COPENHAGEN – One of the first things I noticed about the city was its green countryside, which was completely covered with wind turbines. I don’t understand the aesthetic argument against them; to me, they are a beautiful addition to the landscape.

Over the past week, I’ve noticed how fully the city seems to have embraced the COP15 conference, which ended today. A new bus line has run straight from my hostel here to the Bella Center, where events are held, and the airport. “Hopenhagen” signs are everywhere.

My second morning here, I headed to the Bella Center to get my official “non-governmental” badge and check out events. (All public transportation has been free with the badge, which kind of makes up for the expensive food.)

There were marches that day from the downtown area to the Bella Center. When I arrived at one, I stood in an incredibly long line where I met a representative from an association of electric companies based in Washington, D.C.

He introduced me to his friend, who turned out to be the person who ran the Clinton administration’s climate change task force for the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. He gave both of us a tour of the entire center, where we visited the meeting place of the delegates from the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and met Congressional staffers and people working on the U.S. delegation from the EPA and other departments.

The next day, the Countdown to Copenhagen Campaign co-sponsored an event with Hopenhagen Live in the City Hall square. Men and women representing Bolivia, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India and Norway spoke about how climate change has affected their families, communities and countries.

Here, Archbishop Desmond Tutu told to an energetic crowd that developing countries in the South want to develop, just not the way Northern countries have. While he acknowledged that financial support from the North will be necessary to allow for more sustainable development of Southern nations, Tutu said this seems minimal in comparison to the amount of money currently being spent on arms and on rescuing banks.

He emphasized the global nature of climate change and compared the walls that try to divide the world into rich or poor countries to the walls of apartheid. He called for a legally binding agreement, not just a political agreement, and declared that those fighting for this goal are on the “winning” side — the side of justice. In closing, he presented the more than 500,000 signatures collected by Countdown to Copenhagen to Yvo de Boer, the convention’s Executive Secretary.

Good luck and Al Gore
Immersing myself in COP15 events, I’ve continued to cross off my list major environmental heroes I’ve wanted to meet. My third day in town, I ran into Al Gore — twice. The first time was on my way to a meeting. After pushing through a crowd to get to the entrance, I looked up and there he was, coming out of the room. He was promptly whisked away, and the people who had been waiting outside the room ran in a single wave down the hallway after him. (The meeting started 30 minutes late.)

The second time I saw him, a friend and I were trying to attend a Danish film festival. We arrived only to discover tickets were sold out. But after seeing people get tickets — miraculously — we decided to try again. The usher eventually showed us into an overflow room. Five minutes later, the French owner of the Danish Film Institute walked in and asked us to welcome “Mr. Al Gore.” And sure enough, Gore walked in right behind him and said he wanted to come in and talk to us for a little while before he went upstairs to give the “real talk” to the people who bought tickets.

Gore began by asking people to suggest things he should mention during his speech. Someone mentioned the importance of recognizing that this is something the developed countries need to deal with, as they have historically been the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. Gore agreed, but said he understood why U.S. representatives were hesitant to sign on without emissions targets across the board — they have to go back to the U.S. to their constituents, who are feeling aggravated by job loss and exportation.

Gore called this the art of diplomacy: bringing together two ideas that have validity and seem to be completely irreconcilable. Still, he didn’t have any real, meaningful insight into finding a solution to the divide between developed and developing countries in the negotiations.

Chris Paine, the director of “Who Killed the Electric Car?,” asked how we can get past the “culture war” of the liberal/conservative divide in the U.S. Gore went off on a crazy-sounding tangent about how he thinks the science that shows there is a genetic association with being predisposed to an ideological framework is valid. He sees ideological association as a part of the human tendency to group with others and then defend that group from a threat.

Coming back to the present partisanship, he noted that healthy differences can turn hostile when political culture becomes detached from reason. When that detachment takes place, people become more vulnerable to the impulse to fight. Gore largely blames television for this trend because he sees it as essentially re-feudalizing broadcasting, delivering news from the elite to the masses. As you might expect, he praised the potential of the internet culture to offer a source of salvation.

The last response worth noting came from the point that the recent climate e-mail scandal seems to suggest that most of the population still does not understand the basic science of climate change.

Gore, saying he thinks about how to educate the public frequently, cited the lecture and book by C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures. Gore compared lobbies against climate change legislation to cigarette advertisements in the 1950s that went on in spite of the Surgeon General’s warnings. He pointed out that there is a concerted, well-financed effort by oil and coal companies to mislead people into thinking the science is somehow not valid. Aside from shifting people away from 30-second television clips and continuing to spread the science in a common language, he had no big ideas on how to change people’s minds.

Gore concluded by praising President Obama’s sustainability efforts thus far, noting that he accomplished far more in the last year than the U.S. had seen over eight years with the previous administration. (Europeans in the crowd pointed out that doing better than the George W. Bush administration, especially in the realm of international climate negotiations, does not constitute an accomplishment.)

After Gore spoke, James Balog, director of the Extreme Ice Survey, made a presentation of footage and video from the time lapse cameras he has set up on glaciers around the world documenting their retreat. While words don’t really do the images justice — check out the link — Balog made a few comments that really stuck with me. He called ice “the canary in the climate change mine” and said this argument for drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is not about belief but proof: concrete, scientific, observable reality.

He also noted the videos and photographs show things happening beyond the realm of natural variability, and that whenever he watches, it feels like “you’re seeing things you’re not meant to see as a human being.” He concluded by saying he believes that “he has the future to answer to” and that there is a responsibility to communicate this story to the world. Building on that sentiment, I encourage everyone to share the EIS footage with others.

Dana Patterson contributed to this report. This is the second in a series of posts about the convention in Copenhagen. Click here for the first, and stay tuned for the third.

Sara Imperiale and Dana Patterson are WildNewJersey.tv correspondents. Imperiale, a college senior and Morris K. Udall Scholar, is attending the Copenhagen conference through the support of IDEAS, on the web at new.ripplingideas.org.

A view of the Delaware River, by sachindaluja.

by Nancy Shukaitis and Scott Olson

As our nation searches for environmentally and economically feasible alternative methods of generating electricity – solar, wind, ocean tides, geothermal or biomass – it is unfortunate that coal has moved into first place for electricity generation.

This happened when the National Energy Policy Act and the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors became law, creating the vast, new Mid-Atlantic high voltage line corridor encompassing thirteen states – including all of New Jersey and 52 of 67 Pennsylvania counties.

Creation of this corridor does not consider alternative energy solutions – instead it facilitates use of dirty, coal-generated power by Eastern cities, defying calls for clean, renewable technologies. Power plants built great distances from population centers are contrary to good planning. Plants sited near demand centers – along with increased energy efficiency and conservation measures – are superior alternatives to long-distance transmission.

Costs for transmission projects in our corridor – estimated at 8 to 10 billion dollars and payable by ratepayers – come during stressful economic times, and when electricity use is actually decreasing.

Our local project – the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line – encourages additional coal-fired generation upwind of us, increasing pollution and adversely affecting local health. It cuts into forests and parks, degrades natural and residential areas including the Saw Creek community near Bushkill, Penn., the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and a dozen communities, from Hardwick to East Hanover, across northwest New Jersey.

The National Recreation Area was created – using eminent domain on thousands of private homes and properties – to restore the natural setting present prior to human settlement. Why? To create a natural oasis near metropolitan areas of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania for “the teeming masses” to access hiking, biking, swimming, canoeing, fishing, mountain climbing, walking the Appalachian Trail, or just sitting on the river bank watching the free-flowing Delaware River.

Widespread tree-cutting will be required to construct 190-foot towers and power lines, as construction equipment will require multiple access roads through existing natural areas.
While the exact route is not determined, this project’s transmission lines would enter the Water Gap area in Pennsylvania, and cross the Wild and Scenic Delaware River into New Jersey near Walpack Bend. It would join the almost invisible 85-foot power line on Old Mine Road (our nation’s oldest, inland commercial road, qualifying for the Historic Register), before turning up the Kittatinny Ridge, creating a conspicuous scar on the landscape while crossing the scenic Appalachian Trail.

The American public paid millions for the National Recreation Area, and citizens’ rights are about to be trampled on. The proposed high voltage lines would drastically infringe upon the aesthetic, environmental, therapeutic, recreational, historic and educational values in this federally owned park, negatively impacting miles of natural viewscape.

The public’s investment in America’s largest eminent domain acquisition for public recreation – and continued investment in the National Park Service’s stewardship of this land trust since 1965 – enables millions of visitors to annually utilize the Delaware Water Gap, our nation’s 8th most visited park.

Destruction of land in the public trust is not justified – there are alternatives. We must demand that decision-makers place the public’s trust ahead of special interests’.
The timing and motives of the utility companies’ imposition of urban, industrial hardware on nature’s exquisite landscape is questionable. The Water Gap is stationary, while the high-voltage line’s siting is flexible – it can be selective and avoid seizing land in one of America’s great national treasures.

Ken Burns’ recent documentary “National Parks: America’s Best Idea” underscores that the National Parks are ours – they belong to all citizens. We have an obligation to speak on behalf of our parks, protecting them from incompatible intrusions. Future generations will be most grateful to us for this.

We must prevail upon every federal, state, county and local elected official in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to stop this travesty. Begin by e-mailing your opposition to this project to john_j_donahue [at] nps.gov or sending letters to John Donahue, Superintendent, DWGNRA, HQ River Rd off Route 209 Bushkill, PA 18324.

If our leaders don’t protect America’s heritage, who will?

Guest contributor Nancy Shukaitis was a founder of the Delaware Valley Conservation Association, a leader in the fight against the Tocks Island Dam project in the Delaware Water Gap during the 1960s. She lives in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Guest contributor Scott Olson is deputy mayor of Byram Township, New Jersey.

Leaders from across the globe are in Copenhagen through the end of the week to make difficult decisions about climate change that will resonate long into the future.

The 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference is also an opportunity to expand the role of students in international decision-making. I am attending through the sponsorship of IDEAS, a nonprofit working to link students in developed countries with their counterparts in developing nations.

COP15 will, in the end, include more than 15,000 participants from 192 countries representing governments, the business community and civil society. We hope to attract accredited delegates from all 192 signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – as it stands, there is an unequal distribution of representation between the developed and developing countries.

What I’m hoping to get out of this does not necessarily revolve around the most prominent negotiations. Instead, I’m most excited about contributing to the voice of youth delegatation here, and talking with other young activists from around the world. Each of us brings with us our perspectives on our home countries’ positions on climate change and our thoughts on about the international negotiation process. I hope to contribute to youth delegate proposals and continue to share ideas.

I consider climate change to be the most pressing issue facing our generation and the planet. Without a healthy environment, there will be no way to tackle other social ills plaguing the United States and the global community. I hope that even if no binding international agreement is reached here, it will have been a formative experience for me and the other young activists present – after all, we will be the ones shaping policy at the local, state, national and international levels in the coming years.

I’ll be here through the end, when President Obama and the rest of the heads of state weigh in on final decisions during the last days of the conference. Check back soon for more installments from COP 15!

Dana Patterson contributed to this report. Sara Imperiale and Dana Patterson are WildNewJersey.tv correspondents. Imperiale, a college senior and Morris K. Udall Scholar, is attending the Copenhagen conference through the support of IDEAS, on the web at new.ripplingideas.org.

Fresh Jersey-grown produce and other local foods just got a little more accessible to everyone, rich or poor, in Highland Park.

A Better World Cafe offers creative, healthy, seasonal meals at suggested prices. Have that day’s “complimentary community entree,” or pay less — or more — than the listed price of your local tomato-eggplant-pesto panini or stuffed acorn squash. Volunteer your time for a free lunch. Anything goes.

To cut down on food waste, patrons pick their own portion sizes and leftovers are composted. Styrofoam is outlawed; take-out containers are compostable.

It’s all part of founder Denise Cerreta’s plan to tackle hunger and food waste in America. Cerreta, founder of One World Everybody Eats, has opened five of the cafes and is in talks with more than 50 East Coast groups interested in copying the model. Community agencies Elijah’s Promise and Who Is My Neighbor? own this cafe, the first in New Jersey, and hope it will sustain itself without grant money by year two.

The cafe is located at the Reformed Church of Highland Park, 19 South 2nd Ave., and is open during the week from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

I released a report called “Too Much Pollution” this week, a new analysis of government data on global warming pollution trends in New Jersey and nationally.

The report finds that New Jersey’s pollution increased by 16 percent from 1990 to 2007, and that the Garden State ranks 16th nationwide for the highest levels of pollution.

More pollution than ever isn’t a record we want to set. It’s time to take back control of our energy future. By harnessing the power of the wind and sun, we can cut pollution and transition to clean energy sources that don’t harm the environment, never run out, and create new, local jobs.

Let me provide a little context for this report. Then I’ll get into the details of our analysis, and what our findings mean for policymakers.

For decades, America’s use of fossil fuels — and the global warming pollution that results — have been on the rise nationally and within states. For New Jersey, global warming means a lot of things, but the impact that is perhaps most worrisome is sea level rise. If we do nothing to solve global warming, we will lose most of our treasured beaches by the end of the century. This would jeopardize our $30 billion tourism economy, much of which is shore-based. And it would eliminate critical habitats for a large number of species.

The science is clear: The U.S. must reduce pollution 35 percent by 2020 to be able to stop the worst effects of global warming. And New Jersey has a large role to play.

Our report investigates how the states are doing at cutting global warming pollution and moving to clean energy. We used the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Energy on fossil fuel consumption by state to look at trends in carbon dioxide emissions. We look at the trends by state and nationally, as well as by economic sector and fuel source. This is the first time the state-by-state emissions data have been released for 2006 and 2007.

Here are a couple of our major findings:

– Transportation was far and away the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption, responsible for more than 53 percent of the state’s emissions in 2007. Unfortunately, we remain married to automobiles for our transportation needs. In fact, CO2 emissions from burning oil jumped by 6.7 percent from 1990 to 2007, as demand for travel — thus, driving — increased. Until New Jersey invests in public transit and other transportation alternatives, and also land use policies that encourage more compact development patterns that reduce the need for driving in the first place, emissions from transportation will continue to increase.

– Nationally, emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel consumption increased by 19 percent between 1990 and 2007. Power plants and vehicles, the largest sources of CO2 emissions in the United States, were responsible for the lion’s share of the increase.

– In contrast to the trend in New Jersey, more than one-third of states succeeded in cutting pollution from 2004 to 2007 — before the onset of the recession. The initial success of these states shows that moving to clean energy can have a significant and immediate impact on overall emissions — and that emissions reductions and robust economic growth can occur side by side. For instance, four Northeast states — Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York — cut their pollution levels by 5 percent since 1997, while increasing their gross state product by 65 percent.

We can drive the economy without driving up pollution. And moving to clean energy can help boost the economy and create millions of new clean energy jobs around the country.

Moving forward, it’s clear we have to move quickly to enact some key policy standards.

First, the federal government must pass strong clean energy legislation and adopt common-sense EPA rules to cut pollution from aging coal plants and big smokestack industries. Specifically, the Senate must pass the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), sponsored by Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. In addition, EPA has proposed a rule to require coal plants and other large smokestack industries to use available technology to cut their global warming pollution when new facilities are constructed or existing facilities are significantly modified.

As for New Jersey, this problem now sits in Governor-elect Christie’s lap. Christie has no choice but address this pressing issue, as the policy decisions he makes over the next four years will determine whether we cut emissions and move toward a clean energy future, or continue the trend toward more pollution.

Specifically, Christie must:

– Oppose new mega power lines from coal country in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. PSE&G is lobbying to build a dirty coal power line from plants in Pennsylvania. Given that New Jersey is downwind, we’ll see our pollution rise even more dramatically.

– Oppose any new coal plants in New Jersey. A Massachusetts-based company is fighting to build a new coal-fired power plant in Linden. From here on out, new coal plants must be off the table — no exceptions. We have better solutions.

– Move toward more clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. With strong policies, we could triple the amount of solar in the state over the next two years. And we could power over 1.1 million homes with offshore wind energy — but only if the new governor moves quickly and decisively.

– Immediately finalize a long-term plan to cut global warming pollution 80 percent by 2050. The 2007 Global Warming Response Act requires the state to produce such a plan, yet the Corzine administration has so far failed to do so. As our report indicates, most of the cuts must come from the transportation sector, and this plan should detail specific policies that will guide policymakers in slashing pollution from transportation and all sectors of the economy.

It’s a heavy lift for sure, but we can’t wait another day. And we can no longer afford to watch our pollution rise in New Jersey. It’s time that we lead America toward a clean, renewable energy future — before it’s too late.

Green Jersey Contributor Matt Elliott is Global Warming and Clean Energy Advocate for Environment New Jersey.

New Jersey is nearing financial collapse. A Republican candidate was elected in a highly Democratic state against a Democratic incumbent. Government corruption is widespread. Over a million residents of the state are without health insurance. The PATH train is running slower.

The last one is just a minor annoyance of mine on my commute. The rest are setting up New Jersey political drama in a way that might rival the Tudor courts under Shakespeare’s pen.

An article in yesterday’s Star-Ledger focused on a PEW Center for the States report that New Jersey faces fiscal ruin, balanced against the announcement of Governor-elect Chris Christie’s transition team.

There can be no doubt that the report increases the weight on both Christie and the legislature to find ways to close the deficit and shore up the state’s finances. Christie vowed last week to veto any proposed tax increase, but a reduction of funding for state programs will not be the clear-cut option if it means the loss of jobs, and new ideas need to be found.

In particular, many are urging an increase in the gasoline tax.

New Jersey ranks 47th in the country in terms of its gas tax, which has stayed level since 2002 at 14.5 cents per gallon while the price of gas has gone ever higher.

With so much corridor traffic pulsing through New Jersey via the interstates, and with so much of current gas-tax revenue going toward paying off existing infrastructure debts, a gas tax of 10 to 20 cents more per gallon would make up a huge portion of the budget shortfall while limiting the burden on residents. A fuel-tax increase would also push more people, and revenue, to the state’s extensive public transportation network, relieving some of the budgetary burden there as well.

Christie has stated his purpose to cut regulation across the state, particularly for developers, but a lack of restraint and oversight is not likely to be an easy sell following the massive corruption scandal of a few months ago. Blindly building condos, and the ridiculousness of a venture like Xanadu, will create only temporary jobs, foster further corruption and ultimately lead to lowered income levels for the middle class.

Instead, the new administration should focus on smart growth, shaping communities in ways that promote long-term viability. Targeting particular sectors of industry, such as biotechnology, could result in sustained, healthy economic growth without sacrificing protections for residents and the environment.

Hopefully Christie’s transition team, which includes two Democratic politicians, the head of a real estate investment firm, a Chamber of Commerce president and a former president of PSE&G, will take the PEW report to heart and begin making the changes New Jersey needs.

Green Jersey contributor William Owen lives in Jersey City.

Meanwhile, here are New Jersey Future’s ideas on what smart growth will look like in a Christie Administration.

Hudson County received the state’s lowest-voter-turnout honors, perhaps because of the corruption scandal.

New Jersey filed suit against the Army Corps of Engineers today to stop Delaware River dredging. A $300 million project by the Corps calls for deepening 102 miles of the main channel from Philadelphia to the mouth of the Delaware, according to the Associated Press.

EnviroPolitics highlights a Forbes article about carbon capture and sequestration technology — the same technology proposed for the Linden coal plant.

Gannett reported that as of 11:35 p.m., with 98 percent of the state’s precincts reporting, the question was ahead 52 percent for to 48 percent against. More than 1.5 million votes were cast, according to the Associated Press.

The AP says the question passed in 15 of the state’s 21 counties, meeting with the most resistance in Sussex, Warren and Morris — all of which gave strong support to winning gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie.

The question’s approval was cheered by members of the New Jersey Keep it Green Campaign, a large coalition of organizations that had worked to get out information on the ballot question and urged the public to support it.

“Today we heard from the voters with a strong and unwavering voice that New Jersey continues to believe in these programs and recognizes the value of open space, clean water, farms and parks, not only to our pocketbooks, but to preserving what we love about New Jersey and protecting our quality of life,” said Kelly Mooij of the New Jersey Audubon Society, the campaign’s coordinator.

Democratic Assemblyman John McKeon, the ballot measure’s lead sponsor, has said that for every dollar New Jersey spends on open space, it gets 10 back.

“Today’s vote ensures that we can preserve available sources of clean drinking water by preserving thousands of acres in the Highlands region and saving hundreds of millions of dollars in filtration costs,” he said. “It is a vote to limit urban sprawl in the nation’s most densely populated state and a vote for jobs in tourism and farming.” 

Of the $400 million approved by voters, $218 million will be set aside for Green Acres open space purchases, $146 million for farmland preservation, $24 million for purchases of flood-prone land and $12 million for historic preservation.

This story was updated Wednesday, Nov. 4.

More: Open space ballot question generates mixed reactions (Trenton Times)

A ‘yes’ for open space and New Jersey’s future (Green Jersey)

Why I’m voting ‘no’ on the open space bond question (Green Jersey)

The New Jersey Sierra Club, which had a press release to us by 10:23, couldn’t resist a parting jab at the incumbent: If you’d done better on the environment, guy, you coulda won.

The group had endorsed Daggett, while another key green group, the New Jersey Environmental Federation, chose Christie. Corzine was largely left out, accused by some environmentalists of failing to keep promises, being slow to act on global warming goals and opening the door to developers.

Campaign director David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, not surprisingly, sounded optimistic about Christie’s win.

“Governor-elect Chris Christie offered the strongest environmental agenda, the best critique of the past four years and the best chance of breaking the status quo in a positive way, which is so desperately needed,” he said. “That’s what we endorsed him, and we look forward to working with him.”

Matt Elliott of Environment New Jersey, which endorsed no one, hoping instead to inject environmental issues into the race, was more cautious: “New Jersey’s next governor faces some big, critical environmental challenges. I hope that Christie will rise to the challenges before him… he needs to promote renewable energy in a big way while opposing more coal plants and more coal power lines.

“He needs to figure out permanent, dedicated funding for open space. And he needs to clean up our toxic sites and protect our precious air and water resources.”

The Sierra Club, in its statement, talked up Daggett but congratulated Christie on his win.

“We believe we will be able to work with him on trying to improve New Jersey ’s environment and wish him success,” the group said. “We plan to hold him to the commitments he made to the environment while campaigning.”

As of 11 p.m., the open-space ballot question was looking like it had a strong chance of succeeding — barely. The vote was 51 percent to 49 percent, according to Gannett.

This story was updated Wednesday, Nov. 4.

More: Chris Christie wins NJ Governor’s Race (Star-Ledger)

New Jersey: Where the least unpopular man wins (Huffington Post)

Congratulations: Now comes the hard part (Star-Ledger)

I will be voting “no” on an open space question for the first time in my life, a decision that will perhaps come as a surprise to many of my grassroots environmentalist friends.

It was certainly not an easy choice, being a member of Byram’s Open Space Committee, and given the enthusiastic support I gave to the issue when it was on the ballot in 2007. But it was that very effort — plus the new perspective as an elected official — that most influences my decision today.

First, those of us advocating for the ballot measure in 2007 were flat-out lied to by politicians who lack the backbone to make difficult choices and do the right thing this year: implement a water user fee to properly safeguard the resources protecting our drinking water supply. We were promised that the 2007 bonding decision would be a temporary, stop-gap measure, and that a stable, permanent source of open space funding would be on the ballot for 2009. That didn’t happen.

Shame on those who lied, and shame on the conservation leaders who are once again more than willing to continue to accept these temporary funding “hand-me-downs” at the further expense of upstream taxpayers, rather than demanding the “new clothes” they want and deserve, funded fairly by all New Jersey residents who benefit from it.

I believe that far too many “downstream” water users take what happens for granted when turning on that tap. The fresh, clean and safe water that flows right now is being subsidized by upstream municipalities who for years have battled developers — and now rapidly increasing tax rates — to protect that resource. Everyone who benefits from clean water needs to help fund its protection. A water user fee is a fair and equitable way to ensure that those protecting our drinking water supply are properly compensated for doing so.

But perhaps more importantly, my perspective since 2007 has changed drastically after having gone through two tough budget processes as an elected councilman in Byram Township. I’ve seen firsthand the damage done — by both Democrats and Republicans in Trenton — to the financial well-being of our state.

I’ve seen our state aid drop, and our “unfunded mandates” increase. I’ve seen nearly double-digit increases in health insurance costs. I’ve witnessed public worker unions — knowing a “legally-corrupt” state binding arbitration process will support their case — demanding 4 percent or greater wage increases in an economy where private sector workers are taking pay cuts to preserve their jobs, if they still have jobs to keep.

In my own town, I’m watching in agony as an obscene abuse of bonding for a transportation project begins to take place — the widening of less than a mile of Route 206 — at the incredible cost of approximately $40 million. Using Transportation Trust Fund bonded money, that project will cost the tax payers nearly $100 million before it is paid off.

Byram Township and Sussex County, like many municipalities and counties statewide, have a permanent, dedicated open space tax, still levied despite a faltering economy. I am proud of the work that Byram has done to achieve preservation of some incredible parcels in our town using those funds, matched in part in most cases by Green Acres funding.

I will continue to advocate for open space protection in my town, and statewide. But it’s time for the state to take the example set by these municipalities and counties and create a dedicated, long-term source for open space funding.

For the last decade or longer, politicians in Trenton — on both sides of the aisle — have borrowed and bonded with our tax dollars like a teenager with a brand new credit card, their supporters lobbying for this spending and exerting “peer pressure” to do so.  But the bill has come due, at an exorbitant price. Just look at your local property tax bill and tell me if you are happy with it. It’s time to cut up the credit cards and show a little tough love to the misbehaving kids, and vote no on any further borrowing, no matter how “worthy” the cause.

And come Wednesday, no matter what the results of the ballot question, you can count on me to continue fighting fiercely for a stable, long-term and dedicated source of open space funding, so that we can continue to protect the precious natural resources that remain threatened within our state. I hope all of you will join me in that effort.

With all that said, I’ve assembled some editorials and opinion pieces from the biggest “movers and shakers” of conservation groups and newspapers statewide to help you with an informed vote on Ballot Question One this Tuesday. Read the opinions below, and make your own choice.

• Green groups push passage of open space question (The Record)
• Opinions divided on New Jersey open space ballot question (The Express-Times)
  
• How can empty space be so expensive? (Suburban Trends)
  
• New Jersey farmers’ position on open space preservation (newjerseynewsroom.com)
  
• No more debt (The Record)
  
• Voters face a painful decision on open space (The Daily Journal)
  
• Back bonding for open space (Asbury Park Press)
  
• Open-space bond question / Reluctantly, no (Press of Atlantic City)
  
• Choose it or lose it: Six reasons to cast ‘Yes’ vote (Madison Eagle)
  
• Vote no on Question One (Daily Record)
• Vote no on N.J.’s open space bond question (Star-Ledger)
• N.J. open space bond issue a smart choice for our future (Star-Ledger)

Guest contributor Scott Olson is deputy mayor of Byram Township.

By Michael Pisauro

In just a few days, New Jersey will choose not only its governor, but whether or not it will continue its long history of supporting open space.

On Nov. 3, New Jerseyans will vote on the “Green Acres, Water Supply and Floodplain Protection, and Farmland and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2009″ — or public question #1. How we, as a state, vote on this question will determine whether we preserve New Jersey for us and for future generations — whether we hand New Jersey to our children in a better condition than we got it — or whether they will ask us why we did not ask to protect New Jersey when we had the chance.

New Jersey has a long and proud history of supporting open space. The state’s long-standing preservation program has been a shining example of a good government program and has been looked at by many states as they create their own open-space programs.

In today’s economy, why should we continue to preserve open space? Open space provides many benefits and resources that we could not afford to lose.

Preserving open space will help protect our drinking water. New Jersey gets its drinking water from aquifers and from surface waters. When the Highlands Act was being debated, water companies testified that it would cost upwards of $30 billion to treat the water if the land surrounding our water resources was not protected. We can either spend some money today to preserve our drinking water or we can spend lots more later to make sure it is fit to drink. This is not hyperbole, but real-world experience from other states like New York. New York saved $6 billion in capital costs and $300 million in operating costs for new water filtration by preserving the Catskill and Delaware watersheds.

When we preserve the lands around important surface waters, we allow the waters to be filtered by the land — resulting in cleaner water reaching our streams and rivers. We also slow the rush of water toward those rivers, reducing erosion and downstream flooding. Historically, New Jersey has had the fourth highest number of claims for flood damage. As a state that is highly developed, all of New Jersey’s roads, sidewalks and parking lots channel water rapidly to the streams and rivers nearby. By preserving land around surface waters, natural vegetation can slow, filter and clean the water, resulting in more water going into the ground and cleaner water reaching streams and rivers. More open space can mean less flooding. Less flooding means less property damage, less loss of homes and less compensation to those affected.

Open space also means economic opportunities. An estimated $2.8 billion to $9.7 billion  worth of products are obtained from New Jersey’s environment. This ranges from farm-grown produce to shellfish and fish from our rivers, bays and coast. New Jersey also receives about $2.2 billion from eco-tourism, money spent by hikers, vacationers, sightseers, birdwatchers, hunters and anglers.

For the average household, the cost of implementing public question #1 will be less than $10 a year. For less than a couple of cups of coffee, New Jersey can insure that its water supply is protected and cleaner. New Jersey can ensure lands around streams and rivers can be protected to reduce flooding. New Jersey can ensure lands are preserved to allow for the recharge of aquifers.

Open space, farmland preservation and historic preservation will help the state achieve a balance. Over the last several years, New Jersey has been losing some 15 acres a day to development. In fact, according to studies, New Jersey is likely to be the first state to reach full build-out and we will do so within the next 40 years. Full build-out means that there will not be a single lot left to build on. All of that development requires new roads, sewers or septic systems, new electrical wires — in short, lots of new infrastructure, which is expensive to install and maintain. Much of this new infrastructure will come at the cost of the taxpayer — both the cost to install and the cost to maintain. Not only can open space help reduce these costs, it can help property in proximity to the preserved land maintain its value — and, in some cases, increase it.

It is vital that we protect our open spaces and our agricultural lands. While it may be hard to ask for money in this economic climate, this will be money well spent — and, it is estimated, return 10 times the money paid in benefits to the citizens of New Jersey. That $10 a year will provide a better future for us and our children.

Guest contributor Michael Pisauro is an attorney and lobbyist with the New Jersey Environmental Lobby.

The state’s environmentalists applauded the vote, calling it a win for public health, the environment and renewable energy. Rachel Kohl, a global warming associate with Environment New Jersey, said her group hopes it “sets the tone for any further pursuit of new coal plants in Linden or the state of New Jersey.”

A “yes” vote by the council would have fast-tracked the creation of a coal plant on the 98-acre site of the former DuPont plant, and brought a new coal plant to a region that already fails to meet minimum federal health standards for air pollution.

But this wasn’t to be your standard coal plant: As planned, the $5 billion, 750-megawatt “PurGen” plant would use an emerging technology to capture and sequester carbon dioxide, pumping it deep underground rather than blowing it off into the atmosphere. Most of the exhaust from the plant would be liquefied and travel through a 100-mile underground pipeline to a point 70 miles off the Jersey coast, almost two miles under the ocean floor — and there, so it goes, it would remain.

Image: Daniel Schrag, Harvard University

The proposal captured the attention of national media, and set off alarm bells for local residents and skeptics, including many in the state’s environmental community.

Some environmentalists call the carbon capture and sequestration technology promising, since it keeps most of coal’s CO2 emissions from contributing to global warming. At this point, Norway is the only country that has undertaken a large project to bury greenhouse gas emissions under the sea, according to the New York Times.

Former N.J. DEP commissioner Bradley Campbell is a consultant on the Linden project, by SCS Energy of Concord, Mass.; he told the Times for a story over the weekend that environmental groups need to learn to compromise.

“One of the difficult challenges that climate change presents is that environmental groups are very good at opposing projects, and not very good at making compromises in supporting projects,” he told the newspaper. “We need to get beyond the mind-set that there’s a perfect alternative if we ever hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

Last week, a group of about 25 union members upstaged a campaign kick-off by the Arthur Kill Watershed Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups that had formed to oppose the project. Proponents of the proposed plant have cited a need for jobs.