In a blog post that follows up on a New York Times newspaper story about the groundbreaking McKinsey report on the enormous opportunity for energy efficiency as a resource for tackling global warming there is a nice discussion of the statewide energy efficiency utility in Vermont.

A few key points about the McKinsey report:

• The report shows that a comprehensive approach to making the United States more energy efficient could save consumers $1.2 trillion by 2020.
• The report finds that this approach could also cut overall energy consumption in the U.S. by 23% in the next decade, eliminating the need for expensive new coal plants and dramatically reducing our carbon emissions by up to 1.1 gigatons.
• The study cites research suggesting that energy efficiency could create 600,000 to 900,000 sustainable green jobs in twelve years.

The Efficiency Vermont model, that CLF helped build and grow, as well as other successful models like the programs administered by conventional utilities in Massachusetts, and efforts on the regional level, have made New England a national leader in this critical area – but there is so much more that can be done . . .

Popularity: 1% [?]

In the ongoing debate about allowing recreational ATV use on Vermont state wildlife management areas, forests, and parks it seems that hikers and rare, threatened, and endangered forest plants and animals aren’t the only ones who need to worry about getting run over.  The Sunday front-page article titled “State Biologists Worry About Wider ATV Use” written by Burlington Free Press reporter Candace Page details how Agency Secretary Jonathan Wood put the pedal to the metal on his proposal to open state lands to ATVs even as scientists and field experts from his own agency staff raised serious concerns about the negative environmental impact ATVs are already having in Vermont.  Here’s one representative comment from an email written by a Fish and Wildlife Department Ecologist regarding the first proposal to open legal ATV trails on state lands:

“I am concerned that development of this piece of state land for ATV travel will open the door to more trails on other wildlife management areas, state park and state forests…Illegal ATV trails are now a pervasive feature on public lands and I have had the opportunity to walk many of them.  In a majority of cases, ATV riding has a clearly negative impact on the natural resources we steward.”

ATV "mudding" causes water pollution and degrades sensitive wetland habitats

The article was based in large part on internal agency communications obtained by Conservation Law Foundation through the freedom of information process and that were shared with the Free Press as well as other members of the media and legislative leaders who will have to vote later this summer on whether to approve the Agency’s proposal to allow construction of ATV trails on state lands.  You can see more excerpts from these public records by reading our comments on the proposed rule.

In addition to ANR scientists, CLF and its coalition partners have been joined by hundreds of Vermonters who also filed comments opposing this environmentally irresponsible proposal, outnumbering supporters of the proposal by a nearly 3-to-1 margin.

A recent 3-part investigative report from the Minnesota Star Tribune titled “Renegade Riders” demonstrates that the scientists and other field experts in Vermont are justified in their concern over the decision of political appointees at the agency to open state lands to ATV trails.  Minnesota state officials opened public land in that state to legal ATV trail riding several years ago.  Ever since, the Minnesota agency has been struggling to get a handle on the environmental destruction and out-of-control illegal off-trail riding that exists despite the ample opportunities ATVers have on legally designated trails.  If you want to see what these powerful machines can do to sensitive forest habitat, spend a few minutes watching the hidden camera video shot by the reporters for the Star Tribune.

Later this summer, 8 members of the Vermont legislature “joint committee on administrative rules” have a chance to stop this scientifically unsound policy in its tracks.  Please contact CLF if you’d like to help make sure that happens.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Environmentalists tend to be the kind of people who hang on to things.  Keenly aware of the impact of constantly buying new things – whether it be cars, appliances or other “hard goods” – the kind of folks who are CLF members (and are likely reading this) tend to avoid buying new things.  This is especially true where buying something new, like a new car, simply means shifting the use of the old item to someone else.  Driving a new efficient hybrid car is not a satisfying experience if you are aware that your older, less efficient car, will end up back on the road.

However, if you own an older car and want to move to a newer more efficient model while being sure that your old car will be scrapped and taken off the road the Federal Government has a deal for you.

Here are the basic rules for the program, as presented by the Feds:

• Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
• Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify
• Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
• Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in
• You don’t need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
• Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.
• The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

Fortunately, the supply of cleaner and more efficient cars available for sale continues to expand, thanks in large part to the rules requiring a shift in the new car fleet mandated by the rules adopted by the Northeastern states (following the lead of California).   We are proud to note that CLF played a key role in defending those rules in court.

Update (August 6, 2009):

Unless you have been living in a cave you will have heard that the program is on the verge of running out of money and efforts are being made to “refuel it”.

Attempts at looking at the potential environmental benefits of the program range from the skeptical to the mildly positive to the fiercely negative.  A good middle ground was the comment of a leading environmental lawyer reported by CNET News:

“It’s not that it’s a bad idea; just don’t sell it as a cost-effective energy savings method,” Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University said in an academic journal. “From an economic standpoint it seems to be a roaring success. From an environment and energy perspective, it’s not where you would put your first dollar.”

The critiques of the program have some serious validity.  Would it be better for this money to be spent on public transit operations ?  Would a fundamental change in the funding paradigm that would shift money from roads to transit (as CLF has called for in our Five Steps for the Next Five Years climate vision document) be much better? Absolutely yes.

But my pragmatic bottom line is that this program has far more environmental benefit than so many other things the Federal government does and pays for that it is hard to get worked up about this one.

Popularity: 24% [?]

As my first post to the CLF Blogosphere I want to offer an alternative perspective on fostering environmental conservation and social justice, and I’m just going to say it: economics.

Allow me to introduce you to CLF Ventures, Inc., the non-profit consulting affiliate of the Conservation Law Foundation. CLF started Ventures in 1997 to foster creative, client-centered environmental solutions. At that time, CLF recognized that the challenges facing the environment could not be overcome through litigation and advocacy tools alone. This happened relatively early in the game, and was a pretty progressive move for an established environmental advocacy organization with the history and grassroots credibility of CLF.

Today, CLF Ventures provides a unique model for advancing environmental change—by implementing projects that have demonstrable environmental gain as well as economic advantage—and that complement the work of our advocacy colleagues. We use a unique combination of environmental, non-profit and community insights to help private and public organizations become more sustainable through the creation of effective risk assessment and collaborative stakeholder engagement strategies.  Our distinct value to clients is our ability to gain stakeholder and regulatory insights that are impossible for clients to collect on their own due to poor existing community relationships. Our value to the stakeholder community is our ability to bring our clients to the table under circumstances conducive to collaboration. We have a demonstrated record of successful outcomes wherein our clients and the community come to better understand each other’s values and needs.

This may sound like boilerplate consulting mumbo jumbo, but the point is critically valid: the world is complex and the world of environmental advocacy is more complex still. Very rarely are the issues black and white. While the best option to secure needed social and environmental protections may be legal advocacy, it is not the only option. Put another way, litigation is a hammer, and it’s a very effective tool for driving nails, but not every environmental problem is a nail. When an organization is making real changes to improve impacts on the surrounding community and environment, CLF Ventures will leave the hammer at home and load up the toolbox with other job-appropriate tools to help them succeed.

Let me step away from the confusion of a not-so-clever metaphor and be perfectly clear: before many others, CLF recognized that market-driven solutions can complement environmental advocacy. Twelve years on, CLF Ventures has successfully demonstrated that business interests are not incompatible with social and environmental interests, and that when given a chance, and proper guidance, partnerships with the private sector can provide leadership and innovation that benefits our economy, our community, and our environment.

There may always be a need for litigation and legal advocacy, but we at CLFV are grateful that CLF understands and supports our efforts to influence environmental change through markets and bottom lines as an alternative means to the same end.

Visit CLF Ventures online to learn more: www.clfventures.org

Popularity: 1% [?]

Once upon a time Conservation Law Foundation and our allies in Maine waged a long and ardous battle to prevent the development of Sears Island, the largest undeveloped island in Maine, as a bulk cargo facility.   Many local citizens supported this effort both because of the environmental impact of the project but also because of the fact that such ports rapaciously consume land while generating very little high quality economic activity.

The nearby historic port city of Searsport is now experiencing a much more positive kind of shipping boom – the importation of wind turbines to build the new clean energy infrastructure needed to tackle global warming and build a safe and stable economy for Maine, New England and the nation.  A recent New York Times article detail the difficulty of moving these large structures on land from the port to wind farm sites and a followup blog entry describes the ironic problem of handling these structures when it is windy.

These are the kind of practical problems that need to be overcome if we are to build a new economy based on clean energy.   They are good problems to have – because as we overcome them we are really building for the future and moving beyond short sighted “economic development” that sacrificed the environment and the future for a project only of immediate and dubious benefit.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Photo Credit: Cape Cod Times

I was disheartened, but not surprised, to read news accounts of a massive fish kill earlier this week on Cape Cod.  Over 1,000 fish turned belly-up in a river that feeds into a bay along the south shore of Cape Cod.  The mystery here is not so much about what caused this devastation, but how quickly the fix will come. And why more people aren’t up in arms about the problem?

The culprit is well-known to most who live on the Cape – septic systems leach nitrogen through the sandy soil and into coastal rivers and bays. This, in turn, feeds runaway algae and plant growth that robs fish of oxygen and wreaks havoc on the ecosystem. The nitrogen puts valuable shellfish beds at risk, too. Scientific reports show the problem is growing. Year after year, the upper reaches of many bays along Cape Cod (including coastal rivers) are being overtaken by unsightly, smelly algae.

Memories of cleaner waters…

The algae-clogged waterways I have learned of from CLF members and scientific reports are a far cry from what I remember.  My family’s vacations to Cape Cod were among our best ever, and not just because of the mini-golf and plentiful ice cream.  We played in a salt pond for hours on a giant inflatable turtle. We learned to swim in the bays’ gentle waves. We dug for clams in the tidal flats, and explored rivers and creeks.

Do you have similar memories? Maybe you want to make sure the bays stay pristine, for your own children or grandchildren. That is one reason we at CLF are working hard to address this problem.

What is being done?

Right now, residents and town officials in the 15 towns on Cape Cod are making crucial decisions about how to deal with the nitrogen problem. Septic systems in many places will have to go, or be upgraded. Yes, this will be expensive. Some federal and state funds are available to help. By account of the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, 43% of the Cape’s economy is driven by tourism, and shellfish beds bring in additional revenue.   What would be the price of losing the gorgeous blue water, clean sand, and healthy shellfish that so many of us have come to love?

Click here learn more about our Cape Cod advocacy. And weigh in!

Popularity: 1% [?]

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the “discovery” of Lake Champlain by the French explorer Samuel de Champlain. Of course the Lake’s been there for more than 400 years and de Champlain was certainly not its first human “discoverer.”  Putting aside the anthropological and historical debates, we here at CLF think it’s always a good time to celebrate the many important roles that water bodies such as Lake Champlain–one of the largest freshwater lakes in the country–play in our lives.

Phosphorus pollution causes blue-green algae blooms, like this one that appeared in Lake Champlain's Missisquoi Bay in 2007. (Image Source, Vermont Department of Health)

Alas, there hasn’t been much to celebrate when it comes to water quality in many parts of Lake Champlain that are plagued annually with “blooms” or “scums” of blue-green algae caused by excess phosphorus pollution.

This pollution comes from a variety of sources including manure and other agricultural wastes, polluted storm water runoff from parking lots, rooftops, streets, and other developed areas, and from sewage treatment plant discharges.

Last week, the Vermont Health Department posted its first health advisory of the summer, warning of blue-green algae sightings in Lake Champlain’s Missisquoi Bay, Shelburne Bay, and even traces of the scum were spotted in the water off Red Rocks Park–a popular swimming location in Burlington.

As the Health Department’s advisory warns, blue-green algae can do more than just make the water look nasty.  When blue-greens are blooming the Health Department advises as follows:

• Avoid contact with algae-contaminated water.
• Do not swim or bathe in the water. Remember that children are considered to be at higher risk because they are more likely to drink the water.
• Monitor water intakes for private residences. If you see algae present near the intake, switch to an alternate safe source of water.
• Do not use algae contaminated water to prepare meals or brush teeth. Boiling water will not remove toxins.
• Do not allow pets in algae-contaminated water.

While this depressing news can give lake lovers the blues, there is cause for hope.

Earlier this month, the Vermont Environmental Court struck down a permit issued by Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to the City of Montpelier’s sewage treatment plant, reasoning that the permit–which would have allowed the City to more than double its load of phosphorus pollution to Lake Champlain–violated the federal Clean Water Act.

This is a major victory for CLF and the Lake Champlain Lakekeeper in the broader efforts to reduce pollution in the lake at a time when Vermont is exceeding its legally-required pollution reduction targets by more than 100 metric tons each year. This news report does a good job of summarizing the decision, which can be read in full here.

Instead of redesigning the permit to actually decrease pollution as the Court has ordered, state lawyers have already started the process of appealing the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court (how sad is it that our tax dollars are funding a legal position that favors adding more pollution to a lake suffering from health-threatening algae blooms like those shown above???). I hope for a day when Vermont officials will follow the law without the need for a judge ordering them to.  Until that day comes, CLF will continue to fight for better pollution control permits that prevent pollution increases and help achieve rather than undermine the Clean Water Act’s goal of waters that are safe for swimming, fishing, and drinking.

It’s our way of trying to cure the blue-green algae blues.

Popularity: 1% [?]

According to an April 2008 National Science Foundation press release discussing the findings of a Russian/American scientific collaboration, even the world’s largest freshwater lake–Siberia’s Lake Baikal–is feeling the effects of a changing climate and not in a good way.  Drawing on sixty years worth of data collected under grueling weather conditions (negative 50!) throughout the tumult of 20th century Russia, researchers document long-term warming trends that are changing the lake’s pristine waters and unique habitat. We’re talking about global warming affecting the health of a 25-million year-old lake that contains 20% of the world’s fresh water and 2500 plant and animal species that make their home there but nowhere else.

Global climate change threatens the pristine waters of Siberia's Lake Baikal--the world's largest freshwater lake. That's bad news for much smaller and less-resilient lakes like Lake Champlain. (Image source National Science Foundation, Nicholas Rodenhouse)

Closer to home, CLF has been making the case that global climate change is aggravating pollution and food web problems in Lake Champlain–one of the ten largest fresh water lakes in the United States.

For decades, many agencies of the United States government including the Environmental Protection Agency have produced studies warning that global climate change will likely make water pollution problems worse because we can expect:

• “warming water temperatures to change contaminant concentrations in water and alter aquatic system uses”
• “new patterns of rainfall and snowfall to alter water supply for drinking and other uses leading to changes in pollution levels in aquatic systems, and” (editor’s note–this summer sure seems like we’re seeing a new rainfall pattern in New England)
• “more intense storms to threaten water infrastructure and increase polluted stormwater runoff”

–EPA National Water Program Strategy Response to Climate Change

The Lake Baikal study is further confirmation that global warming and water quality issues are deeply intertwined.  It should serve as a wake-up call to government officials charged with cleaning up and preventing pollution because “[t]his lake was expected to be among those most resistant to climate change, due to its tremendous volume and unique water circulation.” If climate change is affecting Baikal, it’s certainly affecting Lake Champlain and other freshwater bodies throughout New England (not to mention the major impacts on our Oceans).

While we must do all we can to slow down and reverse the worst of what global climate change will bring–an effort CLF is leading in New England–it’s long past time to start factoring the reality of ongoing climate change into predictions about water pollution and decisions about pollution prevention and cleanup.

EPA had that chance when it reviewed and approved Vermont’s proposed phosphorus pollution cleanup target–or Total Maximum Daily Load– for Lake Champlain in 2002.  It had plenty of its own research that could have and should have shaped important decisions regarding:

• the amount of pollution reduction needed
• the likely effectiveness of different proposed pollution cleanup activities
• the likely cost of cleanup and prevention activities

Despite all the global climate change studies EPA and the U.S. Government had created with your tax money–EPA failed entirely to factor climate change into the water quality equation for Lake Champlain. That’s why CLF has filed a lawsuit in federal court to hold EPA accountable for this failure before it’s too late for Lake Champlain.  What good is scientific research if you don’t use it to shape decisions in the real world?  Click here to read a copy of the complaint and stay tuned for updates as the case moves forward.

Popularity: 1% [?]

In her post here Lesley Bunnell, CLF’s Rhode Island office manager, persuasively deflates and rebuts an attack in the Washington Post by Sarah Palin on the cap-and-trade mechanism.   One important evolution in the idea of cap-and-trade that Lesley did not have a chance to get into is the key reform of auctioning the allowances and using the money generated by the auction for good purposes that reduce emissions and save money for all our citizens.

CLF, as part of a broad coalition, successfully fought for this model in the design and creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.   The states of New England have repeatedly pushed in Congress for this model to be recreated on the federal level.

The reason for embracing allowance auctions and using the money from the auction for energy efficiency is crystal clear – it will reduce the cost of the program and reduce emissions even further.  The cost reduction argument is quite powerful – analyses of the bill passed by the House by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the US EPA estimate the cost of the program for an average household at between $111 and $175 per year by 2030.  Independent analysis of the bill shows that even modest gains in energy efficiency, like those that can be financed by allowance auction revenue can result in savings for citizens that dwarf these costs.

Indeed, during the presidential campaign this was precisely the position taken by President Obama:

• 100 Percent Allowance Auction: Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all large corporate polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away for free to coal and oil companies
• Invest Revenue for a Clean Energy Future: Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development and deployment of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements to help families reduce their energy prices, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition and helping lower-income Americans with their energy costs.

In a recent Op-Ed in the Boston Globe CLF President John Kassel reflected on our concern that the federal bill had drifted away from 100% auction, giving out a significant number of allowances for free – but at least the bill that passed the House accepts the importance of cap and trade, auctioning the allowances from that system and moves towards the RGGI model of  “auction and invest.”

The bottom line is clear.  Cap and Trade is a tool that can work to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases causing global warming.  It can work even better, and be implemented at even lower cost, if we do it right by auctioning the allowances at the heart of the program and using the money raised by the auction for clean energy projects like energy efficiency.

Popularity: 1% [?]

After reading Governor Sarah Palin’s op-ed in the Washington Post today, I am convinced that she is completely uninformed on the issue of cap and trade.

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Lesley Bunnell and I work in the Providence, RI office of CLF. I have a more vested interest in Sarah Palin’s environmental blunders, as I am originally from Alaska. I regularly cringe at the thought that my beloved home state’s identity is synonymous with someone so unaware of basic environmental issues.

Soon-to-be former Governor Palin’s claims that President Obama’s cap and trade energy plan threatens the US economy. Apparently, Governor Palin believes that by limiting companies and Big Business’s carbon dioxide emissions, mass jobs will be lost, there will be more expensive energy costs for consumers, and it will drive the Big Business Energy Sector out of our country. Therefore, the US will have to out-source its energy needs to foreign suppliers. Since our country’s energy sources are so plentiful, regulating their emissions only depletes their efficacy. Of course, her only example of the US’s energy bounty is Alaska.

Huh. So, let’s examine this. As the mother of a small daughter, I spend a lot of time negotiating the ins and outs of the world with her; the good vs. bad, the necessary vs. unnecessary. I can’t even explain Gov. Palin’s logic to my 6 year old.

The very basics of cap and trade are as follows:

• Companies apply for emissions permits, from a governing body, wherein their pollutants are “capped” as a specific amount.
• If they pollute more than this cap, they must PAY for credits/allowances to do so.
• If they reduce their emissions, they can SELL their allowances for a profit.

Therefore, there is a marriage of market-based and environmental resolutions that start the process of controlling and reducing global warming pollution. Companies have incentives to do the right thing (stopping their polluting of the environment) and we, as consumers, benefit from the reduction of pollution in our society. We also benefit from the cost savings generated by the distributions of the profits and energy efficiency measures created by this system.

While Alaska has abundant natural energy resources, fully depleting them to provide for the US population is hardly a solution. That is the equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Moreover, we should be investing in renewable energy sources.

Sarah Palin is wrong. I can easily explain that to my daughter.

Popularity: 9% [?]