Climate Change Activists Were Slow To Warm To NJ Gov. Murphy. But They Don’t Like the Alternative

A 30-mile stretch along the Delaware River, just south of Philadelphia, represents two sides of New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy's environmental record.

In Lower Alloways Creek, the Murphy Administration has invested in a manufacturing and shipping terminal for wind turbines — as part of a plan to supply the entire East Coast with clean energy infrastructure.

“What we're doing here today is not only going to create good jobs, overwhelmingly good union jobs, but it is going to be perhaps our greatest stand against climate change,” Murphy said at a September ribbon cutting.

Although environmentalists and progressives are thrilled with the turbine plant, they are unhappy about another project along the Delaware: A proposal to build a liquid natural gas terminal in Gibbstown.

The facility, which would receive fracked gas from Pennsylvania, is an example of why climate activists have been frustrated with the first years of the Murphy Administration. But as the election has gotten closer, the governor has sought their support.

Despite their complaints about Murphy, environmentalists say his Republican challenger Jack Ciattarelli would be worse — but they’re still calling on the incumbent to stick to his pledges for making New Jersey run on 100% clean energy by 2050.

Hot and Cold

Under former Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey's carbon dioxide emissions per capita dropped only 1% from the start of his tenure in 2010 until Murphy took over in 2018, according to energy and census data compiled by the federal government. That's among the least progress in the country, ranking alongside major polluters like Texas.

Prior to Christie, overall energy emissions dropped about 13% from 2000 to 2010. But even during Murphy’s first two years, carbon pollution didn’t budge, based on the state’s data.

“When you look at the governor's record over the course of the last four years, there was so much that Gov. Murphy needed to do to catch up from the inaction, delay and environmental harm of the Christie Administration,” said Doug O'Malley, director of the Environment New Jersey research and policy center, who likes several of the decisions Murphy has made.

The Lower Alloways wind turbine project, for example, is the centerpiece of Murphy's efforts to wean the state off fossil fuels. Shifting to wind energy, Murphy said, will boost renewables production in New Jersey to 7,500 megawatts by 2035, cutting carbon emissions from energy production by almost half.

Murphy also rejoined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, created incentives for electric vehicles and boosted wind and solar alternatives. He also stopped a gas pipeline in the Pinelands National Reserve and a gas-powered plant in the Meadowlands.

But O’Malley said climate activists in the state oppose new fossil fuel projects.

“It’s critical for the governor to stick by his climate guns and work to push forward the vision of a clean, renewable energy future, but also to be able to say ‘no’ to projects when they don't make sense for our climate or the environment,”

Environmentalists are upset about a proposal by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission to build a generator powered by natural gas in the Ironbound neighborhood of Newark. The low-income immigrant community is already home to many industrial facilities, including a waste incinerator, a power plant and a sewage treatment plant.

Last September, Murphy passed what he called the strongest environmental justice law in the country, which would stop new projects if they create environmental contamination in low-income communities that are already burdened with polluting projects.

“It's inappropriate that there is a third power plant being proposed for the Ironbound,” said Maria Lopez-Nunez, an organizer with the Newark-based nonprofit Ironbound Community Corporation.

“I'm reasonably optimistic that we can and will do better. If Murphy is reelected, a lot of the environmental justice goals that we have set will be met,” she said. “But they can only be met if we really stop the power plant from coming into the neighborhood.”

The Challenger

Former State Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli acknowledges that climate change is causing more severe storms and flooding. During a recent debate, he argued for putting more resources into preparing for extreme weather and moving flood-prone residents to higher ground. But protection from storms doesn't address one of the sources of the problem: greenhouse gases made by the energy industry.

“I do believe the governor's energy policy is not realistic,” Ciattarelli said at the debate. “It's not a rational transition. It's too much, too soon, too fast. And it's not the right deployment of public funds right now — right now! — to get people out of harm's way.”

“It is incredibly telling that there's really nothing about the environment or climate change or energy on Jack Ciattarelli’s website,” said O’Malley from Environment New Jersey.

Focusing on weather preparations instead of energy plays well in south Jersey districts that voted for President Donald Trump.

“He acknowledges that there's climate change,” said Harry Hurley, host of a conservative talk-radio show on WPGG, which broadcasts from just outside Atlantic City. “It's so nuanced that he does not offend his base. And he also picks up a shot of maybe a disaffected Democrat voter or an independent who would typically lean Democrat. So I think that Ciattarelli is being effectively strategic.”

Hurley's show broadcasts across the part of the state where Murphy's wind port is now under construction, which is expected to create 1,500 permanent jobs and hundreds of construction jobs. But Hurley says his callers are more worried about the cost of gas than a problem that seems far in the future.

“I can tell you, I don't get, really, any calls about energy, alternative, wind turbines,” Hurley said.

It’s a microcosm of the political divide on climate change. David Robinson, the state’s climatologist and a professor in the Rutgers University geography department, tries to steer clear of electoral politics. But he said the science is clear: The actions taken today will make the difference by the middle of the century.

“As a scientist, I want to make sure things are being done properly, but I don't think there's any reason we shouldn't go full speed ahead,” Robinson said. “It's going to take some time. It's not going to happen overnight. But if we wait too long, our children and grandchildren are going to be paying the price later this century.”