Hotter Temperatures More than Doubled Smog Days in New England

On October 1, the EPA announced that the number of bad air quality days increased from 11 last year to 28 in 2010.  These are also known as “high ozone days” and are triggered when ozone levels exceed the standards EPA has set to protect public health. Excessive ozone, more commonly known as smog, results from a combination of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and heat and sunlight. Even short-term exposure to smog has been shown to shorten lives and cause other severe health impacts, including shortness of breath, chest pain, asthma attacks, and increased hospitalization for vulnerable populations such as the very young, elderly, and those already suffering from lung or heart disease. In children, smog can also result in dramatic long-term impacts such as reduced lung development and function.

The hotter the day, the worse the smog—and that smog is intensified by the increased use of electricity from coal and other fossil fuel-fired power plants when we crank up our air conditioners.  Emissions from cars and trucks add to the dangerous mix, and as climate change progresses, the temperatures continue to rise.

Until now, the greater Boston area had experienced an average of 14 days of 90 degrees or more per year. In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists had estimated that climate change would result in no more than 15-18 days of 90+ degree weather from 2010-2039.

But in 2010, Boston endured 23 days of 90+ degree weather, far outstripping both the annual average and predictions of what that number would be in the future.  Although EPA has proposed stronger emissions limitations for power plants and cars and trucks, the rapid rise in 90+ degree days is a side effect of climate change that has already been set in motion, and it will continue and worsen unless we take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal-fired power plants rank as one of the primary culprits when it comes to emitting climate change pollutants and nitrogen oxides.  Across the nation, coal-fired power plants are the second largest source of nitrogen oxide emissions, and here in New England alone, eight coal-fired power plants churn out 10,515 tons of nitrogen oxide a year and millions of tons of carbon dioxide.  By contributing to climate change and increasing smog-forming pollutants, coal-fired power plants pose a major threat to New England’s air quality.  Creating a healthier future for New England means creating a Coal Free New England.  CLF is committed to shutting down each one of these polluting plants by 2020.  Work with CLF to create a thriving, healthy New England.

Yes! On Monday October, 25, 2010 you’re invited to the Providence premiere of Carbon Nation, a documentary about climate solutions. Filmmaker Peter Byck has taken a complex and polarizing topic and made it apolitical, accessible, and entertaining. You’ll meet (to name a few):

• A rancher bringing new life to a Texas town through wind farming.
• Government employees working to make the military more energy efficient.
• Farmers using innovative, low-carbon growing methods.

The screening, presented by the Conservation Law Foundation and ClimateCounts.org, will be followed by a discussion with director Peter Byck and a panel of environmental pundits and climate policy experts. A reception with light refreshments will follow the discussion.

The details:

Screening of Carbon Nation, a film about climate solutions
Monday, October 25
6 p.m.
RISD Metcalf Auditorium at the Chace Center
20 N. Main Street
Providence, RI

Tickets are $20 online for general admission and $5 online for students.* There will be a $5 premium for purchasing tickets at the door, so buy your tickets online today!

You won’t want to miss this! Tell a friend (or two) and come enjoy an evening that celebrates solutions, inspiration, and action.

I’m one of those people who believes that climate change is the biggest challenge facing the planet, but I was baffled about how to react when I saw the Polar Bear ad for the Nissan Leaf®.  At first I thought it must be an ad by one of the national environmental groups, and I was shocked that they could afford the spot on the opening night of Thursday Night Football®.  When I realized it was an ad for an electric car, I couldn’t decide whether to be thrilled or concerned.  On one hand, I am thankful to see a multi-national corporation embracing the problem of climate change and investing in solutions.  Nissan’s commitment is virtually heroic when compared to the oil and coal industries’ multi-million dollar campaigns to confuse the world about the reality of climate change.  In addition, emissions from cars and trucks are one of the most rapidly growing sources of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States and worldwide, and electric cars are a promising solution. So why couldn’t I just enjoy the moment and applaud a victory in the climate change battle?

Two reasons.

First, fueling cars on electricity isn’t as effective if that electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. This is a real-world example of jumping “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”  If we reduce gasoline use but ramp up coal burning and all the things that come with it—mountaintop removal mining, strip mining, coal ash, mercury pollution and so on—then we reduce positive impacts of electric cars, and  contribute to plenty of other environmental damage.[1] Solving the problem of climate change demands action on all fronts, not just a transformation of the cars we drive, but of the electricity that fuels them and the rest of our society. If electric cars are really going to be part of the solution, then we must work to get renewable energy flowing through the transmission lines that power them. At the same time, we must also work to reduce our overall energy demand through energy efficiency and other new technologies.

Second, I love polar bears. Sometimes I almost cry during the Coke® ads, but I worry that when people see us pointing to polar bears and penguins as the victims of climate change, they will fail to see it as a problem that impacts people.  I understand that pictures of the wreckage from Hurricane Katrina,  victims of flooding in the Midwest or Pakistan or countless other “natural disasters” intensified by climate change are painful to see and painful to contemplate, but they are just as much the symbol of climate change as polar bears.

I know I can’t expect Nissan to focus its ad campaign on maximizing awareness and action on climate change, and that creating a market for and successfully putting electric cars on the road is already a big step forward; however, I hope ads like Nissan’s, will move people to think about all of the everyday choices we make that affect the climate and not just what kind of cars we drive Here are just a few of the ways that you can fight climate change:

1. Maximize energy efficiency at home. Check out some of the incentives and rebates available.
2. Ask your electric provider if they have a renewable energy option. National Grid offers a GreenUp option, and NStar offers NStar Green and a number of other providers.
3. Bike or use public transit whenever you can.  MassBike provides great information and training on commuting.
4. Become a CLF member to learn about climate change issues in Massachusetts.

---

[1] Notably, this is less of an issue in areas like New England where natural gas power plants make up the bulk of the electric grid.

(Updated 9/15/2010)

In a recent issue of the New Yorker staff writer Jane Meyer leads us all on a guided tour of the machinery, machinations and massive expenditures that the billionaire Koch brothers have poured into organizations like the Orwellian named “Americans for Prosperity” that, among other things, are dedicated to stopping progress in the war to protect our climate.

Not satisfied with having played a role in derailing (hopefully temporarily) sensible energy and climate policy in Washington DC these guardians of fossil fuel industry profits are seeking to halt good efforts in the states.  While their efforts in California have been the most noticed they are also busy laying astroturf in places like New Jersey where a “campaign” to roll back the mild, moderate and successful Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has been launched out of the corporate checkbooks supporting “Americans for Prosperity.”

This effort in New Jersey angrily rails that there is no clear line on electricity bills to show the price that consumers are paying for RGGI – ignoring the reality that there is not a bit of evidence that such a cost can be identified by anyone.  Indeed, the RGGI program is so mild and moderate that, as was anticipated when the program was created, the impact on consumers is so small that it is in fact invisible.   The fact that the New Jersey “anti cap and trade” website fails to actually describe a price impact for RGGI before ranting about the need to disclose such a cost is a clear signal that we are dealing with folks who are not playing straight.

And to add yet another bizarre twist to the tale, the Albany Times-Union reports that the company owned by the same Koch brothers who founded and have funded the organization protesting RGGI has been participating in the RGGI auction, presumably for profit and not just fun.

While David and Charles Koch, as detailed in the New Yorker article,  have focused their spending on nurturing “Americans for Prosperity” and similar national efforts their brother William Koch has been focused on local denial – heavily funding lobbying against the Cape Wind project which he apparently feels would damage the view from his vacation home.  But the Koch agendas are now converging as “Americans for Prosperity” levels a volley at an effort by the governor of New Jersey, a Republican who is generally regarded as conservative, for using RGGI funds to support offshore wind farm development.   Perhaps this is a result of the reconciliation between these brothers now that they have settled their infamous feud.

Ultimately, though this is about people who have made a lot of money from the current system of generating energy from fossil fuels fighting the future.  Not only are they tossing all of us, including their own families, under the bus of a dangerously changing climate but they are fighting against efforts like wind farms that generate stability in energy prices (something their fossil products simply can’t deliver) and programs like energy efficiency investments that generate real jobs and prosperity.  For example, the operator of the efficiency programs in New York State estimates, in their annual plan, that the programs funded by RGGI in that one state will create:

• Customer energy bill savings of more than $445 million
• 1.7 million barrel reduction in oil imports
• Creation or retention of approximately 1,400 jobs
• Greenhouse gas emissions reductions up to 2.0 million tons; equal to removing approximately16,500 cars from the road

Saving people money on energy bills and creating jobs – what a nightmare !!!

Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided to uphold the comprehensive permit for Cape Wind’s transmission lines issued by the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB)–a welcome and much-anticipated milestone for the nation’s first major offshore wind energy project. CLF has been actively involved in moving the ball forward on Cape Wind throughout its nine-year review and permitting process, and we’re thrilled that Cape Wind will finally have an opportunity to to move forward and provide Massachusetts with clean, renewable power.

Here’s what CLF Staff Attorney Shanna Cleveland had to say on the subject:

“The Court thoroughly reviewed the extensive record in this case and correctly concluded that the state siting board rigorously scrutinized the project and fulfilled its obligation to safeguard the public trust. Cape Wind will provide electricity without producing any harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and its clean energy benefits are expected to significantly outweigh its impacts. The Court’s affirmation of Cape Wind’s comprehensive state permit is a significant step on the path toward a clean energy future for New England and the nation.”

Check out clf.org for the full press statement>>

The ace web/online/blog/communications folks at CLF have installed the WordPress plug-in version of Online Leaf on this blog so if you are reading it and don’t do anything for a minute your screen will go black, reducing the electricity consumption of your computer.

Not a big deal but an important reminder of all the many little , medium, large and very large things we will need to do to fight global warming – and how the things we can do to aid that cause can also save us a bit of money at the same time.

Earlier today in Rhode Island, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved the Deepwater Wind/National Grid Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for the construction of an eight-turbine wind farm in Block Island Sound, denying CLF’s Motion to Dismiss.

Here’s what CLF’s Rhode Island Advocacy Center Director Tricia Jedele had to say about the decision:

Today’s ruling was inevitable, a result dictated by the legislature in a law defined so narrowly that it could have only one outcome. Unchallenged, this law and the accompanying PUC decision set precedent that will only undermine the efforts to build a future for renewable energy in Rhode Island. The failure to allow the PUC any discretion in its decision-making is the very basis of CLF’s Separation of Powers argument, which we are likely to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Deepwater Wind project in Block Island Sound first met with problems in April 2010 when its Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with National Grid was rejected by the PUC on the grounds that it was not commercially reasonable. Rather than appeal the decision, Deepwater, with the support of the Governor and the legislature, sought to do an end run around the review process and rewrite the rules to produce a different outcome the second time around. CLF, a longtime champion of renewable energy done right, was one of the first to challenge the moves as unlawful, unfair and a terrible precedent. CLF contended that the amended law was designed to favor one project and one developer, creating an unlevel playing field that would make it impossible for developers to compete successfully for future projects.

“Renewable energy is too important to this state to do it in a way that could threaten its chances for success,” Jedele said at the time.

In July, in advance of a second review of the PPA required under the amended law, CLF filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the PUC should not review the amended Power Purchase Agreement because the law violates the Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, and the provision which requires that “all laws be made for the good of the whole.” CLF also argued that even if the PUC were to proceed, it could not review the PPA because the doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of a claim that has already been litigated between the same parties.

Recent industry legal action to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is an eye-opener suggesting a slash and burn strategy that threatens to undo years of successful regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.  Various industry trade groups including the American Chemistry Council, National Association of Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute are waging a full scale war to prevent regulation of GHG emissions and recently initiated a coordinated, broad and covert legal attack (with no press or public outreach) on EPA’s permitting authority.

On July 6, the coalition of industry groups filed 12 similar legal petitions challenging not only EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, but also the fundamental underpinnings of EPA’s 30 year old permitting program for large emitting facilities.  These appeals present a clear and unequivocal message to EPA and the public: try to impose reductions in GHG emissions and we will attack the core of the greenhouse gas regulations adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in MA v. EPA and EPA’s ability to regulate large emitters through its preconstruction (PSD) permitting program in the first instance.   With a key message like that—tone deaf to public awareness and concern about climate change—no wonder the industry trade group petitioners did not seek publicity.

Recent statements from Senator Murkowski suggest that she and her allied colleagues have been briefed and support this strategy.  According to Politico.com,

Key coal-state Democrats and nearly all Republicans are also unified in their bid to slow down the EPA via legislation – and they’re determined to force a series of votes on the issue before the next big suite of rules start kicking in next January.

“You attack it at all fronts,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a leading advocate for stopping the EPA, told POLITICO. “You go the judicial route. You go the legislative route. I think this is important to make sure we are looking at all avenues.”

CLF is intervening (co-represented by attorneys from the Clean Air Task Force) along with other environmental groups in these recent challenges as well as several prior challenges to EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs. The vehemence of these positions, and the obvious coordination among a broad cross section of industries to prevent regulation of GHGs, unfortunately suggest that US policy on climate change will not be advanced through bottom up, traditional legislative initiatives in Congress.

As Bill McKibben asserted in Tomdispatch.com,

If we’re going to get any of this done, we’re going to need a movement, the one thing we haven’t had. For 20 years environmentalists have operated on the notion that we’d get action if we simply had scientists explain to politicians and CEOs that our current ways were ending the Holocene, the current geological epoch. That turns out, quite conclusively, not to work. We need to be able to explain that their current ways will end something they actually care about, i.e. their careers. And since we’ll never have the cash to compete with Exxon, we better work in the currencies we can muster: bodies, spirit, passion.

The time has come to knock the halo off of the heads of the obstacles to progress and quality of life.  While the old way of making power, combusting decomposed carbon–based life forms (i.e., fossil fuels) contributed to prosperity and improvement to quality of life through 20^th century industrialization; we are facing a much different earth and atmosphere.  Unchecked burning of fossil fuels and emissions of GHGs are detracting from our quality of life and will continue to do so for decades after they are emitted.   The coal-fired power plant near you is not your friend; its day to day activities are undercutting your health, environment, economy and well-being for no good reason except for its tenacity in resisting beneficial change.

Using the authority given it by Congress in the Clean Air Act, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving to address the threat to the public health and environment from the greenhouse gases damaging our climate. But, as David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection describes on the Frum Forum website that effort is under attack by an effort led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

The full piece is well worth reading but the punchline is of special interests to New Englanders who are represented by Senators Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) or Judd Gregg (R-NH) who voted for Sen. Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act/Big Oil Bailout/EPA rollback the first time it got to the Senate floor:

Murkowski’s framing insinuates that her resolution is paving the way for Congress to take action . . . Unfortunately, that is not what is going on here . . . Murkowski has not been pushing at all for legislation to price carbon, and efforts by sponsors of such legislation to gain her support have been unsuccessful.

Instead she is putting all of her energy and passion into preempting EPA. “You attack it at all fronts,” Murkowski recently told Politico. “You go the judicial route. You go the legislative route.”

. . .

It is time for any member of Congress who still supports Senator Murkowski’s endeavor—or similar efforts—to drop all pretenses and tell the voters why they support the unfettered polluting of our life-sustaining atmosphere.