NJ businesses bringing in big guns to fight plastics ban

Scott Fallon reports for the North Jersey Record

More than two dozen NJ towns have banned thin plastic takeout bags like the ones found at many grocery and big box stores. Lawmakers are considering a statewide ban on bags along with foam food containers and straws. (Photo: Mitsu Yasukawa/Northjersey.com)

The global push to ban everyday plastic products that litter oceans and waterways has no greater fight in the U.S. in 2019 than in New Jersey where the most far-reaching set of plastics regulations in the nation is slowly making its way through Trenton.
Manufacturers and retailers are gearing up to defeat a bill that would ban plastic bags, foam containers and plastic straws fearing passage in New Jersey could prompt other states to adopt similar regulations.
“No state or a major city has taken on all three so the stakes are high,” said John Weber, Mid-Atlantic manager of the Surfrider Foundation, a clean ocean and beach advocacy group. “A lot of other states are taking note because it would be the most comprehensive plastics legislation in the country.”

Supporters, like Weber, say the measure will curb plastic litter that is inundating New Jersey’s beaches, riverfronts, streets and even some of its most serene waterways.

osprey_stuck_to_plastic_bag_at_nest_in_Bayville_[_Beverly_Morris_photo
Osprey stuck to plastic bag at nest in Bayville, NJ. (Beverly Morris photo)Support is growing with more than two dozen towns and cities enacting their own regulations from large cities like Hoboken and Jersey City to Shore towns like Bradley Beach and Point Pleasant to curb the 4.5 billion plastic bags and other products given to New Jersey shoppers each year.
But a coalition of plastics manufacturers, convenience stores, supermarkets and other businesses that turned out in force at a September legislative hearing to oppose the bill say the measure will cost jobs and do little to curb litter.

Lobbying lawmakers
Leading the way is the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which lobbies on behalf of manufacturers that employ 25,000 workers in 40 states and has fought against bans on its product in California, New York and other places across the country.

The group has hired New Jersey’s largest lobbying firm – Princeton Public Affairs – and the world’s largest public relations firm – Edelman – in its fight against a statewide ban.

New Jersey’s proposed ban “goes way further than anything any state or municipality has done,” Matt Seaholm, executive director of the bag alliance, said in an interview last month.

Seaholm said defeating New Jersey’s bill is on the top of his group’s national agenda. He intends to concentrate on lobbying lawmakers who have a bag manufacturer or plastics recycling facility in their district including the sponsor of the bill Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex. Smith did not respond to a request for comment.

Unlike his organization’s campaign in California, Seaholm said his group would not be giving campaign donations to New Jersey lawmakers or political organizations. His organization raised more than $6 million to try to defeat California’s ban, which was ultimately approved by a public referendum in 2016.

“Our focus is working with legislators to help them understand the unintended consequences of anything they might do,” Seaholm said. “I would argue that the bill is trying to take a sledgehammer to a mosquito.”


NJ businesses bringing in big guns to fight plastics ban Read More »

NJ enviros: Proposed stormwater-rule overhaul falls short

Only 5 percent of NJ waterways meet federal clean water standards, largely due to runoff from developed areas

stormwater runoff

Tom Johnson reports
for NJ Spotlight
The state is proposing to overhaul one of the most contentious rules adopted by the Christie administration, but critics say it falls short in dealing with the single biggest problem impairing New Jersey’s waters — stormwater runoff.
The proposal, the first major regulation offered by the state Department of Environmental Protection under Gov. Phil Murphy, mostly amends rules involving stormwater management, an issue often blamed for increasing the risk of flooding and threatening water quality.
One of the more significant changes — a focus on requiring so-called green infrastructure to better manage stormwater — won praise from virtually all 10 people who spoke at a hearing at DEP headquarters in Trenton yesterday. Green infrastructure aims to mimic the natural water cycle by creating rain gardens, green roofs and permeable pavements to control runoff by allowing it to be absorbed into soil or vegetation.
Rebecca Hammer of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the embrace of green infrastructure a step in the right direction, but added the proposal fails to modify parts of the existing rule that are too lax. “The proposal, in an of itself, does not go far enough,’’ she said, echoing a criticism voiced by other conservation groups.
Henry Gajda of the League of Conservation Voters of New Jersey agreed. “Within these rules, there’s more work to be done,’’ said Gajda, noting the overhaul does not even address the projected $16 billion needed in New Jersey to fix stormwater and pollution problems.

Stormwater utilities

Gajda urged the DEP to work with lawmakers to pass legislation that would allow municipalities to set up stormwater utilities that could impose fees to address so-called “non-point pollution problems. (Non-point pollution refers to waste and other contaminants that flow into waterways from runoff and flooding, not direct discharges permitted by manufacturing plants and wastewater treatment facilities.) The legislation, approved by the Senate, is awaiting action in the Assembly.
Others, such as Jaclyn Rhoads, assistant director of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, urged the department to focus on fixing stormwater problems at existing developments and redevelopments.
“The rule has major flaws in it,’’ said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “It exempts existing development, which is already the largest source of non-point pollution in our state. If we don’t deal with stormwater in developed areas, we’ll never meet clean water standards.’’
He and others also criticized the new rule for eliminating existing requirements that certain contaminants from roofs and sidewalks be controlled under stormwater management programs. “This change will have a negative impact on water quality,’’ said Hammer, of the NRDC.
Like this? Click to receive free updates 

NJ enviros: Proposed stormwater-rule overhaul falls short Read More »

PSEG sells former NJ coal-power plants to re-developer

Former PSEG Hudson Generating Station in Jersey City
The former Hudson Generating Station in Jersey City. – ()PSEG Power, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, announced on Wednesday the sale its retired Hudson Generating Station, in Jersey City and Secaucus, and Mercer Generating Station, in Hamilton Township, sites to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, an operating company within Hilco Global.Both coal-burning power plants were built in the 1960s and retired in June 2017.According to a press release, PSEG selected Chicago-headquartered HRP based on their strong environmental track record and demonstrated success in managing complex redevelopment projects, including retired coal plants.HRP envisions redeveloping the sites as state-of-the-art industrial parks to serve the growing need for regional warehouse distribution hubs in central and northern New Jersey.PSEG is committed to being a leading clean energy provider. Last year, the company set the goal of eliminating 13 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels.”We hope these sites will continue to be productive assets for the communities that hosted the plants for decades,” said John Paul Cowan, senior vice president of operations for PSEG Fossil, in a release. “That’s why we sought out a buyer that understands the strategic value of both locations and will leverage the great labor pool in the surrounding areas. Hilco Redevelopment Partners has a track record of success taking on both the remediation of these types of industrial facilities and, most importantly, redeveloping them into economic engines for the people who live in and around the sites.”Like this? Click to receive free updates

PSEG sells former NJ coal-power plants to re-developer Read More »

Opinion: Rosenstein departure too late for Trump


Reuters/Jonathan Ernst (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
By Paul Waldman
Washington Post opinion writer

Had today’s news out of the Justice Department come six months or a year ago, President Trump might have had reason for optimism that he might be one giant step closer to his fondest wish — to shut down the special counsel’s investigation into the Russia scandal.
Instead, coming as it does now, it may indicate just how powerless Trump is to escape accountability for what happened during the 2016 campaign and in the early days of his presidency. The Post reports:
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein has told people close to him that he expects to depart the Justice Department if a new attorney general is confirmed, though there are no concrete plans in place or a timeline for him to do so, according to people familiar with the matter.
Rosenstein has been the No. 2 Justice Department official since April 2017, his tenure defined by his appointment of Robert S. Mueller III to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and the attacks he incurred from President Trump for doing so. Incensed by Mueller’s work, Trump periodically toyed with the idea of ousting his deputy attorney general, though Rosenstein managed to avoid the ax time after time.
We shouldn’t forget that Rosenstein was appointed by Trump, but it was one of those appointments that was doubtless delivered to him by others who knew Rosenstein as a respected professional, and that Trump came to profoundly regret. Rosenstein probably would have done his best to oversee the Mueller investigation in an objective manner regardless, but Trump’s constant public outbursts on the subject and regular expressions of contempt for then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself no doubt made Rosenstein even more determined to avoid even the appearance of succumbing to Trump’s pressure.
And so the investigation proceeded largely unimpeded. Now, by all appearances, it is nearing its completion, with a growing pile of indictments, guilty pleas and evidence that people around Trump were in regular contact and even coordination with Russia throughout the campaign. Trump put in place an acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, who may have gotten the job because the president was pleased with his criticism of the Mueller probe, and announced that William P. Barr, who had also been critical of the investigation, will be Sessions’s permanent replacement. But not only has all the attention to the potential for meddling made it harder for either of them to shut Mueller down, by now it’s too late.
That brings us to the absolutely extraordinary news we learned late Tuesday that while he was chairman of the Trump campaign, Paul Manafort was feeding internal polling data to his associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who is widely suspected to be a Russian intelligence asset. Let me point you to this paragraph from the New York Times’ report, which also refers to Rick Gates, the deputy campaign chairman who has pleaded guilty to crimes and is cooperating with Mueller:
Mr. Manafort asked Mr. Gates to tell Mr. Kilimnik to pass the data to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to the Kremlin and who has claimed that Mr. Manafort owed him money from a failed business venture, the person said. It is unclear whether Mr. Manafort was acting at the campaign’s behest or independently, trying to gain favor with someone to whom he was deeply in debt.
So to repeat: The Trump campaign was giving internal polling data to a likely Russian intelligence asset so he could pass that data to a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin.

Opinion: Rosenstein departure too late for Trump Read More »

Record rains increased pollution in Chesapeake Bay


MARYLAND NATURAL RESOURCES POLICE

Frank Kummer reports for the Philadelphia Inquirer

Record rainfall helped tick up levels of two widespread pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in 2018, and worried scientists say bigger storms could be the new norm, according to a recent report.

The biennial report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said the health of the bay decreased one point to a score of 33, earning it the equivalent of a D-plus in its scoring system, mostly because of heavy rain that swept in nitrogen and phosphorous from runoff. Water clarity also took a hit. The foundation has marked progress from scores as low as 20 in the 1970s. A score of 100 would indicate pristine. The foundation’s goal is a passing score of about 70.

“Overall, the result is a substantial drop in the scores relative to 2016,” the report said. “Winter and early spring water flows down the Susquehanna, the largest river feeding the bay, were higher than average in both years [2017 and 2018]. And record rainfall during summer 2018 caused flooding and more pollution to enter the region’s waterways.”

Though nitrogen and phosphorus do occur naturally, too much coming from a variety of human activities means nutrient pollution in waterways.The report also states that climate change models suggest more frequent and severe storms in the future.

William Baker, the foundation’s president, said the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks also pose a challenge.

But Beth McGee, the foundation’s director of science and agricultural policy, said all the news was not bad.

“The good news is that scientists are pointing to evidence of the bay’s increased resiliency and ability to withstand and recover from these severe weather events,” McGee said in a statement. “And this resiliency is a direct result of the pollution reductions achieved to date.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been issuing its state of the bay report since 1998. The report is compiled by scientists and is based on data collected on 13 indicators, each scored from 1 to 100. Taken together, they create an index score.



Record rains increased pollution in Chesapeake Bay Read More »

Carbon emissions surged in ’18 even as coal plants closed

passenger planes at Phoenix airport

Brad Plumer reports for the New York Times


WASHINGTON — America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday.

Strikingly, the sharp uptick in emissions occurred even as a near-record number of coal plants around the United States retired last year, illustrating how difficult it could be for the country to make further progress on climate change in the years to come, particularly as the Trump administration pushes to roll back federal regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The estimate, by the research firm Rhodium Group, pointed to a stark reversal. Fossil fuel emissions in the United States have fallen significantly since 2005 and declined each of the previous three years, in part because of a boom in cheap natural gas and renewable energy, which have been rapidly displacing dirtier coal-fired power.

Yet even a steep drop in coal use last year wasn’t enough to offset rising emissions in other parts of the economy. Some of that increase was weather-related: A relatively cold winter led to a spike in the use of oil and gas for heating in areas like New England.


But, just as important, as the United States economy grew at a strong pace last year, emissions from factories, planes and trucks soared. And there are few policies in place to clean those sectors up.

“The big takeaway for me is that we haven’t yet successfully decoupled U.S. emissions growth from economic growth,” said Trevor Houser, a climate and energy analyst at the Rhodium Group.


Carbon emissions surged in ’18 even as coal plants closed Read More »