I finally got around to posting a blog entry about the latest report by the International Energy Agency about the terrible trajectory that our species is putting the planet’s climate but then I saw that Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby had weighed in with good news: he has found one physicist who disagrees with the rest of the scientific establishment and therefore we can stop worrying about this fundamental threat to our environment, society, health and economy.

If Jacoby was only a lone crank offering his opinions and “facts” on his own website that would be one thing – but he is the primary “conservative” columnist (although how ignoring science and real threats to the environment and the economy is conservative is  a bit of a mystery) at one of the leading news sources in New England.

Mr. Jacoby is the local voice of well-financed effort to generate doubt about climate science and he is seeking to undermine support for the affirmative steps taken in Massachusetts, and New England, to attack this most fundamental of problems.

The people stepping up to take action to protect our climate, our public health and to build a new clean energy economy come from our religious communities, our businesses, our neighborhoods as well as the public policy and political worlds.

This broad and deep support for action is grounded firmly in the science, the need to protect and conserve our environment and economy – as well as a recognition that getting out of the curve on global warming and energy independence will help build a more prosperous Commonwealth, region and nation.

The International Energy Agency has issued an analysis of current emissions of the greenhouse gases causing global warming and the trends and implications that can be seen in the data – and their conclusions are terrifying.

Using language that is unusual for a sober technical adviser the IEA states that “the prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius is getting bleaker.”  A broad range of scientists have long agreed that moving beyond that level of global climate change would be disastrous, and that is why it is the target agreed to by the world’s governments.  The IEA noted that this target is getting harder and harder to reach because “80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today.”

In an article in the Guardian newspaper, Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics (who, the Guardian notes, was the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change  in 2006) issued this dire warning about the new IEA analysis: “These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path … would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100,” he said.

“Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce.”

How are we going to change this disastrous course?  We have  all the tools in our hands to do it – moving rapidly away from coal fired power plants, unleashing the full energy efficiency potential all around us, building the renewable energy resources that will convert the wind and sun into energy we can use.

As the battle over Vermont Yankee’s future is waged, Conservation Law Foundation and VPIRG seek to join as a friend of the court, or amicus for this first stage.  CLF will use the expertise gained in opposing Yankee’s continued operation before the PSB to bolster the argument that Yankee’s a long track record of failures preclude the Court from allowing continued operation.  Entergy would love to characterize their re-licensing as a guarantee to operate past 2012. However, CLF points out that their federal court challenge to the license over Entergy’s failure to obtain a necessary Clean Water Act certification makes the license itself uncertain.

CLF urges the Court not to allow Entergy to usurp Vermont law and walk away from their legal obligations.  The false testimony, leaks and bad economics of continued operation are ample justification for Vermont to refuse to grant a new certificate to operate for another twenty years.  In 2009 Entergy officials gave false testimony about the existence of underground pipes that were later found to be leaking radioactive tritium.  As CLF’s brief states:  “If land surveyors, architects, plumbers and physicians assistants can lose or be denied a license for making a material misrepresentation, less cannot be expected or required of nuclear facility operators.  The false testimony that Entergy officials provided under oath calls into question the ability of the plant operator to meet its legal obligations.”

The state of Vermont swung back in its reply brief last week with a laundry list of reasons the court should dismiss Entergy’s request to continue operating during the trial, or a “preliminary injunction”.  Because Entergy agreed to seek Public Service Board (PSB) approval, and not challenge PSB authority in court, the state argues Entergy is bound by their agreement. Also, the state suggests it is inappropriate for Entergy to object to PSB oversight at such a late hour, long after they received the benefit of doing business in Vermont under this agreement since 2002.

The state railed against Entergy’s argument that federal law supersedes state regulation over the aging plant. Vermont argues that, with the exception of radiation safety, states have authority over nuclear in many areas such as, “economics, land use, policy questions regarding a state’s energy future, and whether a corporation running a nuclear power plant has established itself as a trustworthy business partner.” Thus, the state argues that regulation over nuclear was never meant to preempt state law altogether.

Both Entergy and the state of Vermont will have a chance to argue on the preliminary injunction motion before United States District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha on June 22-24.

A guest blog post from Juliana Kaplan:

As an avid reader of Scholastic’s series The Princess Diaries, let me just tell you one thing about Scholastic’s recent coal product placement: Princess Mia would not like it.

While such products as the Spongebob Squarepants digital monopoly game and Cheerios counting books lining their shelves, Scholastic is no stranger to product placement. But as Scholastic’s recent product placement decisions come to light, many are questioning whether such an educational company should be using these products in their material.

Scholastic’s recent deal with the American Coal Foundation which agreed to sponsor an educational poster called “The United States Of Energy”, which if you asked them, is a purely educational map featuring several sources of energy around the U.S. Of course, one of the extremely highlighted and detailed sections features coal production, and the accompanying teacher’s guide suggests a full class period to learn about the steps of coal production and how it makes electricity. So let’s get this straight: Coal companies are paying Scholastic, which in turn makes coal map and coal lesson. Do you see a common theme here, too?

So here’s where it gets difficult: how much is too much? This is a wide debate, and while many might say “Well, of course, there is a limit.” But when their companies are booming because of product placement, it turns into the sky is the limit. But if we keep pushing the boundaries, keep throwing money at each other, keep turning a blind eye, how far can we push the envelope? Am I supposed to start my college year with English: Brought to you by Microsoft Word ? I was recently watching an episode of iCarly with my little sister, about how the girls are paid to have a subtle product placement in their show, and soon regret it. But I have seen many a Nickelodeon show subtly advertise other shows of Nickelodeon origin. So, while there may be many shocked and dismayed by Scholastic’s map and curriculum, let me just tell you right now: this may just be the beginning.

Rural states like Maine struggle with mass transit issues.  With limited federal funds and even more limited state and local funds, getting the requisite amount of money to fund transit infrastructure can be a herculean task.  Maine has 23,142 miles of roads, compare that to New Hampshire – it has less than half the state roads as Maine yet a slightly smaller population (1,318,301 versus NH’s 1,324,575) and the same transportation funding.  The result is that Maine must squeeze every bit of value it can out of each transportation dollar it receives.  So when it comes time to funding expensive, long term transit projects, it can be a tough sell.  Witness the recent reaction of the transportation committee to the ZOOM bus bill.

So how do Mainers cope with rising gas prices and the need to traverse long distances, often around rural or semi-rural areas, just to get to work?  Well, thousands of available seats already exist in vehicles traveling down the very same roads you commute on, every day, going the same way you are going, at the same time you are traveling.  Yep, it’s all those empty car seats right next to you.  Ok, groan if you must about pre-conceived notions about carpooling, but you might be surprised at how easy it is, thanks to GoMaine’s  interactive commuter ride-matching website.

Not ready for a long term commitment?  No problem, GoMaine just launched a single trip carpool finder so you can catch a ride to Camden for a festival, or save on parking by taking one car downtown for a show.  Not sure about the exact address of where you are heading?  The site uses Google maps so you can at least get close.  The ride-matching system on the GoMaine site has a trip planner, a commuter log that tracks your commuting choices and calculates the pollution and financial savings that go with it.  So, let’s talk about those pollution and money saving benefits.

Take a very typical commute – Lewiston to Portland.  Because housing costs are relatively cheaper in Lewiston but more job opportunities  are in Portland, many Mainers find themselves making the 49 mile haul each way, every day.  First, let’s address the environmental impact of that commute.  If you are going solo five days a week, that commute is releasing 20,012 lbs of carbon into the atmosphere every year.  (By comparison, the average CO2 emissions for a single occupancy vehicle in America is 11,634 lbs per year).   If you had just one person sharing that ride with you, you at least bring your commuter carbon emissions down to the national average.

Next, let’s talk about your wallet.  Assuming you never drove anywhere else but to work and back in your 25mpg car, at today’s gas price of $3.97, you are paying $3,890 a year, in gas alone.  Add to that tolls, wear and tear on your car, and you are paying a lot of money just to get to your job.  But say you have 3 people in your car so you all split that cost.  Each of you pays $972.50 a year instead.  What could you do with an extra $2,000 in your wallet?

Two of the best sources of information and dialogue about climate and related issues are the Climate Progress blog edited by Dr. Joseph Romm a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, author, former Clinaton Administration official and general smart guy (pretty much known to everyone as Joe) who is now assisted by longtime renewable energy writer/editor/video producer Stephen Lacey and the Dot Earth blog maintained on the New York Times website by Andrew Revkin, who started the blog while working as a staff reporter at the Times and has continued with it while moving to a new day job at Pace University (and yes, he is known to one and all, including people who just know him as the guitar player in Uncle Wade, as Andy).

Andy Revkin and Joe Romm often disagree in ways that can be grating and sometimes, less often, entertaining.   So it is striking when they converge on the same topics.

In a Dot Earth post on May 25 Revkin calls out with approval for Romm’s blog post about tornadoes and global warming quoting Joe’s conclusion that:

When discussing extreme weather and climate, tornadoes should not be conflated with the other extreme weather events for which the connection is considerably more straightforward and better documented, including deluges, droughts, and heat waves.

Just because the tornado-warming link is more tenuous doesn’t mean that the subject of global warming should be avoided entirely when talking about tornadoes.

In the same blog post Andy complements another Climate Progress blog post about the full greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use, specifically discussing a new analysis from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (that is not yet peer reviewed) that, “appears to strongly undercut the widely cited conclusion by Robert Howarth of Cornell that leakage and other issues make natural gas a greater greenhouse threat than coal.”

These are two very important topics: the causal relationships that can be seen between global warming and our immediate environment, teasing apart the very real effects of climate change from other phenomena, and understanding the true environment effects of choices we make like increased extraction and use of natural gas.

If you eat, particularly if you eat fruit or nuts, you might be interested in seeing this scientific paper on how global warming and related climate change will have on the trees that are the sources of the fruits and nuts we eat.  Spoiler alert – it isn’t good for them.  Specifically, the paper (to quote the summary) says:

Temperate fruit and nut trees require adequate winter chill to produce economically viable yields. Global warming has the potential to reduce available winter chill and greatly impact crop yields.

One of the co-authors of the paper is on the staff of The Nature Conservancy and they explain the paper in a press release and a detailed blog post.

The story is clear: fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not nuts (or a fruitless activity) – it is a deadly serious business that must be undertaken if we are going to save the world as we know it from vanishing.  The many people who depend on these most basic of foods, not to mention the animals and other plant species who depend on them, deserve protection and moving rapidly away from fossil fuels as the foundation of our energy and transportation systems is the only path open before us.

A very smart man once told me to never spread criticism and attacks accidentally in the name of rebutting them.  But sometimes you just have to do it.

An odd item popped up in the tubes of the interwebs recently - an anonymous essay attributed only to the financial website called “TheStreet.com” that (apparently) was never actually distributed on TheStreet.com but rather was posted and distributed through the MSN Money personal finance and investing website.

(more…)

Photo: Matthew Trump

CLF spoke out today regarding Green Mountain Power of Vermont’s newly-inked deal to purchase power from Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, even as the state faces ongoing battles over Vermont Yankee. In a statement, Christopher Kilian, vice president and director of CLF Vermont, questioned the wisdom of betting on nuclear power as a long-term energy source for Vermont. The statement is below:

“Vermonters are rightly concerned about their energy sources,” said Christopher Kilian, vice president and director of CLF Vermont. “Striking the appropriate balance between cost, safety and environmental concerns associated with energy generation is an ongoing challenge, and we appreciate the state’s efforts to make energy-related decisions that are in the best interest of its citizens. However, we remain concerned about the state’s bet on nuclear energy over such a long time horizon. While Seabrook is a newer facility than Vermont Yankee, it shares the ongoing problems that all nuclear facilities have in common, like the absence of any proven solution for long-term waste storage and disposal. Adding to that the issues of Seabrook’s location right on the coast, which is especially troubling given the rising sea levels caused by global warming and recent sobering events in Japan, and continued lax federal oversight regarding relicensing of these older plants, CLF continues to believe that nuclear power is a poor choice for Vermont and New England and doesn’t belong in our energy future.”

Kilian continued, “Experience in Vermont shows the legal risks of betting on nuclear power. The state is now facing massive legal battles because the owners of Vermont Yankee are going back on their promises.”