Stand CNJ Facebook Posts

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

Comment on Facebook

Get these senators out! In 2020 vote blue no matter who💙💙💙

5 days ago

STAND CNJ

Happy Lunar New Year! ... See MoreSee Less

Happy Lunar New Year!
Load more

Take Action! Science Keeps Getting Better, Climate Keeps Getting Worse: What will Gov. Murphy do?

This from: nj-campaign-against-fossil-fuel-expansion

Take Action: the BPU is taking public comments until 5pm on November 15th. Sample email to copy, paste and send is below!

As if the science wasn’t already damning enough (2018 IPCC call for 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030), over 11,000 scientists on Nov. 5th declared a “climate emergency” and called for “massive energy efficiency and conservation practices,” “quickly cutting emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, such as soot and methane” to “slow short-term warming,” and “a carbon free economy” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088).

Yet last week, the NJ Board of Public Utilities (BPU) released a slide show analysis painting an unrealistic rosy picture of New Jersey meeting its “clean energy goals,” while the grim reality is that this critical piece of NJ’s energy road map is fatally flawed. Simply put, the Murphy Administration is not only not on track to meet its 100% clean energy by 2050 goal or its legal mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 80% by 2050,  it’s not even on track to meet the easier, more urgent and more important 45% cut in GHGs by 2030 the overwhelming scientific consensus is calling for.

As part of  NJ’s draft 2019 Energy Master Plan (EMP) process, BPU conducted an analysis and cost modeling exercise entitled the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP). The IEP identifies the blend of energy sources to meet NJ’s demands and fulfill NJ’s clean energy goals. However, it doesn’t consider public health and climate costs.

What the IEP includes

  • a holistic view of NJ’s economy wide emissions including transportation, electricity generation, buildings and other uses
  • nine different scenarios, each with one key change to test for emissions reductions and costs
  • a “lowest cost” plan / energy mix to reduce NJ’s emissions by 2050

What the IEP is severely lacking

  • any modeling scenarios that cut NJ’s emissions 45% before 2030 as recommended by IPCC 2018 report
  • modeling for a goal of carbon-free energy for New Jersey
  • modeling for immediate moratorium on any new fossil fuel infrastructure
  • front loading emission reductions to have the most significant impact on our climate emergency
  • accurately estimating the global warming potential of short-lived climate pollutants like methane and black carbon
  • counting social costs of continued reliance and use of fossil fuels
  • flexibility to use the best of some plans now and others later
  • valuing meaningful public input
  • consideration of potential impact of future regulatory and technological changes
  • any mechanisms or recommendations of how to decrease fossil fuel use

Please send an email to the BPU before 5pm on Friday November 15th. Feel free to copy, paste, and amend the sample message below. After you’ve submitted your comment to the BPU, share with friends and family asking them to do the same.

**** Sample Email ****

To: emp.comments@bpu.gov

Subject: IEP Feedback

New Jersey can and should be a global leader in addressing our climate emergency. Instead, I am alarmed by the findings presented in the Integrated Energy Plan. I demand you take all steps to address these critical structural deficiencies before finalizing the IEP and EMP.

  • any modeling scenarios that cut NJ’s emissions 45% before 2030 as recommended by IPCC 2018 report
  • modeling for a goal of carbon-free energy for New Jersey
  • modeling for immediate moratorium on any new fossil fuel infrastructure
  • front loading emission reductions to have the most significant impact on our climate emergency
  • accurately estimating the global warming potential of short-lived climate pollutants like methane and black carbon
  • counting social costs of continued reliance and use of fossil fuels
  • flexibility to use the best of some plans now and others later
  • valuing meaningful public input
  • consideration of potential impact of future regulatory and technological changes
  • any mechanisms or recommendations of how to decrease fossil fuel use