Efficiency v. ecology, a reprise

The Asbury Park Press calls on the new DEP task force, which is being asked to review environmental rules, to focus on clarifying the rules and process and not on relaxing them. But the language used in the editorial is the same language used by the building community to privilege economic interests over the environment.

Builders have had to clear many hurdles to move ahead with their projects over the years. Too many businesses have looked to locate elsewhere after confronting the state’s slow and cumbersome approval process.

The business community wants environmental policies relaxed to ease the way. So does the state Department of Community Affairs in calling for more affordable housing. But the 19 members on the DEP’s Permit Efficiency Task Force, which has been given four months to complete its work, should resist any temptation to loosen environmental standards.

The builders complain about inconsistent demands to pass the tests for environmental permits. The state must streamline that process. Delays and red tape cost builders money, and those costs are passed on to consumers. Builders need clear, precise expectations and consistent deadlines from the DEP so they can meet their obligations and manage their resources efficiently. Before deciding to proceed, they need to know what environmental remedies will be necessary so they can plan accordingly.

Hmmm. Let’s catalogue the language: “clear many hurdles,” “slow and cumbersome approval process,” “inconsistent demands,” “delays and red tape.” This is not neutral language. Rather, it is language designed to back the business community while seeming to endorse strong environmental regulation.

I am all for making the regulations work better. But balance should not be the goal. The state needs to decide what its primary goal is: boosting the business community or protecting the environment. There are times when both can be done simultaneously but, more often than not, we have to choose.

Consider the local industrial zones in Cranbury, Monroe and South Brunswick. They generally allow only light uses — meaning distributon centers, warehouses and only light manufacturing. Nothing dirty or toxic.

So, yes, clarity is a good thing. But clarity should not be used as a buzzword to gut tough rules.

As I wrote in this week’s Dipsatches, quoting Bill Wolfe of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,

“Permit efficiency is not consistent with environmental protection. The task force should not emphasize streamlining. It should promote environmental protection.”

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Can we kill the cliches?

Perhaps, it’s just me, but I’ve grown weary of hearing the candidates enter soundbite mode as they turn to their bag of cliches to describe the world, their qualifications and beliefs and attempt to win those voters over who have yet to make their decision.

Readers like me know the phrases and probably have found themselves shaking thier heads in annoyance, in disgust, in boredom.

Hillary Clinton offered two of my least favorite in a speech today:

“We are competing in a new global economy, but our policies to equip American workers for the 21st century are stuck back in the 20th,” she said. “It’s time for a president who is ready on Day One to be the commander in chief of our economy. Sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House and it’s an economic crisis.”

Speeches like this are what drives many of us crazy and make her seem like just another politician. Consider the two tired phrases she uses — phrases she has turned into stock claims throughout this campaign:

Ready on day one. Let’s be honest about this: No one is ready. No one can be ready and it is the height of hubris to make the claim. We elect presidents based on a lot of factors, but we need to be honest and admit that when that phone rings at 3 a.m. or 6 p.m. or whenever it comes the person in the White House will be dealing with something he or she has never dealt with before.

The 3 a.m. phone call. First, as I say above, the call can come at any time. But more importantly, we should be focusing on the policies that come before the call, the ones that help lessen the likelihood of the call, or increase its likelihood. Consider this: No one would question Dick Cheney’s credentials or experience; his philosophy is another matter. It is what dictates how he interacts with the rest of the world, what kind of relationships we have with other nations and what his response would be. Or, forget Cheney and consider John McCain: He has the longest and most detailed resume, but does he have the temperment or the mindset you want in the person who will answer the phone — or make the initial call?

Granted, tying the two tropes to economic matters is interesting, but couldn’t she find some other, more interesting way to say it?

I don’t mean to pick on Clinton — she just offered the latest in a long line of cliched speeches. All of the candidates do it. I just wish they’d stop.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Pain at the Garden

I’m lying here with a severe pain in my upper jaw, the result of gum surgery. While it is uncomfortable, I know it’s temporary.

The pain, however, from being a Knick fan appears permanent, as this report from ESPN via the New York Daily News demonstrates.

The New York Daily News, citing an unnamed source, reported Thursday that owner James Dolan’s preference is to keep Thomas on the sidelines, even after he hires a successor to Thomas to run the organization.

“There isn’t a basketball executive alive who would keep Isiah as head coach, but Jim is telling whoever he interviews, ‘I would prefer to keep Isiah but you do what you have to do,'” the source close to Dolan told the Daily News. “If Isiah isn’t the coach, Jim still wants him to stay in the organization in some capacity.”

There also isn’t a Knick fan who wants Isaiah to stay in New York — and I don’t mean as coach or consultant or in some related basketball capacity. Knick fans want him to move from the city, the state, the region. In fact, Knick fans would be happy if the former Pistons star made his way back to the Midwest — perhaps as a distributor for used ink cartridges, or a screen-door salesman to submarine fleets.

Memo to Jimmy: Fire Isaiah and blow up the roster.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

No nukes

Nuclear power has become the rage with some in the environmental community — at least those who walk hand in hand with business. The idea is that nuke plants can provide an abundance of energy without spewing out greenhouse gases and exacerbating global warming. The downside, according to these new nuclear advocates, is rather minimal. It’s all candy and rainbows as far as they are concerned.

This is a load of hogwash (hooey, if you prefer). As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out,

a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-U.S.—nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

The agency won’t rule out nuclear power, but is willing to consider it only as a last resort and only if all of the safety issues are addressed. That’s not likely to happen anytime soon — if ever. In the meantime, every environmentalist who has been convinced to give nukes a fresh look should read today’s editorial in the LA Times.

Nuclear plants are fueled by uranium, which is becoming harder to find; uranium mining generates a good deal of carbon, which increases as we dig deeper for the radioactive material. Although nuclear power is considerably cleaner from a greenhouse-gas standpoint than alternatives such as coal-generated power, those mining emissions are nonetheless significant.

More compellingly, given the cost and time frame for building nuclear plants, it would be impossible to build them quickly enough to make an impact on global warming. There are safer, quicker, cheaper and cleaner alternatives, such as solar and wind power, greater efficiency measures and decentralized power generators that produce electricity and heat water at the same time. Let’s exhaust them before even considering the nuclear option.

As they said after Three Mile Island: No Nukes.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.