination for the Pinelands Commission, nominating Bob Jackson, who had served with great distinction until he was replaced by Gov. Christie,’’ said Carleton Montgomery, executive director of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance.
Jackson’s nomination is the latest by Murphy to reshape the focus and direction of the commission, which had approved two new pipelines through the Pinelands despite vigorous opposition from environmentalists, and in some cases, four former governors.
Five proposed nominees have been recommended by Murphy, including one as long ago as Theresa Littman, in January. None have had a confirmation hearing yet scheduled, and are unlikely to do so before the Legislature breaks for its summer recess. They include three new nominees, and one holdover, longtime commissioner Edward Lloyd.
“You have five nominations for the Pinelands and nothing is happening,’’ said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “We have five good nominees. We need to fight to get them through.’’
Dennis McNerney during a 2010 debate. (Photo: Michael Karas)
Former Bergen County Executive Dennis McNerney has admitted using dozens of pseudonyms to post false statements about a GOP strategist on multiple websites four years ago, an admission he made in a letter of apology published on Sunday in The Record.
The published apology ended a five-year legal battle waged by strategist Alan Marcus in 2014, when Marcus filed a defamation lawsuit over McNerney’s postings, largely comments PolitickerNJ stories published before and after the 2014 race for Bergen County executive.
McNerney, who became the first Democrat elected Bergen County executive in 2002, said in the letter that the accusations he made anonymously about Marcus were designed to “scandalize Mr. Marcus for the benefit of Democratic candidates.” The online posts alleged that Marcus committed fraud, blackmail, and corruption and was about to be indicted.
McNerney agreed to a “significant” but undisclosed financial settlement with Marcus, according to the letter, dated April 29.
The published apology ended a five-year legal battle waged by strategist Alan Marcus in 2014, when Marcus filed a defamation lawsuit over McNerney’s postings, largely comments PolitickerNJ stories published before and after the 2014 race for Bergen County executive.
McNerney, who became the first Democrat elected Bergen County executive in 2002, said in the letter that the accusations he made anonymously about Marcus were designed to “scandalize Mr. Marcus for the benefit of Democratic candidates.” The online posts alleged that Marcus committed fraud, blackmail and corruption and was about to be indicted.
McNerney agreed to a “significant” but undisclosed financial settlement with Marcus, according to the letter, dated April 29.
“I sincerely apologize to Mr. Marcus (with whom I have never spoken nor met) and his family for my irresponsible acts and reprehensible conduct which caused multiple harm to them, Mr. Marcus’ business, his employees and his family,” the letter reads. “I have committed to help remove the internet publications I falsely created.”
The apology says “many of” McNerney’s posts about Marcus were false.
Marcus’ attorney, Joseph B. Fiorenzo, said in a statement that McNerney’s conduct is a lesson in the harm caused to “victims of internet influence campaigns.”
The Democrats running for president have a wide range of climate platforms and views on the policy choices, as these candidate profiles show. Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Anyone who views the climate crisis as a compelling issue can only be frustrated by how it has been handled in presidential debates over the years—neglected, mostly. And as the first round of debates for the 2020 election arrives, the frustration may be repeated, if for different reasons this time around.
It’s not that the issue won’t come up. It will, driven by climate events in the real world, by the extraordinary record of reversal and denial in Washington, by the emphatic alarms of scientists, and by the loud insistence of activists that candidates and the media alike do their share in focusing the spotlight on the urgency of action. Even if the interrogators don’t emphasize it, some candidates will.
To prepare for the debates, we explored the candidates’ evolution on climate change and early progress in bringing the issue to the forefront in 2020. In the following series of profiles, we focus on the most prominent candidates and those with the most detailed climate proposals, with an eye toward showing the spectrum of policy choices.
On Wednesday and Thursday this week, 20 candidates face questioning from a panel of journalists in two rounds, with 10 candidates each evening. With so many candidates and so much ground to cover, there may be only slight attention to climate change. It may be hard to distinguish the candidates’ climate policy positions from one another, let alone to discern the complex details in depth, or to decide which answers are the more coherent, practical or politically appealing.
One goal in these profiles: to help you prepare to watch the debates, perhaps forming in your own mind what climate question you would pose to candidates beyond the most simplistic.
Instead of being asked “do you believe in global warming?” or “would you stay in the Paris treaty?”—every Democratic candidate does and would—we think they should face questions like these:
“How much would you demand that U.S. emissions decline in your first term, in order to put your targets within reach by the end of your second term?”
“Many people say we have only 12 years to act. Can you explain where that number comes from and whether you believe it?”
“Should fossil fuel producers be held liable for the damages being inflicted now because of emissions from our previous use of their products?”
“Do you think American youth have a constitutional right to a safe climate that could be enforced by the courts?”
“Should any of the revenues from a carbon tax be spent on research and development of clean technologies, or should it all be returned to households as a tax rebate or dividend?”
“How much expansion of our natural gas production would be consistent with reaching zero net emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050?”
“Would you rely heavily on any of these technologies: a new class of nuclear reactors? Capturing the carbon from smokestacks or the atmosphere for storage underground? Geo-engineering to reflect sunlight or seed the oceans as a carbon sink?”
Of course, you can’t count on such probing questions being asked or answered. But keeping careful, probing questions in mind may help you to sort out which candidates are truly informing the public. We, too, will parse the answers afterwards.
Following are profiles of a dozen candidates, listed alphabetically. They were drawn from those who are leading in the polls, have detailed climate platforms, or represent diverse policies.
“What’s the point of being a progressive if we can’t make progress?” —Michael Bennet, November 2017
Been There
Sen. Michael Bennet frequently talks about the twin problems of drought and wildfire that have plagued Colorado for years, problems that scientists say will only worsen with global warming—longer wildfire seasons, shorter ski seasons, scorching drought. In an Iowa campaign speech, he said: “I spent the whole summer meeting with farmers and ranchers in places where I’ll never get 30 percent of the vote in Colorado, who are deeply worried about being able to pass their farms or ranches along to their children or grandchildren because they have no water because of the droughts.”
Done That
Bennet, a scion of a political family with insider Democratic credentials, was initially appointed to the Senate to fill a vacancy. He’s since navigated through the minefields of climate and fossil fuel policy. Notably, he repeatedly broke with most Senate Democrats to vote for the Keystone XL pipeline, an act that climate activists might not swallow easily. He bemoaned the fight over Keystone as “one of those idiotic Washington political games that bounces back and forth and doesn’t actually accomplish anything,” as he said to the Wall Street Journal.
Getting Specific
Bennet has published an extensive climate platform that promises zero emissions by 2050 “in line with the most aggressive targets set by the world’s scientists.” But he hasn’t embraced the Green New Deal: “I’m not going to pass judgment one way or another on the Green New Deal,” Bennet said during an Iowa speech in February. “I’m all for anyone expressing themselves about the climate any way they want.”
His climate platform boosts ideas like these: Giving everyone the right to choose clean electricity at a reasonable price from their utility, and doing more to help them choose clean electric cars. Setting up a Climate Bank to catalyze $10 trillion in private innovation and infrastructure, and creating a jobs plan with 10 million green jobs, especially where fossil industries are declining. Setting aside 30 percent of the nation’s land in conservation, emphasizing carbon capture in forests and soils, and promoting a climate role for farmers and ranchers.
The problem he faces is squaring that with an ambivalent record on fossil fuels. His support for Keystone was not an anomaly: Bennet has been supportive of fossil fuel development generally, especially natural gas, as in his support for the Jordan Cove pipeline and natural gas export terminal project in Oregon. In a 2017 op-ed in USA Today, Bennet wrote that “saying no to responsible production of natural gas—which emits half the carbon of the dirtiest coal and is the cleanest fossil fuel—surrenders progress for purity.”
On the other hand, he favors protection for Alaskan wilderness from drilling.
According to his campaign, Bennet “does not accept money from any corporate PACs or lobbyists.” But Bennet has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Funding pledge.
Bennet’s climate plan doesn’t outline specific carbon pricing goals, but he recently released a carbon pollution transparency plan to recognize the full climate costs of carbon pollution when assessing the benefits of environmental protections.
In 2017, Bennet co-introduced a bill to allow businesses to use private activity bonds issued by local or state governments to finance carbon capture projects.
And he has proposed legislation to expand economic opportunities in declining coal communities.
Our Take
Bennet is a climate-aware politician from an energy-rich but environment-friendly swing state who doesn’t aggressively challenge the fossil fuel industry’s drilling, pipeline and export priorities. His platform covers the basics of emissions control, plays a strong federal hand and includes protections for public lands. But his support for the Keystone XL and other fossil development and his sidestepping of issues like carbon pricing shy away from some of the climate actions that progressives hope to push forward.
—By Nina Pullano
“The willing suspension of disbelief can only be sustained for so long.” —Joe Biden on climate denial, March 2015
Been There
Among the current candidates, only former Vice President Joseph Biden has debated a Republican opponent during a past contest for the White House—when he was Barack Obama’s running mate and took on Sarah Palin in 2008. It’s a moment that might come back to haunt him, because in a brief discussion of climate change—a chance to trounce her on the question of science denial or fossil fuel favoritism—he instead slipped intoa discussion of what he called “clean coal,” which he said he had favored for 25 years. He explained it away as a reference to exporting American energy technology. But his loose language, taken in today’s context, sounds archaic.
Done That
Biden likes to say he was among the first to introduce a climate change bill in the Senate, and fact checkers generally agree. It was the Global
It was a joyous, joint celebration at the Great Adventure
amusement park in Jackson Township this month.
Six Flags turned the switch and powered the largest
amusement park in the world with solar arrays;
the bulk of which were situated in their expansive, black-top parking
lot where it generates electricity and protects vehicles from the baking sun.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney was there to cut the
ribbon. Senator Bob Smith (D-Middlesex) was there to cheer and advocate for one
of these solar projects a day. The Six Flags executive brass was proud.
From published reports, it was a gleeful and back-slapping
moment for renewable energy.
What wasn’t mentioned, recognized, or lauded was the road it
took to get there.
The original Great Adventure plan called for over 90 acres
of forest to be cleared to make way for the solar arrays. A coalition of
environmental groups launched a staunch battle to save the forest while
promoting solar where it would best serve the environment – in the parking lot.
Environmental groups, with Clean Water Action as the lead
plaintiff, sued Great Adventure and KDC Solar, leading to a hard-won agreement
that suited all parties.
Each environmental group contributed expertise, including;
Save Barnegat Bay, Crosswicks Creek-Doctors Creek Watershed Association, New
Jersey Conservation Association, NJ Sierra Club, Environment NJ, as well as
Clean Water Action. The work included drone footage, threatened and endangered
species evaluation, water quality study, grassroots mobilization, hearing
attendance, activism, and more.
The coalition, with representation by Lavallette attorney,
Michele Donato, raised important planning considerations that will hopefully
prevail in other locations where solar is proposed.
Jackson Township is the now proud location of the world’s
largest solar-powered amusement park. Six Flags is cutting-edge cool. KDC Solar
gets quite an addition to their resume.
In return, over 200 acres that could have been developed
have been permanently saved. Endangered species will not be disturbed and
humans can park their cars under shady solar canopies.
The remaining forest will provide protection and a buffer to the headwaters of the Toms River, a Category One waterway that provides drinking water to Shore residents and drains into the Barnegat Bay.
No one from the environmental community ever opposed Six
Flags’ efforts to convert the park to renewable energy. It was applauded. It
just needed to avoid threatened and endangered habitat in the forest and be
located in an appropriate location – the blacktopped parking lot.
Great Adventure’s former CEO, Neil Thurman, deserves credit
for sitting with the environmental community and grasping the environmental
impact of the original plan. This might be languishing in court were it not for
Thurman’s willingness to listen, learn, and have the courage to agree.
Whether we ride the Kingda Ka, El Toro, or the Bizarro or
simply stroll around having an ice cream cone, let’s see Great Adventure as a
shining example of the good that can be achieved when environmental groups,
private companies, and municipalities work together. In this day of climate
change, there is no room for us versus them.
All benefit from carefully thought out and crafted
development plans that make the environment a first priority. At their best,
the environmental community works together without ego and without credit for a
shared goal that benefits the common good. One only has to take a ride at Great
Adventure to experience it.
Peggi Sturmfels Jackson Township
Peg Sturmfels is a 40-year Jackson Township resident, past president of the Jackson Board of Education, and current board member of Clean Water Action.
