Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island took the Senate floor yesterday in defense of science and reason – two topics that seldom seem to influence the decisionmaking of the Senate lawmakers these days when it comes to climate change.  Speaking out against the two big lies permeating the halls of congress: 1) environmental regulations are a burden to the economy; and 2) the jury is still out on climate change, Senator Whitehouse convincingly argued why both claims are false.  “The jury isn’t out,” he said, “the verdict is in!”  “More than 97% of publishing scientists accept that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it,” the Senator said in a twenty-four minute floor speech in which he cautioned his colleagues that the Senate is failing, “earning the scorn and condemnation of history” because while it considers repealing laws designed to prevent pollution, it cannot repeal the laws of nature.  “The dark hand of polluters can tap so many shoulders and there is a lot of power and money behind that dark hand, but nature is also tapping us on the shoulder, and we ignore that tapping at our own grave peril,” said Senator Whitehouse.  I must admit, I don’t have a lot of confidence that nature’s hand will win the contest in Washington, D.C., but my confidence is a bit restored when a Senator has the courage to speak the truth to his colleagues … giving nature’s tap a fighting chance.  Senator Whitehouse (RI) Floor speech on climate change

No one knows better than the US military that our dependence on fossil fuels comes with enormous hidden costs.  In this Op-Ed in the Tampa Tribune three retired generals and one retired admiral discuss the hundreds of soldiers who have died and the thousands of their brother-in-arms who have been seriously wounded guarding fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our military has long known about the overarching threat to our security from unchecked global warming.

Reducing our dependence on oil and building a clean energy future will require work on a wide variety of fronts – and that is why CLF is working not only to foster renewable generation like wind and solar power but also working “on the demand side” to ensure that energy efficiency prosper as well.

This is a challenge that stretches far beyond the realm of electricity use or heating or cooling buildings and homes.  We use enormous amounts of energy in our transportation sector.   We can be more efficient and reduce our fossil fuel use by driving cleaner cars that get more miles per gallon.  We also can build and operate transit systems that move masses of people in a far more efficient manner.  Even just building sidewalks and more “walkable” communities reduces driving, fuel consumption and emissions.

Pushing for better transit, more sidewalks, more efficient buildings, the retirement of old coal plants and wind and solar power might seem very far removed from the effort to protect the nation, but it really isn’t such a stretch and it is part of what drives forward the work of organizations like CLF and our many friends, allies and partners.

Back in 2004 a group of researchers and analysts at Princeton led by Robert Socolow published the “wedge analysis” that captured the problem of greenhouse gas emissions reductions in a pithy way that presented solutions in a manner that a lot of folks found very appealing – they presented their own scenarios but did it in a way that was flexible and allowed readers to dial technologies up and down to reflect their own beliefs and preferences.

Socolow has revisited that work and done some meditating on why in the intervening seven years we have not only failed to start to solve the problem but in fact have been making the hole we are in deeper.

Andrew Revkin (in his continuing capacity as a New York Times blogger, even though he has left the reporting business as a day job at the Times in favor of generally nurturing and studying environmental journalism at Pace University) summarizes and presents that work and reactions to it in a way that really makes for truly required reading.

Employing one of the best things about the blog form Revkin collects in a new post email exchanges he had with Socolow and various academics and experts about the essay and conversations springing from it.

In the course of that conversation Socolow presents a bit of a searing critique of himself and all others who have been trying to provoke action on global warming:

Worldwide, policymakers are scuttling away from commitments to regulations and market mechanisms that are tough enough to produce the necessary streams of investments. Given that delay brings the potential for much additional damage, what is standing in the way of action?

Familiar answers include the recent recession, the political influence of the fossil fuel industries, and economic development imperatives in countries undergoing industrialization. But, I submit, advocates for prompt action, of whom I am one, also bear responsibility for the poor quality of the discussion and the lack of momentum. Over the past seven years, I wish we had been more forthcoming with three messages: We should have conceded, prominently, that the news about climate change is unwelcome, that today’s climate science is incomplete, and that every “solution” carries risk. I don’t know for sure that such candor would have produced a less polarized public discourse. But I bet it would have.

And one of the responding voices, (David Victor, author of “Global Warming Gridlock” and a professor at the University of California, San Diego) agrees with Socolow on substance but disagrees  with Socolow on specific strategy and tactics arguing that the policy advocacy community has actually been doing a pretty good job of broadcasting the messages that Socolow is saying need to be heard but that the problem is much deeper and broader:

Outside of a few hyper green countries—like the EU15—climate change is just one of many issues. Like most environmental issues it comes and goes. You can’t sustain action in these countries without either finding ways to make action costless (or at least invisible) or linking action to other things people care about. The costless/invisibility strategy is a big part of the reason why the world (notably the US) did so well in cutting ozone depleting substances.

But it won’t work on climate—or at least not yet—which means plan B. Talk about how climate links to energy security and such. That’s now happening and it is having an effect (across the board the polling data are much more favorable to regulation on greenhouse gases when the questions focus on other benefits). Obviously we can’t over-sell this approach because it won’t stop warming and it easily leads to mischievous policies that hide true intentions and lard the economy with lots of extra costs. But all else equal, the more “reluctant” a country is to do something on climate itself the more important it is to talk about other goals as well. The community of policy advocates—especially folks drawn from academic science and engineering—is shockingly naïve about politics and the strategy of political action.

Revkin also provides us with a quote from Prof. Victor on the literary and historical metaphor that should be expunged from the climate advocacy vocabulary:

A last word—a plea really. Let’s all stop evoking Galileo. Whenever someone feels under siege they look to Galileo because he was right and persistent and his critics were both wrong and egregious. But the metaphor is hard to use effectively because what really matters is ex ante. For every Galileo there were thousands of others who were hacks. Maybe the one thing that we have learned from Galileo is that it is unwise to punish dissenters, and that’s a good message. But it is interesting to read the Tea Party stuff on climate and see that they use Galileo as well. Everyone is dueling over the same metaphor—they just can’t agree on who is Galileo and who’s the Pope.

Merrimack Station Coal Plant. Photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond

New England’s old coal-burning power plants don’t just pollute the air. With their obsolete cooling technology, they also create havoc in the water bodies on which they reside. To control heat from the coal-combustion process, these coal plants draw millions of gallons of water daily into their antiquated cooling systems, killing the aquatic life that gets sucked in with it, and then discharge the super-heated, chemical-laden  water back into the fragile rivers and bays, where it creates untenable living conditions that destroy native fish and other species.

Under decades of pressure from CLF and other organizations, EPA has tightened its regulations around water intake and discharge at the region’s coal plants. At the GenOn Kendall Power Plant in Cambridge, MA, as a result of a lawsuit brought by CLF and the Charles River Watershed Association, EPA required last February that the plant owner, TriGen Corporation, build a “closed-cycle” cooling system that will reduce the water withdrawal and discharge of heated water into the Charles River by approximately 95%. Brayton Point in  Fall River, MA will finish construction of its new cooling towers in 2012, dramatically reducing its harmful impacts on Great Hope Bay.

Today, in another giant step forward, EPA issued a draft NPDES permit for Merrimack Station in Bow, NH, where heated discharge from the power plant’s old “once-through” cooling system has caused a 94 percent decline of the kinds of species that once lived in that part of the Merrimack River. CLF applauded the draft permit, which will require Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to install and operate year-round a modern cooling system that will decrease the plant’s discharge of heated water by nearly 100 percent.

In a statement, issued today in response to the release of the draft permit, CLF called the requirements “long overdue.” Jonathan Peress, director of CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program, said, “No matter what PSNH spends, it will not be able to turn this 50-year-old dinosaur into an economically-viable generating facility that benefits the people of New England. Still, as long as this plant remains in operation, it must comply with the law and we commend EPA for holding PSNH accountable.” Read the full statement here.

A decision in the Vermont Yankee case is expected before the end of the year.  Meanwhile, CLF in its role as “friend of the court” submitted a post trial memo supporting the State of Vermont’s right to have a say about Vermont Yankee.  The brief explains that the Vermont Legislature acted well within its rights and why Entergy’s safety characterizations are faulty.

CLF Attorney Sandy Levine was a guest on the Callie Crossley show on WGBH in Boston Monday  afternoon to discuss Vermont Yankee and the future of nuclear power.

Entergy’s nuclear plants continue to have problems calling into question their ability to  be trustworthy and responsibly manage their nuclear fleet.

A problem at Vermont Yankee Sunday night reduced power to 36% and if the situation is not remedied shortly, the plant will be required to shut down completely.

At the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in New York State, investigations led to 4 workers being fired, 34 disciplined, and criminal charges brought against the plant’s former radiation protection technician.  The investigations showed that employees falsified tests of safety equipment, failed to document air samples and failed to conduct leak testing, among other things.

In Michigan, the Palisades Nuclear Plant shutdown twice last week, due to a cooling system problem and also an electrical breaker fault.

This weekend Governor Cuomo stated that the Indian Point nuclear plant could easily be replaced with other power sources because “safety[is] first.”

Obviously, we here at the Conservation Law Foundation think that crafting and advocating for environmental solutions is a very important thing to be doing and that when we have a job opening that the best, smartest, most tenacious and brightest folks should apply.

However, we know that we are part of a much larger network and community of people and organizations working to create positive change.  Some of those groups work largely out of the public eye – providing critical infrastructure for the flashier and more visible efforts.  An excellent example of one such group is the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) which has done a phenomenal job of coordinating and advancing the work of the environmental and efficiency advocacy communities in the world of standards setting for appliances.  It might sound kind of boring but it is of critical importance – which I will lay out a bit more below.

But before I get to that here is the important part – they are hiring.  If you have what it takes to be a “Strategic Program / Technical Analyst” you should give them a look.

(more…)

If a tree falls in the forest in order to fuel in an inefficient electric power plant, does it make noise?  You bet it does.  This morning, dozens of advocates rallied at the Massachusetts State House to make a little noise while calling for the strengthening of the Commonwealth’s rules for forest wood-fueled – i.e., “biomass” – energy incentives.

Last year, we cheered as the Patrick Administration commissioned a ground-breaking study, known as the “Manomet Report,” to help understand the climate impacts of biomass energy.  That Report reaffirmed a growing scientific understanding that burning whole trees for energy can be worse than burning coal because of what I refer to as the “double whammy” effect:  (1) the immediate release into the atmosphere of the carbon stored in the tree; and (2) the tree that has been cut no longer is available to absorb new carbon from the atmosphere – or help promote clean water, wildlife habitat, shade or other benefits.

Based on the Manomet Report, the Administration released an encouraging framework for revised biomass regulations that included the key policy pillars of science-based carbon accounting, strong sustainable harvesting requirements, and minimum efficiency standards for capturing the energy stored in biomass fuels.  Unfortunately, the latest version of the regulations and related guidance have been substantially weakened, treating all forms of biomass as “carbon neutral” over a short period of time, promoting the removal of all harvest residues from the forest floor, and encouraging the cutting of whole trees for biomass fuel.  This retreat is disturbing both in terms of likely impacts in Massachusetts and the precedent it would set for other states, the nation, and beyond.

As we spelled out at today’s State House rally, Massachusetts still has an historic opportunity to “get it right”.  To make this happen, CLF and many others are asking for three simple things:

1.       The final biomass regulations must be based on the SCIENCE, consistent with the core lessons of the Manomet Report;

2.       Incentives must be reserved for practices that DO NO HARM to our forests, for example by leaving sufficient tree tops and limbs in forests to replenish soil nutrients and provide habitat;

3.       Benefits should be limited to those practices and facilities that AVOID WASTE by efficiently using biomass fuel, ensuring that the majority of its energy potential is captured and used.

The specific changes to the draft rules that we are seeking are spelled out in greater detail here.

Massachusetts’ forests currently absorb a whopping 10% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we produce each year from electric power generation, transportation, heating, cooling and all other activities combined. This doesn’t mean that we need to leave all forests untouched – there is a role for sustainably harvested forest products of many kinds, just as there is a role for untouched forest reserves.  But we do need to watch out for the “double whammy” and make certain that limited ratepayer-funded clean energy dollars are not steered toward wasteful forest harvesting and combustion practices that would move us away from the clean energy future we seek.

The State of Vermont and the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power facility squared off in Federal Court this week.  It was a three day trial.  The days were long.  The testimony was often technical.  The lawyering was skilled.  Vermont Yankee’s owners say everything is about safety and only the federal government can regulate safety so Vermont’s laws are invalid.  It is a convoluted argument.  The dots don’t connect. 

Vermont’s able lawyers went toe-to-toe with the owners every step of the way.  The State has a strong case.  Vermonters by nature are frank and direct.  Our laws say what they mean and mean what they say.   There is no decade-long grand conspiracy to hide intentions.  The Vermont Legislature acted well within its rights. 

CLF has joined the case as a “friend of the court” and has filed legal pleadings supporting the state.  We are also representing Vermont Public Interest Research Group whose representatives joined me at the hearings, and logged daily accounts of the trial. 

The trial is over.  A decision is expected before the end of the year.  Stay tuned.

Groundbreaking for the Wonderland Parking Garage

Less than five years ago, in response to a CLF lawsuit, Massachusetts committed to building one thousand new “park and ride” parking spaces in the Commonwealth. The idea was to put the parking spaces near public transportation, making it easy for people to ride rather than drive to their destinations. The commitment was intended to reduce the number of cars on the roads and their emissions in order to help the Commonwealth come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. Currently, Massachusetts does not meet the national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone, a dangerous byproduct of vehicle exhaust that can trigger serious respiratory problems and cause permanent lung damage. Building parking spaces in the right locations, it has been proven, actually helps reduce air pollution.

Originally, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) selected Beverly and Salem as the locations to build the bulk of these spaces with new parking garages near their commuter rail stations.  Although both communities welcomed these facilities with open arms, MassDOT decided last year instead to seek to meet their obligation by counting the “park and ride” spaces already being constructed near the Wonderland MBTA station on the Blue Line.  They feared the Beverly and Salem garages would not be completed on time, but now the Wonderland park and ride spaces are also delayed.

Although it had five years to build the parking spaces, MassDOT announced this summer that it will not meet this obligation by the end of 2011.The Clean Air Act requires the Commonwealth to somehow achieve the same air quality benefits during the period of delay, through a so-called interim offset project or measure.  MassDOT, however, has petitioned the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to delay the completion of this requirement without proposing any such interim offset project or measure.  Why, you ask?

MassDOT is arguing that since the parking garage it chose last year to fulfill the bulk of this requirement is near private parking lots that are $2 to $3 lower in price than what the Commonwealth would have charged for parking in the new garage, the new parking facility would have been underutilized and as such would have no measurable air quality benefits.  Are you kidding me?  This tortured analysis is akin to my asking to get paid for a day that I did not show up at work since I would have been on Facebook all day anyway, had I been in the office.  Hopefully, such bootstrapping will motivate DEP to keep its rubber stamp locked up.