The Boston Globe today presents an excellent editorial on the misguided proposal for the power plant in Somerset Massachusetts:

ONE OF THE state’s “Filthy Five’’ coal-burning power plants is trying to turn itself into a Cinderella of clean-burning electricity generation. Since the makeover includes a first-in-the-nation commercial use of a certain technology to reduce dirty emissions, the state should give it a closer environmental review. (MORE)

This particular proposal is one that CLF is engaging in many ways, including in a pending court case (somerset-sc-clfs-memo-suppt-of-jdgmt-8-10-09).  And earlier on in the legal process this plant was (among other issues) discussed in an Op-Ed by Dr. James Hansen.  It has been the subject of ongoing upset, protests and opposition.

If you want to support our work on cases like this – go for it – or just comment below if you have a local coal fired power plant giving you gas.

I always say that mantra number two for a climate advocate is “Yeah, we have to do that too.”  As in, “We need to be more efficient AND we need to build wind farms AND we need to build transmission lines to support the wind farms AND we need to build sidewalks and transit so people can drive less, etc . . . “  You get the point.

And mantra number one is: “The scary part is . . .” because every time you think you have seen it all, something worse and new comes along.

The latest comes to us from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.

Excellent discussion of this at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress blog.  And here is the NY Times article.

Will this motivate you to take action?

Sage advice from Freddie Mercury.

There may be days when the air quality in urban areas is bad, but the summer is still a great time to get outside and ride a bicycle; to work, to the store, or just for fun. Doing so will also help improve the air quality, assuming you are biking instead of driving a car, and if you can find a decent route you should breeze past the gridlock and thereby avoid sitting in the car traffic, inhaling the exhaust of the vehicles around you. It will only get more pleasant as the temperature begins to cool during the fall months, and if your employer is a member of a Transportation Management Association you could even win prizes for riding your bike to work!

Boston is making a big effort to improve the cycling infrastructure by adding many miles of on-road bike lanes and many new bike racks. This will all serve to make biking safer and more convenient. In addition, the City is poised to rollout a city-wide bike sharing program in the near future. Soon, even if you don’t commute to work from home on a bike, you will still be able to make trips during the day by bike, all over the city.

Parallel to these efforts, MassBike is conducting an online survey regarding the behavior of cyclists and drivers. The results will hopefully help to shed light on issues that result in reasonable frustration as well as misplaced anger. Anyone who rides a bike or drives a vehicle in Massachusetts should take the survey.

When you’re done with the survey, turn off the computer and get outside! This Friday, August 28th, is the final BikeFriday event of the summer. It’s time to stop procrastinating and start enjoying your commute.

Well the advent of serious heat and humidity means that all of us up here in the tailpipe of America (the Northeast generally and New England in particular) must face the seasonal reality of dangerously bad air.

During the summer we face “ground level ozone“  which is created when substances like nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are created by cars, power plants and the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, coal and other fossil fuels interact with sunlight and heat.   Many states, like Massachusetts, New York and Maine are happy (in addition to the Feds) to give you the gory details – but the bottom line is that ground level ozone harms the lungs of just about everyone but can cause the most trouble, increasing asthma attacks, heart attacks and even death in very vulnerable folks – like the elderly, the very young and people with various health problems.

A different problem is the dangerous haze of “particulate matter” that can be trapped in our air, particularly on a hot and muggy day.  The potentially dangerous microscopic solids and liquid droplets less than 2.5 microns in size are known as “fine particles”.  Like ground level ozone this pollution can be traced back to the burning of fossil fuel in cars, trucks, power plants and industrial furnaces. In cities around the world particulate matter is a major threat to the health of residents of inner city neighborhoods.

The states and the federal government continue to debate and consider new rules about the amount of this kind of pollution that is safe.  The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has proposed new standards regarding these pollutants – and CLF filed a comment urging adoption of tougher standards than what has been proposed.

If you want to see how bad your air is today and how bad it is predicted to be tomorrow then check out this handy government website full of national and regional maps with links to state-by-state information.   And don’t let the “moderate” label fool you – since some real harm is possible at those levels of pollution it is worth paying attention before the pollution crosses over the line into “unhealthy for sensitive groups” let alone “unhealthy”, “very unhealthy” and the (fortunately unusual but terrifying) “hazardous”.

And of course as average temperatures rise due to global warming we will see more of this kind of bad air quality – as the pollution combines with hotter air.  This is just one of the many health effects anticipated as global warming unfolds.

All the more reason to look towards cleaner energy sources for our electricity and our transportation needs.

There’s a lot of talk about 2012 being the end of the world. And if it’s not 2012, it’s the swine flu.

But how will it really end? If the latest scary climate science is any indicator, it looks like humans may be to blame. We know that climate change is happening all around us, but it looks like things are changing a lot quicker than any of us expected. As such, it’s time for a climate change reality-check. Did you know?

• Temperatures are already on the rise. Since 1970, winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased by an average of 1.3 degrees per decade—changing and damaging marine life, forests, agriculture, recreation and human health.
• Extreme storms are becoming more frequent. Boston and Atlantic City, for example, can expect a coastal flood equivalent to today’s 100-year flood every two to four years on average by mid-century, and almost annually by the end of the century.
• The oceans are rising. Scientists project that sea levels could rise another 4.5 feet by the end of the century—inundating our coastline and claiming countless low-lying communities from Portland, Maine to Boston to Hyannisport and beyond.
• Heat waves are expected to increase. Within our children’s lifetimes, Northeast cities like Boston or Hartford could experience 20-30 days above 100 degrees causing pain, distress and even increased mortality for our vulnerable citizens.
• Our snow season is becoming shorter and shorter. By late this century, the length of the snow season could be cut in half across northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, and reduced to a week or two in southern parts of the region, a trend that may have already begun.
• Plant and animal populations are shifting northward. Species like the fir and spruce are expected to all but disappear from the region by the century’s end. The Baltimore oriole, American goldfinch and song sparrow populations will become much less abundant.
  (Source: NECIA’s “Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions”)

The facts speak for themselves. It’s clear that the road on which we’re traveling is a dead end. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to make a u-turn—but it’s going to take your help to turn this country and this planet around.

What can you do about it?

As we catapult towards the point of no return, it’s time to hit the brakes. Confront the climate threat today and demand a new energy and climate law now!

It takes less than 30 seconds to use and customize our pre-written letter to your Senators urging them to pass a smart and effective “cap and trade” climate law. Click here to do your part.

In a blog post that follows up on a New York Times newspaper story about the groundbreaking McKinsey report on the enormous opportunity for energy efficiency as a resource for tackling global warming there is a nice discussion of the statewide energy efficiency utility in Vermont.

A few key points about the McKinsey report:

• The report shows that a comprehensive approach to making the United States more energy efficient could save consumers $1.2 trillion by 2020.
• The report finds that this approach could also cut overall energy consumption in the U.S. by 23% in the next decade, eliminating the need for expensive new coal plants and dramatically reducing our carbon emissions by up to 1.1 gigatons.
• The study cites research suggesting that energy efficiency could create 600,000 to 900,000 sustainable green jobs in twelve years.

The Efficiency Vermont model, that CLF helped build and grow, as well as other successful models like the programs administered by conventional utilities in Massachusetts, and efforts on the regional level, have made New England a national leader in this critical area – but there is so much more that can be done . . .

As my first post to the CLF Blogosphere I want to offer an alternative perspective on fostering environmental conservation and social justice, and I’m just going to say it: economics.

Allow me to introduce you to CLF Ventures, Inc., the non-profit consulting affiliate of the Conservation Law Foundation. CLF started Ventures in 1997 to foster creative, client-centered environmental solutions. At that time, CLF recognized that the challenges facing the environment could not be overcome through litigation and advocacy tools alone. This happened relatively early in the game, and was a pretty progressive move for an established environmental advocacy organization with the history and grassroots credibility of CLF.

Today, CLF Ventures provides a unique model for advancing environmental change—by implementing projects that have demonstrable environmental gain as well as economic advantage—and that complement the work of our advocacy colleagues. We use a unique combination of environmental, non-profit and community insights to help private and public organizations become more sustainable through the creation of effective risk assessment and collaborative stakeholder engagement strategies.  Our distinct value to clients is our ability to gain stakeholder and regulatory insights that are impossible for clients to collect on their own due to poor existing community relationships. Our value to the stakeholder community is our ability to bring our clients to the table under circumstances conducive to collaboration. We have a demonstrated record of successful outcomes wherein our clients and the community come to better understand each other’s values and needs.

This may sound like boilerplate consulting mumbo jumbo, but the point is critically valid: the world is complex and the world of environmental advocacy is more complex still. Very rarely are the issues black and white. While the best option to secure needed social and environmental protections may be legal advocacy, it is not the only option. Put another way, litigation is a hammer, and it’s a very effective tool for driving nails, but not every environmental problem is a nail. When an organization is making real changes to improve impacts on the surrounding community and environment, CLF Ventures will leave the hammer at home and load up the toolbox with other job-appropriate tools to help them succeed.

Let me step away from the confusion of a not-so-clever metaphor and be perfectly clear: before many others, CLF recognized that market-driven solutions can complement environmental advocacy. Twelve years on, CLF Ventures has successfully demonstrated that business interests are not incompatible with social and environmental interests, and that when given a chance, and proper guidance, partnerships with the private sector can provide leadership and innovation that benefits our economy, our community, and our environment.

There may always be a need for litigation and legal advocacy, but we at CLFV are grateful that CLF understands and supports our efforts to influence environmental change through markets and bottom lines as an alternative means to the same end.

Visit CLF Ventures online to learn more: www.clfventures.org

According to an April 2008 National Science Foundation press release discussing the findings of a Russian/American scientific collaboration, even the world’s largest freshwater lake–Siberia’s Lake Baikal–is feeling the effects of a changing climate and not in a good way.  Drawing on sixty years worth of data collected under grueling weather conditions (negative 50!) throughout the tumult of 20th century Russia, researchers document long-term warming trends that are changing the lake’s pristine waters and unique habitat. We’re talking about global warming affecting the health of a 25-million year-old lake that contains 20% of the world’s fresh water and 2500 plant and animal species that make their home there but nowhere else.

Global climate change threatens the pristine waters of Siberia's Lake Baikal--the world's largest freshwater lake. That's bad news for much smaller and less-resilient lakes like Lake Champlain. (Image source National Science Foundation, Nicholas Rodenhouse)

Closer to home, CLF has been making the case that global climate change is aggravating pollution and food web problems in Lake Champlain–one of the ten largest fresh water lakes in the United States.

For decades, many agencies of the United States government including the Environmental Protection Agency have produced studies warning that global climate change will likely make water pollution problems worse because we can expect:

• “warming water temperatures to change contaminant concentrations in water and alter aquatic system uses”
• “new patterns of rainfall and snowfall to alter water supply for drinking and other uses leading to changes in pollution levels in aquatic systems, and” (editor’s note–this summer sure seems like we’re seeing a new rainfall pattern in New England)
• “more intense storms to threaten water infrastructure and increase polluted stormwater runoff”

–EPA National Water Program Strategy Response to Climate Change

The Lake Baikal study is further confirmation that global warming and water quality issues are deeply intertwined.  It should serve as a wake-up call to government officials charged with cleaning up and preventing pollution because “[t]his lake was expected to be among those most resistant to climate change, due to its tremendous volume and unique water circulation.” If climate change is affecting Baikal, it’s certainly affecting Lake Champlain and other freshwater bodies throughout New England (not to mention the major impacts on our Oceans).

While we must do all we can to slow down and reverse the worst of what global climate change will bring–an effort CLF is leading in New England–it’s long past time to start factoring the reality of ongoing climate change into predictions about water pollution and decisions about pollution prevention and cleanup.

EPA had that chance when it reviewed and approved Vermont’s proposed phosphorus pollution cleanup target–or Total Maximum Daily Load– for Lake Champlain in 2002.  It had plenty of its own research that could have and should have shaped important decisions regarding:

• the amount of pollution reduction needed
• the likely effectiveness of different proposed pollution cleanup activities
• the likely cost of cleanup and prevention activities

Despite all the global climate change studies EPA and the U.S. Government had created with your tax money–EPA failed entirely to factor climate change into the water quality equation for Lake Champlain. That’s why CLF has filed a lawsuit in federal court to hold EPA accountable for this failure before it’s too late for Lake Champlain.  What good is scientific research if you don’t use it to shape decisions in the real world?  Click here to read a copy of the complaint and stay tuned for updates as the case moves forward.

In her post here Lesley Bunnell, CLF’s Rhode Island office manager, persuasively deflates and rebuts an attack in the Washington Post by Sarah Palin on the cap-and-trade mechanism.   One important evolution in the idea of cap-and-trade that Lesley did not have a chance to get into is the key reform of auctioning the allowances and using the money generated by the auction for good purposes that reduce emissions and save money for all our citizens.

CLF, as part of a broad coalition, successfully fought for this model in the design and creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.   The states of New England have repeatedly pushed in Congress for this model to be recreated on the federal level.

The reason for embracing allowance auctions and using the money from the auction for energy efficiency is crystal clear – it will reduce the cost of the program and reduce emissions even further.  The cost reduction argument is quite powerful – analyses of the bill passed by the House by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the US EPA estimate the cost of the program for an average household at between $111 and $175 per year by 2030.  Independent analysis of the bill shows that even modest gains in energy efficiency, like those that can be financed by allowance auction revenue can result in savings for citizens that dwarf these costs.

Indeed, during the presidential campaign this was precisely the position taken by President Obama:

• 100 Percent Allowance Auction: Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all large corporate polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away for free to coal and oil companies
• Invest Revenue for a Clean Energy Future: Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development and deployment of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements to help families reduce their energy prices, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition and helping lower-income Americans with their energy costs.

In a recent Op-Ed in the Boston Globe CLF President John Kassel reflected on our concern that the federal bill had drifted away from 100% auction, giving out a significant number of allowances for free – but at least the bill that passed the House accepts the importance of cap and trade, auctioning the allowances from that system and moves towards the RGGI model of  “auction and invest.”

The bottom line is clear.  Cap and Trade is a tool that can work to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases causing global warming.  It can work even better, and be implemented at even lower cost, if we do it right by auctioning the allowances at the heart of the program and using the money raised by the auction for clean energy projects like energy efficiency.