States’ Differing Responses to the Impact of Climate Change and Coastal Development
Caroline Weiss
New Jersey: First State to Assess Climate Impacts in Building Plans
On Monday, January 27th, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy declared the state’s commitment to attaining 50 percent clean energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. Although some other states share the goal of 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, New Jersey will be the first to necessitate that projects desiring permits from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), such as state-funded building plans, consider the impact of climate change on their construction plans. New Jersey’s energy master plans require that builders evaluate how their projects’ emissions will influence global warming. Murphy’s executive order directs the DEP to write the Protecting Against Climate Threat (PACT) rules, which will include the stipulation that the permitting procedure involves consideration of sea level rise and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, new air pollution limitations will be implemented.
These regulations are to be completed and put into effect by January 2022, a deadline that has been criticized by some environmental groups. For example, Empower NJ has denounced this timeline because at least 12 new projects dependent on fossil fuels are likely to be executed over the next two years. Instead, Empower NJ advocates for prohibiting all new projects using fossil fuels. On the other hand, groups such as the New Jersey Conservation Foundation were satisfied by Murphy’s effort to lead the way to a future built upon clean energy.
As a Democrat, Murphy’s executive order is part of a larger attempt by states to resist the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce environmental regulations. New Jersey’s goal is to lower emissions and, through land-use policies, control where and what developers can build, adding another level of supervision to the building process as well as motivating changes in individual and corporate practices.
Effectively, New Jersey is setting a precedent for other states by deciding to make development decisions based upon future climate consequences. These construction requirements are particularly important in New Jersey. The state has 130 miles of coastline, which are very important to its economy. For example, ocean resources provide New Jersey with a profitable commercial fishing industry, the biggest container port on the east coast, coastal tourism, and artificial reefs that serve as habitats needed to support the recreational fishing industry. These lucrative industries will diminish in economic value if climate action is not taken, as sea levels are expected to rise by over a foot by 2030 and two feet by 2050. In light of past repression of the use of climate science in development, New Jersey’s plans indicate a much-needed breakthrough.
North Carolina: Ban on Consideration of Sea-Level Rise in Building Coastal Communities
In 2012, North Carolina legislators forbade the use of the Coastal Resources Commission’s (CRC) 2010 report demonstrating that the sea level could increase up to 39 inches by 2100, which could endanger 2,000 square miles of eastern US coastline. The CRC was formed in 1974, when the North Carolina General Assembly approved the Coastal Area Management Act, to identify regions of environmental concern, create policies for coastal development, and authorize local land use proposals. Some legislators and lobbyists were concerned about the report’s potential interference with development of coastal real estate. They attempted to undermine these scientific findings in order to defend homeowners’ property rights. As knowledge of the repercussions of sea-level rise would likely halt the repair or reconstruction of oceanfront homes and raise insurance costs, the report was perceived as threatening.
To undermine the scientists’ work and protect the interest of real estate, House Bill 819 was written with the following components: the Coastal Resources Commission must produce a new report predicting a smaller increase in sea levels over the next 30 years (rather than 100), review scientific research invalidating rising sea levels, and to include the monetary costs the state would face if it restricted development due to sea level increases. The law, sponsored by former real estate agent Pat McElraft, passed without the governor’s signature and was approved at the same time that the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that the sea level from Cape Hatteras to Boston was rising at a rate four times that of the U.S. average. Moreover, a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that 2.5 million homes and businesses worth a total of $1 trillion will be threatened by sea-level rise by 2100. Due to continued flooding, many people could lose their homes or real estate investments, and millions of dollars in property taxes used by North Carolina to pay for schools and public safety could be jeopardized. Yet, these alarming statistics and projections were cast aside by legislators in North Carolina in favor of the short-term interests of real estate. As Deborah Ross, a Democratic representative of Raleigh at the time, stated, “By putting our heads in the sand, literally, for four years, we are not helping property owners. We are hurting them because we are not giving them information they may need to protect their property.”
Florida’s Ban of the Phrase “Climate Change”
Over the next 85 years, Florida’s beaches will be at risk due to sea-level rise, a crisis that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)—the organization primarily responsible for planning for the impacts of climate change—struggles to discuss. In official correspondence or reports, DEP officials in Florida have been forbidden from using the expressions “climate change,” “global warming,” and “sustainability.” According to former DEP employees, this order was implemented in 2012, when Governor Rick Scott took office and named Herschel Vinyard Jr. as the DEP’s director. Scott, who denies the science behind climate change, is more concerned with the cost of climate change legislation, such as a carbon tax, ensured that this policy was verbally communicated across the state. Yet Vinyard, who has resigned from his role as director of the DEP, refused to comment for the Miami Herald’s article about the policy; similarly, Scott’s spokeswoman, Jeri Bustamante, outright denied the policy.
Within the DEP, which has around 3,200 employees and a $1.4 billion budget, this unwritten policy has impacted reports, education, and government law. For example, the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council’s Annual Research Plan, written in part by the DEP and published the year before Scott’s election, includes 15 references to “climate change.” Yet the 2014-2015 report instead contains less impactful terms such as “climate-driven changes” and “climate drivers.” In 2014, the Coral Reef Conservation Program met with volunteers to provide training about the risks that coral reefs face. The presenters were forbidden from displaying the phrase “climate change,” frustrating volunteers who were confused by the lack of recognition of one of the largest threats to coral reefs. Without being able to specifically discuss climate change, officials will continue to struggle to plan for its effects.
On the bright side, the ban seems to be in the process of ending or to have already ended, as Governor Ron DeSantis, who took office in January 2019, prioritized the environment and used the term “climate change” in an announcement regarding his proposal for an Office of Resiliency and Coastal Protection. For the many Floridians, simply hearing the phrase “climate change” from leading government officials indicates a significant advancement.
However, censorship of the term “climate change” is unfortunately a political tactic not specific to Florida. As of August 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff have been forbidden from using the phrase “climate change” and instructed to allude to “weather extremes” instead (Figure 1). The Trump administration was involved in the language that some federal employees are required to use regarding climate change, as evidenced by an email chain, acquired by the Guardian, between staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a USDA unit that supervises farmers’ land conservation.
Ultimately, restriction of the terms “climate change” and related phrases is incredibly detrimental to the progress of clean energy, limited emissions, and other strategies important to reducing the impacts of climate change. While New Jersey is taking important action to consider and lessen development’s effects on climate change, the repression of climate science is still prevalent in other states and in the federal government. Progress needed to combat climate change is hindered by censorship, an issue that the citizenry should become aware of and protest.
Figure 1: Climate change language as prescribed by the USDA/Trump administration
Posted February 14, 2020
Works Cited
Bennett, Abbie. "NC Banned a Study on Sea-Level Rise. Could It Mean More Hurricane Destruction?" The News and Observer, 12 Sept. 2018, www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article218287205.html.
Green, Amy. "In Florida, a New Governor Speaks the Words, 'Climate Change.'" WLRN, 30 Apr. 2019, www.wlrn.org/post/florida-new-governor-speaks-words-climate-change#stream/0.
Korten, Tristram. "In Florida, Officials Ban Term 'Climate Change.'" Miami Herald, 8 Mar. 2015, www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html.
Milman, Oliver. "US Federal Department Is Censoring Use of Term 'Climate Change', Emails Reveal." The Guardian, Guardian News and Media Limited, 7 Aug. 2017, www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language....
Office of Coastal Planning. "Ocean Resources Management in New Jersey." NJ.gov, State of New Jersey, Mar. 2002, www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/fact3.pdf.
Rosane, Olivia. "New Jersey Will Be First State to Require Building Permits to Consider the Climate Crisis." EcoWatch, 28 Jan. 2020, www.ecowatch.com/new-jersey-climate-crisis-building-permits-2644940252.html.
Tully, Tracey. "With 130-Mile Coast, New Jersey Marks a First in Climate Change Fight." The New York Times, New York Times Company, 27 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/nyregion/climate-change-nj-environmental-rule....