On Tuesday, Americans across New England joined their countrymen in casting their votes. As the results have become clear, one thing has become clear with it: It was a good night for science and for clean energy.

Maine, for instance, elected former wind developer Angus King as its new Senator, who ran with an ad dedicated to the need to address climate change and support sustainable energy. (Watch that ad here.) Meanwhile changes in both houses of Maine’s legislature are likely to dampen Governor LePage’s unpredictable but largely obstructionist posture. The same is true in Massachusetts, which elected Elizabeth Warren, a strong supporter for renewable energy and climate change mitigation. New Hampshire and Vermont also saw the pendulum swung strongly in a way that is likely to advance much needed efforts to protect the health of their environment and communities. Rhode Island seems to be the only state that has kept its status quo. (For full perspectives on each state, click here.)

In the end, New Englanders voted for a strong environmental agenda, and for candidates who shared that support. These local trends also broadly echo national voting trends. Obama, for instance, was strongly supported by Latino voters. A landmark 2012 study showed that 92% of Latino voters believe we have a responsibility to take care of the earth. The pro-environment agenda endorsed by Obama no doubt contributed to his support.

In reelecting Barack Obama, Americans also voted for an administration that has made science-friendly appointments to science positions, that has a high degree of scientific accomplishment, and that has been very supportive of science education and research.  And while the President was disappointingly silent about climate change and clean energy policy during the campaign, his administration’s pro-health and pro-environment actions to reduce toxic air pollution and to improve automobile  fuel economy standards no doubt resonated with voters nationally.

While there were many issues on the ballot, here in New England and across the country, there are also some very simple lessons from this election. The voters said a few things:

Yes, we believe in science.

Yes, we believe climate change is happening.

Yes, we need more sources of sustainable energy.

Yes, we want candidates who move us away from the dirty energy of the past to a more prosperous future.

And no, dirty energy, you cannot buy my vote.

Despite historic spending, the money spent by the dirty energy industry to try to buy this election didn’t seem to have much effect. In the end, clean energy and science were big winners.

New England cemented its reputation on Tuesday as a bastion of progressive environmental politics. Voters across our region want action on climate change, they want to advance clean energy, and they want to strengthen their communities.

It is my sincere hope that the elected officials in each state listen to their voters and make progress on these issues. It is also my sincere belief that we will be stronger as a movement if we work together across our New England: while some of our issues are local and some cry out for national leadership, many are regional in nature and can most effectively be addressed at the regional scale.

And then there’s the pragmatic reality that visionary leadership from Washington is very unlikely at this politically fractious time. But with New England’s leaders – of all political stripes – largely sharing a common vision for an economically, socially and environmentally thriving region, we can and must chart our own course right here. To succeed, we need to work together. When New England works together, we have shown that we can.

“The choice before us is simple. Will we continue to subsidize the dirty fossil fuels of the past, or will we transition to 21st century clean, renewable energy?” – U.S. Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

 Good question. To us, the choice is crystal clear. There is but one plausible answer if we are to avert the most devastating impacts of climate change. Thankfully, Massachusetts is sending to Capitol Hill two new leaders – Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren and Congressman-elect Joseph Kennedy III – who have declared firm commitments to fight climate change and promote a clean energy future.

They clearly and consistently have pledged to work to end huge giveaways to Big Oil and other dirty fossil fuel interests, and instead to promote investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and home-grown clean energy jobs. They get it that advancing clean energy is essential not only for confronting climate change, but also for promoting jobs and economic development, saving money by reducing energy waste, investing locally rather than sending billions of Massachusetts dollars to unfriendly dirty fuel-producing nations, and reducing health impacts and healthcare costs as we reduce air and water pollution.

CLF is eager to work with Massachusetts’ newly minted Senator-elect Warren and Congressman-elect Kennedy – and the rest of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation – to translate these laudable aspirations into concrete measures.

The election of Congressman Kennedy also heralds a noteworthy new era in a related respect: Kennedy admirably has demonstrated the courage of his convictions in breaking with prominent members of his family – and joining with his predecessor Congressman Barney Frank, Senator-elect Warren, and other members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation – to support the Cape Wind offshore wind energy project. True, Cape Wind has all of its state and federal approvals and is ready to go. But it can’t hurt to have supportive leaders on Capitol Hill who are ready to fend off last-ditch efforts by dirty energy-funded interests seeking to gin up Congressional witch hunts to derail the project.

Also on election day, Massachusetts residents in seven communities – Beverly, Canton, Fall River, Great Barrington, Salem, Somerset, and Somerville – reinforced a strong and growing commitment to invest in thriving communities through the adoption of the Community Preservation Act. These communities joined 148 other Massachusetts cities towns that have voted to raise their property taxes in order to preserve open space and historic structures, build affordable housing, and develop recreational fields. With more than one hundred Massachusetts communities also having joined the Commonwealth’s Green Communities Program since 2008 to invest in local clean energy initiatives, the people of Massachusetts continue to grow their commitments to invest in healthy, livable communities.

So, what’s next?  One of the biggest challenges ahead during the upcoming Massachusetts legislative session will be to solve the issue of our underfunded and overextended transportation systems.  After all, we need to connect all of these thriving communities more reliably, affordably and with environmentally responsible options.

Tides in Maine vary enormously along the coast – tides along the sandy southern coast in York range between 5 to 7 feet while the tides in Eastport range from 18 – 21 feet. This week’s election results in Maine were more like the Eastport tides than the ones in York.

Maine is the first state to enact a same-sex marriage law by a vote of the general public. Mainers chose to replace Senator Olympia Snowe, a Republican long known for her independent streak, with an actual independent, former Governor and now Senator-elect Angus King. And Mainers also voted to replace the Republican majorities in the State House of Representatives and the State Senate with a Democratic majority in both houses. All of this is good news for Maine and for Maine’s environment.

Senator-elect King is an eloquent and thoughtful leader when it comes to climate change, an issue that received embarrassingly little attention in the Presidential election until the nation witnessed the devastation and loss of Superstorm Sandy, just the latest in a series of increasingly severe weather events that have caused death and destruction along the Atlantic coast. Prior to running for Senate, King not only talked the talk but he walked the walk, developing wind power projects here in Maine. While CLF is likely to have its disagreements with Senator-elect King on certain matters, his election to the Senate will provide that body with a strong voice for acting on climate change in a way that is both good for our communities and good for our economy.

Closer to home, the loss of one party rule at the State House in Augusta marks the end of the hegemony of the LePage Administration over the past two years. With control of both the House and the Senate, the LePage administration was able to push through many changes to Maine’s regulatory structure to the detriment of the environment with little benefit to the economy. Whether that was in limiting access to the Board of Environmental Protection, making it easier for a Canadian company to conduct open pit mining or eviscerating the Land Use Regulatory Commission, the track record of the current administration has been deeply troubling and well worth the D grade it received from the Maine Conservation Voters recently.  Indeed, had it not been for a few courageous and principled members of his own party, the damage would have been even greater.

With both chambers of the legislature now controlled by what the Governor calls the “opposition,” the LePage tide is now receding and one hopes that means that instead of trying to recreate the false dichotomy of environment vs. economy, Augusta can focus on the real challenges and opportunities for Maine’s environment and its economy.

It’s not news that New Hampshire’s ratepayers are paying too much money to support PSNH’s ancient, massively inefficient, and heavily polluting coal-fired power plants. CLF has repeatedly called out PSNH’s calamitous insistence on continuing to operate coal-fired units at Merrimack Station in Bow and Schiller Station in Portsmouth and the resulting exorbitant electric rates that PSNH customers pay.

It’s still possible to be shocked, however, by the magnitude of PSNH’s growing problems and the environmental and economic harm that PSNH’s collapse is causing in New Hampshire. And the situation is worsening: new data are confirming the futility and waste of operating coal plants, and New Hampshire ratepayers are, in what is now a full-scale stampede, abandoning PSNH to meet their electric needs with cleaner, cheaper energy from competitors.

Here is an update on PSNH’s so-called “death spiral”:

Unprecedented Idling of Power Plants

A power plant’s “capacity factor” is a ratio between the amount of electricity the plant actually produced over a given period and the amount that it would have produced had it been running at full capacity during that time. Because coal plants – like nuclear plants – take some time to ramp up and take offline, they are built to operate with a very high capacity factor, on a 24-7 basis. In 2007, PSNH operated Merrimack Station’s coal boilers at 91% capacity and Schiller Station’s coal boilers at 84%.

The new reality for PSNH: these numbers have fallen precipitously since then; over the first nine months of 2012, Merrimack’s coal units had a capacity factor of 31%, and Schiller’s coal units 9.7%.

* 2012 data through September (source: EPA and ISO-NE data)

With dirty coal being trounced in the marketplace by cheaper power sources, especially natural gas, it is a disproportionately expensive undertaking to operate a coal unit – and a veritable folly at these levels of output.

Energy Service Rate Hike in 2013

The problem for PSNH’s customers is that even though the writing is on the wall for coal power plants around the country and here in New England, PSNH is still guaranteed a ratepayer-funded profit for owning Merrimack and Schiller, which is handed over to PSNH whether or not the plants produce power. Add it all together – PSNH’s operating costs for Merrimack, Schiller, and its other power plants, PSNH’s guaranteed profit, and the cost of the “replacement” power PSNH buys from the regional market to provide electricity to its customers while its plants sit idle – and PSNH customers are paying a huge and increasing premium over rates in the competitive market.

While there are many separate charges on an electricity bill, the “energy service” rate reflects the costs of generating the electricity. At the end of September, PSNH filed a projection (PDF) with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission warning of a residential energy service rate increase to take effect on January 1, 2013. The utility requested a 26% increase in the amount customers pay for electricity supplied by PSNH, bringing the overall default energy service rate to 8.97 cents per kilowatt hour. PSNH has also separately requested a permanent rate increase to recover the costs of the $422 million mercury scrubber that, if passed, would bring the default energy service rate to 9.27 cents per kilowatt hour.

By contrast, just over the border in Massachusetts, PSNH affiliate NStar’s residential customers will be paying a mere 6.69 cents per kilowatt hour for power that NStar almost wholly buys from the regional market. NStar’s rates are, like virtually all New England utilities other than PSNH, reflective of the historically low electricity prices available in that market, which have steadily fallen since 2008.

What this means is that, come January, the average PSNH-served New Hampshire home will be subsidizing PSNH and its power plants to the tune of $169 per year, or more than $190 per year with the addition of the extra charge for the scrubber.

Residential and Small Business Customers Increasingly Abandoning PSNH

As CLF documented recently, PSNH’s increasing rates represent an enormous market opportunity for competitive energy suppliers in New Hampshire.

They are seizing it. September 2012 data show 17,507 residential PSNH customers (about 5%) purchasing power from non-PSNH suppliers, an increase of more than 6,000 customers over the month before and a whopping 16,000 more than September of 2011. The number of small businesses fleeing PSNH’s electricity supply has grown at a steady rate: 14,617 purchased power from non-PSNH suppliers in September 2012, compared to 9,351 in September 2011.

(source: PSNH filings with N.H. Public Utilities Commmission)

Meanwhile, the most recent data show that there are now virtually no large or medium-sized businesses that buy power from PSNH.

While retail choice in suppliers for New Hampshire’s residential and small business customers was slow in coming, the available options have expanded considerably in the past year. Resident Power, Electricity NH, and Glacial Energy all quote lower rates than PSNH, and they are increasingly offering additional choices of electricity supply from coal-free, renewable, and sustainable sources at fixed rates lower than PSNH. We can expect an even faster exodus to these suppliers and new ones like them after PSNH’s rate increase in January.

Despite the rapidly increasing number of customers choosing alternative electricity suppliers, the vast majority of New Hampshire’s residential customers still purchase their electricity from PSNH. Many customers are unable or too busy to research comparative rates and make the change. And energy supply choice alone will neither affect the astounding subsidies that PSNH is getting to prop up its failing business nor force PSNH to make the economically rational decision to retire its dirty, outdated coal plants.

We need to correct this massive public policy failure and bring to an end the severe economic, environmental, and public health damage that PSNH’s ancient coal plants are causing in the Granite State. There is now reason to believe that we are turning a corner. Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire’s new governor-elect, has been outspoken about the importance of reducing pollution from electricity generation, especially from PSNH’s coal fleet. CLF is ready to work with the new administration and Legislature to develop a comprehensive climate and energy plan that transitions the state out of the grip of PSNH’s coal-fired business model and moves New Hampshire toward a cleaner and affordable energy future.

Fellowship Attorney Caitlin Peale co-authored this post.

It is a dangerous thing to ignore very smart people who are using rigorous methods of analyzing data. This is true when discussing elections, it is even more true when it comes to thinking about the earth’s climate.

Consider the case of Nate Silver, whose computer forecasting tools have been making spookily accurate predictions about the outcome of elections over the last five years. Silver’s models, which uses public opinion polls, with adjustments for various effects, over the last year showed a presidential election that was very stable with a consistent reality of the incumbent President maintaining a small but clear lead on the national level and a slightly larger but even more consistent lead in key “swing states.” The bottom line prediction of the model was a moderate (60%) to high (92%) probability that the outcome would be the re-election of Barack Obama. He was, of course, impressively accurate.

And yet, leading up the election, Silver’s work was reviled by many – principally those who saw this quantitative approach as undermining their business of dispensing qualitative analysis of elections and, even more vehemently, by those simply could not accept the results of the modeling because they just couldn’t accept the re-election of the President as a potential likely outcome. This phenomenon of folks in denial projecting their own warping of science and analysis on to analysts and scientists who they disagree with is very familiar in the climate context.

For a very long time those who find the truth of global warming to be inconvenient have claimed, amongst other things, that climate science is skewed and political, accusing scientists of suffering from confirmation bias and leaning towards evidence and models that confirmed their political beliefs. Dark, and totally unsubstantiated, accusations are made about how it is “convenient” that the scientist are reaching conclusions that line up with expectations of agencies providing funding. But, of course, these same climate change deniers are the greatest case study of confirmation bias that one could ever find.

So who is the climate equivalent of Nate Silver? Who is a clearly disinterested and objective outside observer coming in from a different world, like Nate Silver came to politics from sports forecasting, and employing sophisticated analytical tools imported from another context?

I would suggest the prudent accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) are making a very strong audition for that role given their Carbon Disclosure Project and very specifically with the issuance just last week of a sobering analysis: PwC Low Carbon Economy Index 2012: Too late for two degrees?

That analysis makes it very clear that drastic action, both in terms of emissions reduction and in reshaping our infrastructure and society, is needed if we are going to avert total disaster. As a partner at PwC said in a press release about the report, “This isn’t about shock tactics, it’s simple maths. We’re heading into uncharted territory for the scale of transformation and technical innovations required. Whatever the scenario, or the response, business as usual is not an option.” Indeed, the levels of global warming pollution that PwC tells us will flow from “business as usual” matches up with the levels that scientists tell us will make the land on which half of humanity resides uninhabitable.

PwC is not alone in delivering this message of cold, sober quantitative analysis delivering hard (and frankly terrifying) conclusions about our climate trajectory.  Lord Nicholas Stern has delivered a similar and powerful message, most famously as an adviser to the British Government. In that role, in 2006, he authored a very influential report starkly demonstrating that the cost of failing to address global warming far outstrips the cost of acting to reducing the emissions that are the source of so much of the problem.

The good news (and it yes, I am following apocalyptic statements with good news) is that here in New England the message of these number crunchers is being heard, and bits of action, designed to respond to this threat, are being seen.  The Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act provides a binding legal mandate that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts address the causes and effects of global warming pollution.  And, the changes in the complexion of state legislatures across the region (detailed on this blog by the CLF state office directors) suggest that we may be able to make more progress on this front across New England. Finally, the rise of clean energy champions in our congressional delegation (notably the election of former wind energy developer Angus King as a Senator from Maine) means that our representatives will continue to rise up as voices of sanity on energy and climate on the national stage – and sanity is what is needed if we are going to heed the message our number crunchers are sending us.

On September 26, 2012 I posted a blog called Thune For Thought, in which I wrote:

“At 2 a.m. on September 22, 2012, the United States Senate voted by unanimous consent that   U.S. airlines could choose to ignore the European Union’s requirement that all airplanes landing in the EU reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming. Either climate change is happening or it isn’t. But, once you look at the data, once you subscribe to the opinion that it is happening, you have an affirmative obligation to take all reasonable steps to responsibly address the problem. I understand that this is election season, and some of the Senate races are tight, and airlines can be powerful lobbyists, but, it is 2012 and an anti-climate emissions control bill is passing via unanimous consent in the United States Senate? Either climate change is really happening or it isn’t.”

Our climate champions across the nation abandoned their science-based advocacy about the reality of climate change and the extreme price tag that comes with our collective failure to act. They abandoned that advocacy immediately prior to the election, and disappointingly, during the election. They abandoned that advocacy even in the aftermath of the one-two punch of Super Storm Sandy and Nor’easter Athena.

Not a single elected official in Rhode Island, from the Governor to the delegation, has uttered the words climate change in any of these contexts.

After the November 6, 2012 election, nothing much has changed in Rhode Island or for the country in terms of political representation. Our delegation in Rhode Island remained the same: Reed, Whitehouse, Langevin, and Cicciline; our Governor remained the same: Chafee; our President: the same; and, the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives remained the same: blue majority in the Senate, red majority in the House.

The take home message is simple: Averting the climate disaster can’t be about party politics. We all lose if that is where the battle lines are drawn on the single most important issue facing our country. Averting the climate disaster requires science and the courage to act on it.

Dear President Obama, start acting on climate change.
Dear Senator Reed, start acting on climate change.
Dear Senator Whitehouse, start acting on climate change.
Dear Representative Langevin, start acting on climate change.
Dear Representative Cicciline, start acting on climate change.
Dear Governor Chafee, start acting on climate change.
Dear Rhode Island House and Senate Leaders, start acting on climate change.

We need science and courage, not politics.

Memorandum

To: The President Elect
From: John Kassel, President of CLF
Date: November 6, 2012, 11:30 a.m.

First, let me offer my sincere congratulations. Whichever candidate you are, you have won a hard fought victory. Well done.

With your victory comes the responsibility to lead this country safely through the most critical issues of our day. Judging by your campaign I am afraid that is something you have already shown you will not do.

During the campaign, you were largely silent on climate change. During each one of the debates, for instance, none of the moderators asked a question – and you didn’t push the issue to the fore. When asked about the economy, you didn’t say that not addressing climate change presents the single largest risk of market failure ever seen. When asked about foreign policy, you didn’t echo the Pentagon and others in identifying climate change as a threat to our national security. And when asked about domestic policy, you didn’t identify climate change as endangering our communities, our economies and our future generations.

Not once did you identify climate change during these debates. In a year of record-breaking temperatures, drought in the West, and Arctic ice melt, this is disappointing. It is as though, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, you and your opponent tried to will this problem away through silence.

It took Sandy to shake out of you a direct response to climate change. Sandy reminded us of many things: about the need for preparation, about the human and economic price that nature will extract, suddenly and mercilessly, and about the suddenness of slow change once it is upon you.

Up until Hurricane Sandy, climate change was the elephant in the room. Now, we are trying to figure out how to clean up after the elephant. It is a devastating experience and heart-rending sight – one that should compel action, and has among some of your peers.

Last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote, “Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.” I couldn’t agree more.

Climate change is not just a global issue, but an American issue, as it threatens all Americans – the 99 percent and the 1 percent, liberals and conservatives, voters and nonvoters. It also threatens all New Englanders, from all walks of life: white or black, young or old, red or blue.

Slow devastation at the hands of predictable and largely preventable causes does not advance the interest of your electorate, Mister President Elect. But your continued silence will only guarantee just that.

It is your responsibility, Mister President Elect, to not only protect and safeguard the citizens of the United States, but to lead them to prosperity. We need you to lead on climate change. We need you lead on this issue – now, more than ever.

My sincere congratulations again. We eagerly await your leadership.

Sincerely,

John Kassel
President of Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)

We’re still counting the casualties and costs, but one thing is sure: after a second “hundred year” event in the last two years in New England (last year’s Hurricane Irene and this week’s Sandy), we need to pay some sober attention to building our region’s capacity to roll with the climate punches.

“Adaptation,” “adaptability,” “resilience,” “adaptive capacity,” and “vulnerability” are all part of the emerging vocabulary that seeks to describe a basic and simple question: what prudent steps should we be taking to ensure that we can lower the risks and minimize the effects of severe events linked to climate change even as we strive to lessen greenhouse gases? In the wake of this week’s destruction, it’s worth considering how best to engage our communities in the kind of thoughtful planning and action that can prevent or offset the worst effects of events like Irene and Sandy, and then enable us to bounce back.

As noted by my colleague Tricia K .Jedele in Rhode Island on this blog, many coastal communities like Matunuck sustained significant damage to their beaches, seawalls, and jetties. The storm surge temporarily returned Manhattan to being a real island, cut off from the mainland, and stranding millions without power and transportation. The economic cost of replacing damaged public infrastructure and people’s homes will certainly be in the billions of taxpayer, insurance, and private dollars, not to mention the economic damage done when a region is brought to a standstill.

Anticipating and planning for potential problems associated with climate change makes a difference. New York City, for example, has been working for several years already to implement a climate adaptation plan that will make its transportation system less vulnerable to precisely the kind of effects that Sandy brought about this week. Similarly, Groton, CT has engaged in a local effort to calculate how best to use its resources to minimize the local economic impact of sea-level rise and storm surge.

Protecting New England’s fresh and ocean waters has been a CLF program priority since the organization’s beginnings. Hurricane Sandy has caused wide-spread runoff of farmland and urban pollutants into our streams, as well as sewer overflows from inadequate and damaged urban treatment plants and systems. In some places, like Wells, Maine, local decision makers are including climate considerations into the kind of choices all towns face, in this case the replacement of an aging sewage treatment facility that will not function adequately as sea levels rise.

Deciding how repair, rebuilding and replacement take place can either repeat the mistakes that brought us here, like allowing houses to be rebuilt in shoreline flood zones, or make significant progress toward lessening the effects of future storms. For example, the coastal towns of New Hampshire, and five municipalities in southern Maine, are each working together to establish common regulatory standards that will protect lives and property as the shoreline reacts to climate change. Hurricane Irene’s destruction of stream and river banks in Vermont in 2001 resulted in wide-spread damage, but as we noted recently, also demonstrated the importance of preserving and enhancing wetlands as a way to mitigate some of those effects.

George Santayana’s dictum, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” together with Einstein’s definition of insanity, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” should lead us to consider what we can learn from these events, and then act with our elected leaders and communities to build resilience that can prevent or mitigate the effects of a changing climate on New England.

President Barack Obama hugs Donna Vanzant, the owner of North Point Marina, as he tours damage from Hurricane Sandy in Brigantine, N.J., Oct. 31, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The full impact of this hurricane is still becoming known. The storm has taken at least 94 lives, including those of two small boys who were recovered after several days of searching. As a father of two young children this sent a shock wave through my psyche. I feel very fortunate that my extended family and friends along the Atlantic seaboard suffered no more than a power outage and a few lost roof shingles.

As if the floods of early 2010 and Hurricane Irene weren’t enough, the latest photos and news accounts from New Jersey and the New York City area create a smashing realization that the really massive hurricane disasters, the Katrina-like disasters which take years to recover from, aren’t just relegated to the Gulf coast and the Deep South. New England, New Jersey and the other Mid-Atlantic States, and even inland towards the Great Lake states, are all going to have to create new contingency plans for hurricane season.

The immense size and increasing ferocity of the storm’s descent on New England could be both felt and measured. On Monday afternoon a little before 1:00pm the wave height at Cashes Ledge, as indicated by its resident weather buoy 80 miles off the coast of Portland, registered 15.1 feet. About one hour later the wave height was up past 23 feet. This was about the time the trees outside my office in Washington DC started to shed small branches and the same time I’m on the phone with colleagues in Boston over 400 miles away and we are all experiencing the same storm. Do the effects of climate change create a storm such as Sandy or only increase its size and strength? Is that even a pertinent question anymore?

After a decade and a half of the issue of climate change slipping further off the edge of the political and public debate, we see media outlets this week claiming its resurgence. Bloomberg Businessweek gets the full story. The Washington Post has two columnists noting that the climate change issue is back. And, is if timed to make a couple of points, Mayor Bloomberg himself made climate change the centerpiece of his endorsement of the President. Will Sandy really help shift the dialogue, or will the climate deniers and polluters just double down?

Our reaction in the wake of the Superstorm can provide a clear indication of the future and how quickly we can embrace a more realistic, mature approach to crisis management and recovery. Can we start with an honest assessment and some better planning? Or are we going to be stuck – still – in the blatantly self-serving political posturing that avoids real measures to address climate change and its exceptionally well-predicted impacts? There are number of us in New England who both love the ocean and love to use it, and believe that better scientific information and a better process to site new and replaced infrastructure is a great direction to go. We need to develop clean energy sources. We need a healthier ocean and protected habitat. We need existing and new coastal businesses and ocean industries.  The National Ocean Policy is now ready for full implementation. Is there better time to start?