Why is Chris Christie silent on climate change, even as New Jersey is threatened by rising seas?

[xchrom]

http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-is-chris-christie-silent-on-climate-change-even-as-new-jersey-is-threatened-by-rising-seas/

?w=470&h=265&crop=1

Look up anything about recovery from Superstorm Sandy on official New Jersey government websites and you might notice something odd. The word “resiliency” is everywhere, but certain words — climate change, global warming, rising sea levels — are notably absent. Climate and sea level are not mentioned in recovery documents on the websites of the governor’s office, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), or the Department of Community Affairs, nor do they appear in a recent report by New Jersey Transit on its poor preparation for Sandy.

Consider the New Jersey Governor’s Office of Recovery and Rebuilding “Resiliency” webpage. Here is how often a few choice terms appear there:

mitigation: 9
resilience, resilient, resiliency: 23
flood: 15
climate: 0
sea: 0
ocean: 0
rise, rising: 0

Press releases from the office of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) tout his “commitment to a strong and resilient shore,” but never mention why the shore is imperiled in the first place.

[djean111]

1. Because to acknowledge climate change would upset the real estate market, would upset his

contributors, would upset current money-making projects.
Money.

[get the red out]

2. He's a Republican

They aren't allowed to believe in climate change.

[Jim Lane]

3. Christie gets a C, Cuomo gets an F

In 2013, each governor was presented with a bill that would facilitate waterfront development in areas particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surges, and other hazards that are heightened by climate change. Each governor was urged by environmentalists to veto the bill.

Christie vetoed the New Jersey bill. Cuomo signed the New York bill.

The contrast between the two was noted by the Daily News: "Republican Chris Christie appears more concerned about the dangers of climate change than New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo".

Christie gets only a C because his veto message, like the websites cited in the OP, didn't mention climate change. It referred only to maintaining eligibility for the federal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Still, Christie at least did the right thing, regardless of what he was saying. He took an action that was sound in light of the scientific understanding of climate change, while preserving his ability to tell wingnut primary voters that he was acting because of federal regulations.

Cuomo, by contrast, ignored pleas from the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations, as well as community groups from the affected areas, and continued his pattern of support for the big-money interests.

[kristopher]

4. He is actively sabotaging efforts to address climate change

Before Christy, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was established after a great deal of effort by a lot of good people.

The trading of carbon dioxide allowances exists in Europe, and in a small way in this country; some companies have taken part in trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which opened in 2003. But the market has been voluntary and participation largely experimental.

Because it makes participation in a pollution-capping scheme mandatory, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (known as RGGI and pronounced “reggie”) is already spurring more trading in anticipation. Both the Chicago exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange have recently made it possible to trade future RGGI allowances.

The trading scheme would hold carbon emissions to 188 million tons annually through 2014, and scale them back by 2.5 percent each year through 2018. The cap was set in 2004, based on analysis by energy experts and some pressure from the regulated utilities to keep the ceiling at or above the anticipated emissions. The states planned to issue allowances covering that amount. The cap takes effect Jan. 1, 2009, in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and all six New England states — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/us/16carbon.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&

After Christy, it looks a little different. Can you find the missing piece?

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first market-based regulatory program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector.

States sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI is spurring innovation in the clean energy economy and creating green jobs in each state....

http://www.rggi.org