If you are qualified to be, and are interested in being, the Executive Director of an organization that brings together renewable energy developers, equipment manufacturers and environmental groups then apply.  Go for it.

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.

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

On an appropriately wet and windy afternoon yesterday in Boston, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act with a vote of 101-52. Modeled after the bill passed by the Senate in February, the Act will streamline the siting process for wind energy projects, making it easier for developers and local authorities alike to incorporate well-designed wind power initiatives into the plan to meet the state’s energy demand. The new legislation is a major step towards building a clean energy economy for Massachusetts and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The bill will now head to a House-Senate conference committee for further discussion.

Here’s what Sue Reid, director of CLF’s Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Change Program, had to say on the issue:

“Massachusetts needs to tap into its abundant wind energy resources in order to meet its clean energy goals. We are delighted that the Massachusetts House of Representatives has joined the Senate in passing this wind siting reform bill that is crucial to meeting the state’s energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preserving our natural resources. This new legislation will make it easier to develop well-designed wind energy projects. Today’s vote represents a key victory in the state’s ongoing efforts to reduce our dependence on dirty fossil-fuel fired power in Massachusetts.”

Read CLF’s full press statement>>
Learn more about CLF’s renewable energy initiatives in MA and throughout New England>>

Global Warming is real . . .  and I don’t just say that because it is really hot outside.

Yet again the core science presented by such reliable sources as the National Research Council has been vindicated.

As the New York Times reports a fifth official commission report (know as the “Muir Report”)  has come out debunking the fake “scandal” generated by public release of illegally obtained emails between scientists.   Opponents of action on global warming had attempted to portray those emails as showing the existence of some sort of conspiracy to distort science to meet a political agenda.  These were ironic accusations as the small band of climate deniers (whose lack of credentials and credibility is documented in this recent paper in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences) have been engaging in exactly that practice.  In a similar vein, an expert panel convened by Penn State University found that allegations that those same emails showed improper behavior by Prof. Michael Mann of Penn State were unsupported and cleared him completely.

The new British report concluded that the “honesty and rigour” of the scientists was not in question but that there had been a failure to be as open to inquiries and requests for public information and data as they should have been.

And there is the real scandal: that the opponents of sound science and action on global warming have created a toxic dynamic that drives climate scientists into a virtual bunker, rightfully fearing that speaking the truth will result in massive waves of harassment and attack.

There is much more that science needs to tell us about our climate. But the basic principles are clear – and even presentable in rather entertaining cartoons.

Not surprisingly the scientists over at Real Climate engage the news of the “Muir Report”  in depth, as well as the vindication of Michael Mann at Penn State.

The time is long past for the public dialogue and for our political leaders to walk away from these phony debates and focus on solutions.  So what are you waiting for tell your Senator to take action !!  While none of the climate or energy  bills rattling around Washington are perfect (and some are quite bad) the only way to make them better is to force an active debate and a real and concerted effort to solve the climate and energy crisis that we face.