You’re invited to Next Steps for Salem: Working Towards a Cleaner Future.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Reception: 5:30pm / Presentation: 6:15pm
Salem Visitor Center
2 New Liberty Street
Salem, MA

Salem Harbor Station is close to a tipping point. The owner, Dominion, now faces at least three major obstacles to continuing the plant’s operation:

1. ISO-NE, the system operator for the New England power grid, has recently determined that no more than two of the four units at the facility are still needed for reliability – and some key stakeholders question whether even those two units are needed.
2. The two decade-old permit required for the plant’s water cooling system is long overdue for renewal, and any new permit should require the plant to retrofit with cooling towers to minimize environmental impacts and meet the stringent demands of the Clean Water Act.
3. And this is something that you have all witnessed – the plant has continued to violate emissions standards and blanket your homes and cars and property with black soot.
4. This convergence of events offers an opportunity to move Salem and the surrounding areas beyond the era of coal by closing down this dinosaur of a plant.

You can help to push Salem Harbor Station past the tipping point and into retirement. Come hear about how the Conservation Law Foundation is working to shut down Salem Harbor Station at Next Steps for Salem: Working Towards a Cleaner Future.

With your vigilance, your voices, and your support, we can work together to provide a cleaner and safer Salem. This event is complimentary, but please RSVP to events@clf.org by October 30th.

Popularity: 1% [?]

CLF’s Seth Kaplan in an Op-Ed article from the October 26, 2009 Boston Globe:

THE BLUR of details and fog of ideological attacks can obscure the truly essential in the current congressional debate about legislation to confront global warming while building a green economy: the stark need for immediate action.

The bill recently unveiled by Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer represents an important step forward. The bill is not perfect, and ways that it can be strengthened are discussed below. However, it does include some of the most essential tools for addressing this most fundamental of challenges.

The Kerry-Boxer bill sets hard targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions consistent with the need identified by science. It creates new tools for tackling the job of climate stabilization while leaving in place the US Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to use tried-and-true tools in this cause. The citizens of Massachusetts should feel strongly about maintaining those tools: our attorney general’s office led the charge that culminated in a Supreme Court declaration that greenhouse gas emissions can be addressed under the decades-old federal Clean Air Act.

This core of essential provisions – a science-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions and sustained EPA authority – provides a solid foundation for federal climate legislation.

Kerry took a critical step toward moving the legislative process forward when he coauthored a New York Times op-ed article with Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, describing a course to the 60 votes needed for Senate passage. In his collaboration with Graham, Kerry is acting in the best tradition of reaching across the aisle to “get to yes.’’ However, while bipartisan compromise is essential, a climate bill must not be traded for the environmental soul of the Senate. Packaging a climate bill with provisions, hinted at in the op-ed, that make the climate challenge more difficult and that Kerry has long (and appropriately) rejected, such as opening fragile coastal waters to oil drilling, should be a nonstarter. The same is true for proposals to pour billions of dollars into expensive nuclear power plants, especially given the long-unanswered questions about the safety and security of those plants, the very dangerous waste they produce, and the opportunities that would be lost for investing instead in truly sustainable and clean energy resources.

Good federal climate policy will emphasize clean and cost-effective measures like energy efficiency, both supporting state efforts and introducing strong new federal mandates for deployment of efficiency resources. It should also bring forward state and federal incentives and standards for renewable energy, like wind and solar, breaking our dependence on dirty and imported fossil fuels. It should create a framework for planning new transmission lines to support a massive ramp-up in renewable electricity generation, while respecting the critical role of states and regions in electric system planning.

These clean energy provisions, as well as the excellent building and energy code provisions from the House’s Waxman-Markey bill, will fit cleanly into a Senate climate bill. The final legislative package must include smart “cap and invest’’ provisions that set out a mechanism for auctioning pollution allowances and investing the proceeds in clean energy, especially efficiency and conservation measures that can slash greenhouse gas emissions while reducing energy bills and fostering livable communities. It should also support clean transportation planning and infrastructure and mandate use of low carbon fuels.

The legislation also should build upon New England’s nation-leading role in beginning the process of purging our fleet of old, inefficient, and polluting coal-fired power plants – an essential transformation that can be accelerated and replicated nationally by a strengthened climate bill setting clear standards implemented through a rapid phase-in.

Passing climate legislation will not be easy. We must continue to look to leaders like Edward Markey and Kerry to press forward with this most difficult yet essential of tasks. If we do not fully support and help them and their colleagues to deliver on this critical legislation, we will both court disaster and bear responsibility for dumping an increasingly heavy burden on our children.

Popularity: 1% [?]

October 24, 2009 is the International Day of Climate Action, and author Bill McKibben’s advocacy movement known as 350.org has been getting a lot of attention. 350.org is coordinating a widespread day of environmental action with one goal: solutions to the climate crisis.

Why 350? McKibben argues that it is the safe upper limit in atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured in parts per million. In order to avoid an environmental catastrophe, it’s the number targeted by this movement. In this week’s Yale Environment 360, economist Frank Ackerman argues that what is good for the Earth is good for the wallet. Of course, it is an alarming idea that this is the “safe” level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as we are at 390 already – and rising.

Though 350.org’s wide umbrella includes some efforts that are problematic, the message is a powerful one: the time for solutions is now. The medium of that message, hundreds of thousands of people at 4,000 events in 170 countries, is even more striking.

To locate an event in your local community, use the map below:

To hop on this trajectory of a reduction in global carbon dioxide levels, learn the 5 things that New Englanders must do in 5 years, and 5 things that you can do in 5 minutes.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Conservation Law Foundation invites you to follow us on Twitter. We’ll keep you updated with current events, breaking news, announcements, blog posts and action alerts. Click here to follow us!

Do you want to be an über-insider? You can also stay in the loop by joining our Facebook fan page, and by receiving e-mail updates from our blog.

Thank you for being an active participant in this exciting movement!

Popularity: 1% [?]

Incredibly, Boston-based energy management company EnerNOC, a company that likes to pitch itself as “green”, has convinced  the California Public Utilities Commission to approve a program that uses diesel generators to supply “peak power” to Sempra, the electric utility serving the San Diego area.  SNL, an energy and financial trade press website, reported the decision this way:

California narrowly approves diesel generators contract for demand-side management
October 15, 2009 5:11 PM ET
By Jeff Stanfield

In a rare 3-2 vote, the California Public Utilities Commission on Oct. 15 approved San Diego Gas & Electric Co.’s contract with Celerity Energy Partners, an EnerNOC Inc. company that aggregates distributed generation resources, with dissenting commissioners arguing that the decision threatens a core state energy policy.

The commissioners fell out over whether 45 MW of small diesel backup generators should be included at the top of the state’s loading order, which emphasizes energy efficiency and demand response as the first choice for meeting electricity needs.

. . . PUC President Michael Peevey and Commissioner Dian Grueneich argued that approval of the contract would be counter to the state’s energy policies.

“It would put diesels on top of demand response,” Peevey said. “Demand response is on top of the loading order, and this would flip [the energy resource preference policy] on its head. Placing diesel first is inconsistent with the state’s energy and environmental policies.”

For full story, including how the diesel generators that will be part of the program will install pollution control equipment (which they should do anyway but incredibly is not required for all diesel generators) and the justification for the decision as replacing new conventional power plants  click here

A staff “Administrative Law Judge” had recommended rejection of the contract. It is interesting to note that the 3-2 vote went the way it did, overriding that recommendation, because one Commissioner (in fact the one who proposed overriding the staff) phoned in his vote from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

Sadly, EnerNOC is polluting both the environment and its image when it gets involved in deploying diesel generators for peak electricity generation at the very times, and in the very places, when local populations are most vulnerable to air pollution.

Much of EnerNOC’s other technologies and actions help to reduce pollution and build a green economy – but deploying diesel generators that spew large quantities of greenhouse gas pollution, as well as conventional emissions, pulls in exactly the wrong direction. The investors who are buying into EnerNOC because they think it is a “green” company that is rising with that tide should be outraged by this project and action.

Popularity: 1% [?]

There is nothing more gratifying for CLF advocates than to be able to work with our members in translating big-picture policy goals down to the local level.  Over the last couple of years, I had that opportunity as a result of the City of Burlington’s efforts to adopt a stormwater pollution control ordinance to ensure that Vermont’s biggest city was doing its part to prevent pollution to Lake Champlain.  The idea was the brainchild of CLF member Scott Mapes, a lawyer and engineer who specializes in low impact development techniques to manage stormwater runoff.

As a member of the City’s Conservation Commission, a long-time lover of Lake Champlain, and a regulation-savvy lawyer, Scott was the City’s clean-water conscience and a driving force that overcame bureaucratic inertia to get the ball rolling on  this major project.  Scott’s principled persistence gradually led to enthusiastic buy-in at the highest levels of city government.  His multi-year effort to get the City to take stormwater more seriously was really something to watch.  As the process matured, CLF had a chance to weigh in by reviewing drafts of the ordinance, providing guidance and legal research assistance, and echoing Scott’s message that adoption of the ordinance was necessary for full compliance with the Clean Water Act.

After this experience working with Scott, it came as no surprise to read the headline in today’s Burlington Free Press announcing “Burlington man honored for stormwater efforts.”  In recognition of his work on the stormwater ordinance, Scott was named “Citizen Planner of the Year” by the Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association and he received a similar award today from the Vermont Planning Association. 

Congratulations to Scott and to all CLF members who advance CLF’s mission through their support of the organization AND their leadership on the local level.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Last week, the Patrick Administration took a giant step backward in protecting our streams and rivers, all the while claiming that it had the environment’s best interests in mind. CLF and the three other environmental members of the state’s Water Resources Management Advisory Committee needed to act swiftly and boldly. To that end, CLF and the three other environmental members resigned from the committee.

CLF has sent a clear message of protest – and now we need you to do the same.

What happened?

During its announcement of its new “integrated water initiative,” the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) announced that the state was unilaterally revoking its earlier definition of “safe yield” that included environmental protections for rivers. EOEEA and MassDEP are now using a definition that would allow withdrawals of all water from rivers and steams.

CLF’s Peter Shelley stated:

In place of a legal requirement that protected some stream flow for fish and other life in our rivers and streams, MassDEP has adopted a new threshold that offers no environmental protection. In its place, EOEEA proposes a ‘task force’ to come up with a strategy for balancing all the other public interests in our waters. This move makes a mockery of sustainable water management.

You can read the details in our press release or in this Boston Globe article.

What does it mean?

Simply put, our rivers and streams are no longer protected. Our rivers could be drained entirely, resulting in massive fish kills and environmental damage. We already have rivers and streams that are being drawn dry and we are steadily losing trout streams and other cold water fisheries. We can and must do better than this.

What can you do about it?

CLF needs you to stand up with us. Momentum is on our side, but we need you to build on it.

1. If you live in Massachusetts, send a pre-written letter to Governor Deval Patrick, the EOEEA and MassDEP by clicking here.
2. Whether or not you live in Massachusetts, share this blog post to everyone you know that does. There is strength in our numbers.

Massachusetts has abundant natural water supplies that require smart stewardship, not more bureaucratic process. The state is in the process right now of issuing new long-term permits for many of the water systems that are already overdrawing our rivers and streams. We need you to act now.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Mama Humpback and calf

When whale researchers decide they know enough about a particular whale to identify it they give it a name. Naming the whale helps with future tracking over the course of their research and helps other researchers in sharing information such as feeding and migration patterns, what other whales that particular whale might be associating with, etc. The thing is, you can’t just slap any old tag on a whale — there are rules. Just who came up with the whale naming rules is one question (a bored process-junkie is my answer) but the way it usually plays out is that the one who applies the name is usually a researcher who has followed the whale and her family, knows the whale pretty well and, I’m guessing, has probably used the name for a while before it becomes “official.” One solid whale naming rule, however, is that the whale’s name is supposed to be based on the pigmentation patterns on the whale’s flukes. Sensible enough, but this seems like a pretty subjective standard because, as we all know, the beauty of fluke pigmentation is definitely in the eye of the beholder. What might look like a trident mark to me could easily look like a seagull in flight to someone else, you know?

Sometimes this same subjective standard happens when the government develops rules and policies for managing resources. A regulation that one agency official might see as a progressive step in, say, wildlife conservation another well-informed and equally interested party might see as an onerous restriction on commerce and another might see as something less than helpful to wildlife. Different folks, different views, same policy. Yet, there is always going to be a decision made. (And yes, failing to make a decision is still a decision.) The great thing about developing government policy is that all of us get to have a say too — either through government process or eventually though the ballot box. President Obama’s “Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force” is developing a national ocean policy that will drive the federal government’s approach to just about everything in their power related to our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. I think it should be a policy founded on the principles of environmental sustainability, marine habitat protection and wildlife stewardship. Some others might think that maximum extraction of oil, fish, and minerals should be the foundation. At the end of day there will be a decision. Here is your chance to have your say.

By the way, the other rules for naming whales are: 1) Can’t be gender specific, 2) Can’t be a name of a real person, 3) Name should be easy to say and be heard when on a moving boat.

Popularity: 1% [?]

The NY Times presents some required reading about how improvements in air pollution control technology can have the unpleasant consequence of putting pollution into our waterways.  The problem of contaminated coal ash is one that CLF has engaged for years – back in the year 2000 CLF negotiated a successful settlement with the then-owner of the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power plants (PG&E) that cleaned up groundwater and land that had been contaminated by toxic coal ash over the course of decades – a settlement that predates the purchase of those power plants (out of bankruptcy) by Dominion – company that has its own checkered history regarding coal ash disposal.

Another manifestation of the same problem comes from the longstanding practice of using ash from coal fired powerplants as a “feedstock” for cement – iconic concrete structures containing coal ash include the Hoover dam, vast swaths of interstate highways and the tunnels and stations of the Washington DC metro.

More recently, coal plants have been awarded “carbon offsets” for selling ash to cement companies on the theory that use of ash “displaces” industrial kilns that produce greenhouse gas pollution while making cement.  Many organizations, including CLF, have expressed strong doubts about this practice – noting that it is simply paying coal plant owners once again for something they would have been doing anyway: turning a waste product into a revenue producing commodity.   A far better course of action, rather than create “rip offsets” that undermine climate protection while bestowing a windfall on polluters is to encourage processes and procedures that slash greenhouse gas emissions from cement kilns.

The increasing levels of toxic metals in the ash as air pollution regulations have tightened, is bringing an end to the practice of using fly ash in cement in projects designated as green under the LEED program of the U.S. Green Building Council and the innovative Collaborative for High-Performance Schools (CHPS).  Academic research strongly suggests that this is increasingly dangerous practice.

The bottom line is clear: coal is laden with toxic materials, and converting coal into energy, whether it be through burning it in the oldest or newest of plants (or even gasifying it)  releases these materials creating a serious toxic waste handling and disposal issue with potentially catastrophic effects if done badly.

Popularity: 1% [?]

With the Red Sox in the playoffs yet again, I know I am not alone in the hope that we’ll be hearing a lot of the Standell’s 1966 tribute to Boston and the Charles River–”Dirty Water”–throughout the month of October as the Sox go for their third World Series trophy of the young century.

As much fun as it is to sing this song in the afterglow of a Sox victory, it’s sad that the label “dirty water” still fits the Charles River and so many other dirty waters across New England more than 40 years after the song came out and more than thirty-five years after the passage of the Clean Water Act.  One of the biggest problems now–blue-green algae blooms or scums (like the one on the Charles pictured below).  Beyond just making waters look and smell disgusting, swimming in water during or shortly after one of these blooms can cause skin rashes and ingesting water tainted with some blue-greens can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal problems.

Of all the reasons why we don’t really love that dirty water, scientists working on a cutting edge new theory may have identified a scary new one: a potential link between ingestion of toxins produced by blue-green algae and debilitating brain diseases like ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s.

An article in the Spring 2009 UNH magazine details the work of two New England scientists whose research is exploring the connection between clusters of ALS sufferers–i.e., areas where the incidence of disease is abnormally higher than in the general populations–and lakes where blue-green algae blooms have been or are still a problem.  While scientists have discovered some startling links–discussed further in the article–more study is certainly needed.  Raising awareness is an important first step.

In the meantime, CLF is continuing to advocate for solutions to the water pollution problems that causes blue-green algae blooms.  Simply put, the cause is too much of an otherwise good thing: nutrients.  Phosphorus and nitrogen are nutrients that exist in abundant quantities on this planet.  Under normal circumstances, most water bodies contain just enough of these nutrients to promote healthy growth of plant and animal life.  But improperly-treated pollution discharges have the effect of concentrating and overloading these waters, creating conditions in which the toxin-producing blue-green algae thrive.  These pollution sources include:

• poorly-controlled discharges of runoff from paved surfaces like big-box store parking lots, construction sites, rooftops, and city streets
• discharges from sewage treatment plants
• runoff from farm fields overloaded with manure

In addition to our efforts to clean up the Charles River, CLF’s Clean Water program is a driving force for cleanup of nutrient-overloaded bays and estuaries on Cape Cod, New Hampshire’s Great Bay, Vermont’s Lake Champlain,  and is supporting Maine’s efforts to adopt stringent standards to control nutrient pollution discharges to coastal and inland waters in that state.  Your continued support of CLF’s work is helping to restore these water bodies to health. And, if the scientific research establishes a firm link between brain diseases and blue-green algae blooms, your support of CLF’s work may also help protect the health of present and future generations at risk of exposure to the brain-debilitating toxins that certain blue-greens blooms produce.

Popularity: 11% [?]