If you were listening to Maine Public Radio yesterday (whether because you are on vacation or because you live there) you might have caught this piece about plans to develop a sub-sea cable from Maine to Boston.

Bottom line: In order to meet the climate and energy goals that science and sound policy dictate we will need to build thousands of megawatts of clean renewable generation (as well as becoming much more efficient and many other key steps) and the infrastructure to support it.  And a sub-sea cable could be part of that solution, if it is done right.

On June 29, 2010 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a series of petitions for reconsideration of the “Endangerment Finding”, the official determination that emissions of carbon dioxide and other types of global warming pollution are causing harm to the public health, the environment and the climate.

That EPA website provides good links to the very best science like the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , the U.S. National Academy of Sciences , and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

And the science is telling us not just that humanity is causing a future change in our climate – but also that the change is already in progress – that the damage is already clear and before us.

As one news article put it:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s just-released 2009 State of the Climate report bears few surprises for those who follow climate science–the past decade was the warmest on record, and the Earth has slowly been heating up for the past 50 years.

The difference between this and every other climate report, however, is that NOAA gathered research from 300 scientists in 48 countries to produce a compelling document that covers every aspect of our planet’s climate. The report is, according to NOAA, the first to bring together “multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean.”

The facts are just lying there in front of us.  June 2010 was the hottest June on record and the April-June and January June periods this year was the hottest such periods on record.

But what really matters is not what happens in any given month or any specific six month period.  It is all about the long term trends – kind of like this.

And while near term impacts, like more frequent heat waves, are visible just over the horizon and possibly unavoidable due to the damage we have already done to our climate.  But the real damage if we don’t take action like capping our greenhouse gas emissions and changing how we generated and use energy will be far more extreme.

Amazingly, the science showing that we now appear to be on a trajectory to make half the Earth uninhabitable by 2300 has received very little attention in the press.   Really, that is what respectable scientists are saying in the most rigorous of forums with peer review and everything.  Go ahead, look at it, I will wait here.   And bear in mind that this is not a conversation about the distant Year 2300 – it is about the painful journey into that future as we damn our children, grand-children and future generations to pain as the globe warms.

So lets go back to the beginning of this post.  Some folks petitioned the EPA to reconsider its determination that the pollution causing global warming is causing harm, or is in danger of causing harm, to the public health, the environment or the climate.   Are you really surprised that EPA stood with science and rejected those challenges?

The really incredible thing is that despite the science, despite the reality of what is starting to unfold around us that U.S. Senate and large swaths of our society indulge in the expensive luxury of denial and refuse to take action.

There is so much to be done as we fight to cap global warming pollution, to make our society, homes and buildings more energy efficient, to build walkable and livable communities with good transit where gasoline is not the lubricant of our lives, and make the move to renewable clean energy . . . and the hour is getting late.

Last Wednesday, Calais LNG delivered its second major surprise in just two weeks.  After stunning all parties by asking the Board of Environmental Protection for a last minute hearing postponement, Calais LNG announced on July 21 that its financial backer, GS Power Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, was in the process of “selling its ownership interests.”  Huh, go figure.  From our perspective, this just confirms that the smart folks at Goldman Sachs finally sat down after spending more than $24 million to take a hard look at the project and reached the same conclusion that we did long ago: the New England market is already saturated with natural gas and there is no need for a new industrial LNG terminal that will have significant adverse impacts on the environment and existing uses of Passamaquoddy Bay.

Calais LNG has promised to withdraw all of its applications for environmental approval if the company can’t find someone else willing to pay for the small army of lawyers and consultants by August 11, 2010.  Were the Calais LNG project to fade away, it would be the third LNG project in five years to withdraw its applications, joining Quoddy LNG and Downeast LNG.  And while there appears to be an obvious trend, namely failed projects and wasted time and money, Downeast LNG is still considering refiling with the BEP this summer.  If that is the case, we can only hope that the Board and State will have learned from past mistakes and not allow themselves to be bullied into unrealistically aggressive schedules for these complicated projects that will change the face and uses of Passamaquoddy Bay for generations to come.

Want to know more? Read this article in the Quoddy Tides.

The news from the Nation’s Capitol is bleak.

The United States Senate will not consider anything remotely like comprehensive energy and climate legislation before its August recess.

While it is good that they will be looking at legislation to address oil spills and laudable energy efficiency efforts like HomeStar the decision to not address the underlying climate and energy crisis is tragic. However, even after the BP oil disaster, Congress still continues to leave New England’s ocean and our coastal communities at risk of the next big spill.

Effectively, Congress is turning its back on the science that describes the fundamental peril facing our climate, the families who need the jobs that a surge of green development will bring and embracing a course of continued dependence on imported oil and dirty coal.

The handful of Senators who have blocked progress on this critical legislation should be ashamed of the damage they are doing to our environment, our economy and our communities.

Through a recently released tool authored by the World Resources Institute as part of Google’s Public Data Explorer, users are able to visualize greenhouse gas emissions like never before:

On a per capita basis, New England states are leading the pack with some of the lowest numbers.

Why?

1. New England states tend to be more efficient in our use of electricity and natural gas.
2. As our states are more compact and developed, New Englanders generally drive less.
3. New Englanders typically drive more efficient vehicles.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding:

Of course, there’s still plenty of room for improvement – and in this midst of this climate crisis, we’re all going to have to do much better to turn things around.

On July 20, transportation agencies completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vermont’s Circ Highway.  The planned project would be an expensive new boulevard roadway outside of Burlington, Vermont.  The project is a poor public investment and a subsidy for sprawl.

Costing over $60 million dollars, saving only 4 minutes of travel time, limiting public transportation options, destroying irreplaceable farmland and wetlands while providing less congestion relief in Essex compared to improving existing roads is simply a bad idea.

Join CLF in calling for sensible transporation solutions, NOT more crowded roads and more pollution.  Submit comments online by August 27, 2010 or attend a public hearing:

Public Hearings will be August 9 & 10:

Monday August 9^th 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. @ Williston Central School Auditorium -195 Central School Drive, Williston

Tuesday August 10^th 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. @ Champlain Valley Exposition-105 Pearl Street, Essex Junction

See CLF’s website for more information and sample comments.

Yesterday, an exciting and inspiring delegation of emerging leaders from the international environmental community paid a visit to CLF’s Boston office. The delegation was sponsored by the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program, a professional exchange program that seeks to build mutual understanding between the U.S. and other nations through short-term visits such as this one. The group was in the U.S. to learn how environmental law is implemented and enforced here, and they chose CLF specifically as the group to advise them. WorldBoston, a local nonprofit organization, organized the Boston portion of the delegation’s visit to the U.S.

The fifteen delegation participants came from the world over – Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Serbia, Thailand, Uganda, Venezuela, Vietnam and the West Bank. While all do work related to the environment, the list of their careers was as diverse as the list of their nationalities! Scientists, professors, elected officials, government employees, NGO officers and other professions gathered around the conference table to hear CLF attorneys speak about their work advocating for environmental policies and taking violators of those policies to court.

Massachusetts Advocacy Center director Peter Shelley kicked off the meeting, welcoming the guests and providing them with an introduction to CLF’s mission, program areas, and organizational structure. He then transitioned into a discussion of CLF’s legal work, explaining that in the U.S., we have important legal tools available that allow organizations such as CLF to bring lawsuits against polluters and even the government, and that allow them to recoup the costs of their legal fees if they win. Attorneys Shanna Cleveland, Seth Kaplan, and Cynthia Liebman also discussed their work at CLF and their experiences with the U.S. legal system. Delegates expressed keen interest in the strategies discussed and shared thoughts on the contrasts between the legal system in the U.S. and in their own nations. Everyone expressed agreement that government is not always as transparent as it claims to be (although another benefit of the U.S. legal system that was discussed is our tremendous access to data through environmental review procedures and Freedom of Information Act requests).

The event was a great success, and the morning flew by amid the discussion. CLF was honored to host such a motivated and interesting group of people, and we hope that the delegation enjoyed learning from us as much as we enjoyed learning from them.

Today President Obama is expected to sign the nation’s first-ever National Ocean Policy. This process started a year ago with the Ocean Policy Task Force and is greatly based on the excellent work of two separate blue ribbon panels, hundreds of meetings between the OPTF and ocean users and stakeholders, and two lengthy comment periods. The NOP is a great step forward for our oceans, coasts and the communities that love and depend upon them. CLF and hundreds of other groups around the country have been working for such a comprehensive approach to better ocean protection and management for years. This is a good day to optimistic about the future.

In one of histories great ironies, the NOP was close to being finalized and signed when the Deepwater Horizon blew up, sank and started one of the nation’s greatest environmental disasters. What could we have done with the foresight of such a disaster?  Mundane phrases like “interagency coordination,” “use conflict,” and “emergency preparedness” take on a whole new meaning than before the BP oil disaster. We have a great opportunity to start to get it right. Congrats and Thanks, Mr. President.

To mark the occasion, CLF issued the following statement:

“Today is a momentous day for America’s oceans,” said Priscilla Brooks, vice president and director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Ocean Conservation program. “For the first time in this country’s history, we will have a national policy that aligns the great promise of our oceans with the great responsibility for managing them in a coordinated, thoughtful and sustainable fashion. New England has led the charge to balance the ever-increasing interest in our state waters – for commercial and recreational fishing, renewable energy development, tourism, oil and gas drilling and sand and gravel mining, to name a few – with the need to protect wildlife and critical habitat areas so that our region’s oceans will continue to be productive for generations to come. From Massachusetts to Rhode Island to Maine, we are developing ocean management plans that will serve as guides for better protection and management in federal waters across the nation. As the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reminds us all too plainly, we need to reap our oceans’ tremendously valuable resources with great care. We applaud the Obama administration for its courage in prioritizing this much-needed mandate for protection and restoration of our coasts, oceans, islands and Great Lakes.”

Learn more:
Read the Ocean Policy Task Force’s recommendations>>

Read more about CLF’s work in ocean conservation>>

After months of political and legal muscle flexing to bully the Board of Environmental Protection into setting an extremely aggressive hearing schedule, the proponents of a liquefied natural gas import and regasification industrial facility on the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay sought and obtained a last minute postponement.  Why? The official story is that the BEP didn’t want to make their decision without certain information that Calais LNG failed to submit in response to comments they received three months earlier from two state agencies concerning impacts on wetlands and fisheries. We think there’s something else going on.  Perhaps the project’s financial backers, a shapeless subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, got tired of wasting money.  Or perhaps Calais LNG recognized the significant weaknesses and impacts of the project as set forth in testimony by CLF and others. Regardless, the request for a delay and the granting of that request only favors the applicant, giving it more time to address flaws, and disfavors the citizens and organizations who were forced to meet the expedited schedule that Calais LNG so stridently sought.

A whale in Passamaquoddy Bay, the proposed site of the Calais LNG Facility.

Why is CLF opposed to building a LNG facility in Passamaquoddy Bay in the first place?  Well, to begin with, there is no need for a project of Calais LNG’s size anywhere in New England, and there is certainly no reason to put one in the pristine coastal area of Passamaquoddy Bay.  The annual increase in natural gas consumption in the Northeast region through the year 2035 across all energy use sectors is projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to be under one percent. EIA estimates all natural gas needs can be met from the region’s existing LNG terminals, never mind the huge potential of domestic gas in the Northeast from tight shale formations.

But if there is so much natural gas in the area, then why does New England remain so dependent on heating oil as a fuel source?  The quick answer is that there is a lack of infrastructure for natural gas, especially in Maine, and that many users are hesitant to pay the upfront costs associated with switching to natural gas.  But despite promises by Calais LNG that its project will help to make this switch, this project will at best increase the supply of natural gas for a market already over-supplied.  It will do nothing to help Mainers switch from oil to natural gas to heat their homes, not even in Calais.

And while the energy benefits of building Calais LNG would be minimal, the environmental costs would be huge.  The proposed $1 billion project would include a 67-acre terminal site with two LNG storage tanks, a two acre pier, and a 20-mile natural gas pipeline connecting to the Maritimes&Northeast Pipeline. Although Calais LNG convinced the BEP to ignore the issue, if the project were built it would also require that a new pipeline run parallel to the existing M&NE pipeline, all 254 miles of it, with attendant impacts as well.  The construction and operation of the facility would result in the industrialization of Passamaquoddy Bay and would have permanent environmental impacts on the area’s wetlands, fisheries, wildlife and scenic character.

And since this is Maine…what about the lobstermen?  The development would significantly harm the area’s aquaculture, lobster, and fishing industries; three of the few viable industries left in Washington County.  Calais LNG will try to argue that they’ve come up with an ingenious solution to avoiding fishing impacts.  During the American lobster season, LNG carriers will only transit in Canadian waters, thereby avoiding any delays and gear loss.  Unfortunately for Calais LNG, Canada has continued to state, as recently as June, that they will not allow American LNG tankers in Canadian water.

So, while we are frustrated that the hearing has been delayed, we’re confident that Calais LNG will be just as bad of a proposal in the fall when the hearing is rescheduled as it is in the summer.

If nothing else, this week’s debacle should make the Board question the merits of deciding proposals of this magnitude on such a frenzied schedule.  This isn’t the first time the state has spent considerable resources on potential LNG projects only to have the applicants withdraw unannounced.  Two years ago, Downeast LNG, who plans to re-file this summer, withdrew their permit application right after a week-long BEP hearing.  As is often said, fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Learn more:
Read news coverage on the issue in the Portland Press Herald,  Bangor Daily News, and MPBN.net