Urban agriculture holds great promise for Boston.

This post was coauthored by Melissa Hoffer & Jo Anne Shatkin.

We are excited to share with you the news that today CLF and CLF Ventures released a report that, for the first time, details the economic development potential for urban agriculture in Greater Boston, assesses its environmental and health co-benefits, and examines current market and policy barriers to expanded food production in Greater Boston. The report‘s findings confirm that urban agriculture can play an important role in creating a more livable, carbon resilient, healthier, economically vibrant, and environmentally sustainable city—if we put smart policies in place and encourage market development for Boston grown foods.

Download a free copy of the report here.

The City of Boston has taken important steps over the past two years to advance urban agriculture, and new businesses are taking root, including City Growers, a Mattapan-based farming business that is featured in this report. There is a palpable sense of excitement about the potential of this new urban vision for agriculture for communities; possibilities abound. But CLF and CLF Ventures believe it is more than possible— it is a necessity, and an urgent one at that as we face the challenges of climate change, an obesity epidemic, lack of availability of healthy foods in many communities, and a fragile economy.

The report found that converting as few as 50 acres of vacant or underutilized land around Boston into agricultural production would spur job creation, improve access to healthy, local, fresh food, and reduce environmental harms. Key findings of the report include:

• Land is available. 50 acres – an area the size of Boston Common – is a small portion of the vacant or underutilized land available in Boston.
• Urban farms would stimulate the economy by creating jobs. 50 acres of urban agriculture in Boston will likely generate at least 130 direct farming jobs and may generate over 200 jobs depending on actual business characteristics and revenue.
• Healthy, local and affordable food. 50 acres in agricultural production would provide enough fresh produce to feed over 3,600 people over a six-month retail season. If the produce is used to prepare healthy school lunches in Boston Public Schools, 50 acres could provide more than one serving of fresh produce for each lunch served to a student eligible for free or reduced school lunch over a six month period. If 800 acres of potentially available City-owned land were put into agricultural production, the food needs of approximately 10 percent of Boston’s total population could be fully satisfied during a six-month retail season.
• Significant environmental impacts. Urban agriculture in Boston will result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 50 acres of properly managed soils would sequester about 114 tons of cabon dioxide (CO2) per year and may result in an additional CO2 reduction of up to 4,700 tons per year.
• Community adaptation. No less than 6,000 new temperature records were set during the recent March 2012 heat wave, and more than 40,000 have been set for the year-to-date. Meanwhile, the July 2011-June 2012 period was the warmest 12-month period of any 12-months on record for the contiguous U.S., with the first half of 2012 being the hottest ever recorded. The International Energy Agency’s recent projection of a 10.8 degree F temperature increase over pre-industrial levels by the end of this century underscores the fact that a more decentralized food system will be necessary to enable our communities to better adapt to changing climate conditions, including the impacts of more frequent severe weather. Urban agriculture is a part of this solution.

As Jo Anne said in the press release announcing Growing Green, it’s clear that even 50 acres of sustainable agriculture on available land would be an economic stimulus and environmental resource for Boston. While we focused on a 50 acre test scenario, these conclusions are scalable across New England. Imagine how vibrant New England would be like with a robust and sustainable regional food system.

In addition to the potential benefits, the report also considers the policy and market barriers to fully realizing the potential of urban agriculture, examining the ways in which promoting urban agriculture will require city and state involvement and key needs for such involvement. Such barriers include the need for policies that provide affordable access to land, one of the key market barriers for both new and experienced farmers; strategies to reduce the risks associated with the Commonwealth’s hazardous material cleanup law; improved access to high quality compost; and better financing options to overcoming prohibitive capital and operating costs, amongst other findings.

Our ongoing work seeks to link urban agriculture to the larger regional food system, and focuses on how to overcome some of the barriers we have identified.

Boston is ideally positioned to play a lead role in coordinating with the Massachusetts Food Policy Council, other New England states, and cities around the region to build a vision for a New England regional food system and make it happen. Boston is emerging as a national leader in urban agriculture innovation, and can be a voice for the benefits of urban agriculture and as one of the region’s largest consumers, help to build the market for regionally grown food.

Download a free copy of the report here.
Find an infographic detailing the report here: http://bit.ly/clfgrowinggreen
To read more about CLF’s Farm & Food Initiative, click here: http://www.clf.org/our-work/healthy-communities/food-and-farm-initiative/

Innovation – a word commonly used, and commonly associated with big money and big business. But as 15-year-old Jack Thomas Andraka, recent winner of an Intel prize for his cancer detection technology, demonstrated: innovation is unfolding in unlikely places. We should nurture these innovations, and we must do more to leverage these breakthroughs.

If you haven’t already, I suggest viewing this passionate and inspiring video of Jack Andraka winning the Intel Gordon E. Moore prize for medicine. It is a rare treat to experience the sheer joy of a 15 year old being recognized for an innovation some spend careers pursuing. In this case, Jack’s idea turned disruptive technology was for a simple, elegant, inexpensive and accurate cancer detection technology. By coating single walled nanotubes with antibodies and attaching them to a paper strip, Jack found he could accurately identify pancreatic cancer cells, enabling wide screening for deadly cancers.

Despite not knowing this young scientist, I am proud of him for his stellar accomplishment. He picked an important problem, and focused on an innovative technological solution. Society will undoubtedly benefit from the availability of a simple screening test that can be widely adopted.

He’s not the first to put nanotubes, a manufactured nanoscale material that is a rolled up tube of carbon, into paper, nor is he the first to coat them. But, he has succeeded in leveraging the benefits of nanotechnology for society’s benefit.  If the technology achieves its potential it will result in the widespread use of these strips in hospitals, doctor’s offices, and clinics.

Because of our name, CLF Ventures meets many entrepreneurs who have developed innovative ways to address society’s pressing problems. Through our networks, we are often able to help them gain market access, or make introductions. There is often resistance to adopting new approaches and technologies, particularly when adoption requires a shift in existing policies or infrastructure, as is often the case with clean or “green” technologies. It’s human nature to resist change and maintain the status quo: we like what is familiar. Yet, as Jack Andraka demonstrates, there are often great benefits associated with new technologies.

To that end, it is critical to support innovation, and to maintain openness to new ideas and options. Three things are critical to enabling this support.

1. There is a need to make adoption straightforward, to leverage the benefits for society and for the environment.
2. It is also important to balance the risks with the benefits, to consider the broader impacts of the inevitable disruption new technologies bring, and to manage those impacts to avoid adverse effects on health and the environment.
3. We need to ensure our resilience and ability to manage the unanticipated, and innovation enables our doing so.

Kudos to Andraka and to Intel for inspiring the changes.

CLF and CLF Ventures are proud to again co-sponsor the third annual Massachusetts Sustainable Economy Conference (SEC), April 30 at the Federal Reserve in Boston. I invite you to please come to the panel discussion I will moderate on the opportunities and barriers involved in cultivating Boston’s and the region’s urban agricultural sector, with some of the area’s leading entrepreneurs.

The brainchild of CLF Ventures Board Member Crystal Johnson, the Sustainable Economy Conference is an unparalleled opportunity to build bridges within and across Massachusetts’ government, business, academic, nonprofit, and community sectors to foster sustainable communities and a viable 21^st century economy. CLF and CLF Ventures are working to address barriers to the growth of urban and regional sustainable agriculture from market and policy perspectives. At CLF, we view sustainable agriculture in our cities and our region as a key component of a more carbon-resilient future for our region in the face of unprecedented climate change and its threats to our economy and way of life. We’ve met many compatriots at past Sustainable Economy Conferences and look forward to a great conversation about urban agriculture with panelists:

• Newly sworn in Agricultural Commissioner Greg Watson
• Head of Boston’s food initiative Edith Murnane
• Marketing coordinator of Holyoke’s Neustras Raices
• Entrepreneur Glynn Lloyd of City Growers

As a founding board member of the national Stewardship Action Council, I was fortunate to also participate in last week’s 25^th anniversary celebration of the Toxics Release Inventory and Environmental Conditions in Communities Conference, a gathering of national public and private leaders in sustainability. Before my panel discussion about building collaborative partnerships among state, non-governmental, and industry partners within the Stewardship Action Council, four members discussed how they interact with communities:

• Mike Wendt of 3M explained that “a crisis is a bad time to make new friends,” so at his Menomonie, Wisconsin facility, community engagement is embedded in the culture.
• Annette Russo of Johnson & Johnson described their new Procurement Sustainability Initiative to ensure their entire supply chain is focused on sustainable solutions for ingredients and packaging.
• West Liberty Foods HR Director Tara Lindsey linked that organization’s renovation of a neglected church into a day care facility as an initiative that both fostered employee retention within the company and benefited the community.

Stewardship Action Council members also had an opportunity to weigh in on EPA’s role in promoting sustainability leadership with Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Policy Vicki Corman. It’s a sign of the changing times that industry, at least those leading organizations participating in SAC, are ahead of EPA in adopting measurement and reporting initiatives. EPA can provide national leadership and guidance to advance the practice of environmental stewardship, but would only confuse the marketplace if they were to develop their own standards in the already crowded voluntary sustainability standard realm. In our development of measurements for “Level 4” membership in the Stewardship Action Council, we identified over 200 “standards” under the umbrella of sustainability reporting.

The demand for sustainable solutions will be drivers for the 21^st century economy. The third annual Sustainable Economy Conference is designed to:

• Provide a platform to discuss new collaborations and partnerships for sustainable solutions within and across sectors
• Serve as a resource on cutting edge “sustainable thinking” through experiences, case studies, and showcases
• Promote diversity and inclusion to improve business performance in Massachusetts
• Provide effective tools and approaches for meeting the challenges of the changing global market and encouraging businesses to meet the new market expectations
• Promote an equitable and ecologically sustainable economy

I look forward to meeting you there.

Creative Commons image courtesy of BenandAsho on Flickr

We throw away a lot of food. Sometimes the scraps are inedible, like banana peels. Sometimes we forget about things in the refrigerator until we notice the smell. And sometimes our eyes are just bigger than our stomachs. Regardless of the reason, a lot of food scraps end up in our trash and ultimately the landfill. This is a wasted opportunity to realize environmental and economic benefits by using food scraps to improve soil health and generate renewable energy.

By diverting food scraps to other uses, such as generating energy and creating compost, we avoid the need to expand landfills in the state or transport waste long distances to out-of-state facilities. When food scraps and other organic matter decompose in landfills, they produce methane gas, a potent contributor to climate change. So diverting food scraps from landfills also helps us meet the state’s aggressive greenhouse-gas emission reduction goals.

To realize these benefits, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is supporting public and private investment in a new kind of infrastructure for managing organic materials. But for this new infrastructure to succeed, DEP and the project developers that will build and operate this infrastructure need to convince the public that food scraps are not garbage, but something else entirely.

The DEP is currently working on an action plan for managing Massachusetts’s organic waste. The state needs a plan, because it has set lofty goals to divert organic material from landfill disposal to be used in other processes. The state’s draft Solid Waste Master Plan calls for diverting 35% of food waste, estimated to be about 350,000 tons of material per year. This goal is echoed by the Clean Energy Results Program, which sets a further goal of 50 megawatts of installed capacity of renewable energy from aerobic and anaerobic digestion facilities by 2020. And let’s not forget the proposal to ban commercial food waste from Massachusetts landfills in 2014. These are great goals, because diverting organic material out of the solid waste stream provides opportunities for economic development that can improve the environmental impacts of solid waste management, and now DEP is developing the plan to make sure we get there.

The plan aims to ensure that organic “waste” isn’t wasted in a landfill. It calls for a few things:

• Gathering better and more current information about sources of food waste,
• Providing funding and technical assistance to work out the logistics of separating food waste from the actual trash, and
• Working with haulers to move this material to appropriate processing facilities.

There are also provisions for funding and technical assistance to facilitate the construction of additional processing infrastructure, like anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities, and to develop good markets for the resulting products.

Organics diversion presents an economic opportunity for cash-strapped municipalities to save money through reduced trash fees. It also allows developers – municipal or private – to generate revenue by using “waste” organics as inputs for marketable products like compost and other soil amendments and as a source of clean, renewable heat and electricity. At a time when municipal budgets are facing historic shortfalls and municipalities are seeking means of both cutting costs and creating revenue, this is surely a good thing.

DEP’s draft action plan is a progressive, proactive approach to organics management, but it’s missing something very important. It provides much-needed support and direction for people and organizations that are already proponents of better organic material management and will help project proponents navigate the technical and regulatory processes to achieve success. But what about the majority of people who likely have no idea that the DEP is interested in doing something dramatically different with organic waste?

This action plan and DEP efforts to date on this issue do little to address the very real need for public engagement and outreach to help citizens and businesses understand the good reasons for organics diversion. These include:

• Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through improved methane utilization;
• Generating renewable energy from anaerobic digestion; and
• Producing nutrient-rich soil amendments through composting.

The intersection of waste management and energy development is more complex than either of these individual business sectors taken on their own. For instance, energy facilities such as anaerobic digesters, which use “waste” materials as inputs to generate energy, face the siting hurdles typically encountered by both energy and waste facilities. Public concerns with other renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar, have emerged relatively recently, but communities and individuals have been fighting against landfills and transfer stations for a very long time.

Today, forward-thinking people and businesses are beginning to talk about “materials management” rather than “waste management,” and those on the inside know what we mean by that. But most people don’t currently make the distinction, especially when the materials in question are leftover food and other organics that can rot. In the case of a proposed anaerobic digestion facility, the result is often a contested siting process. While AD proponents see facilities that will produce clean energy and environmentally beneficial soil products, opponents are concerned about siting waste incinerators, trash transfer stations, and toxic sludge.

The DEP, along with other state agencies such as the Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy Resources, is pushing to change the way “waste” materials are managed in Massachusetts. This is a good thing for economic development and the environmental performance of our materials-based economy. However, many people will not readily accept the subtle changes in regulatory definitions that distinguish separated materials from mixed solid waste. With these changes, materials that formerly had to be permitted as solid waste (trash) and processed at a permitted solid waste facility are no longer legally considered trash, so they can be processed at a composting or AD facility without a solid waste permit. I’m very happy this distinction is being made for organic material, but I know that many other people will consider this just another form of garbage disposal.

An action plan to encourage better organic materials management through diversion to composting and digestion needs to include significant resources to engage stakeholders around the Commonwealth to have open and honest conversations about the wide-ranging benefits, the potential pitfalls, and what everyone needs to know to avoid problems.

There is no reason to continue to dump organic material into landfills and many reasons to get everyone on board with using this material to generate more economic value and more environmental benefits for Massachusetts. But we can’t just “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” on the permit applications; we have to engage with people and navigate the changes in a collaborative and productive way. Diverting organic material from landfills can lead to a host of economic, environmental, and community benefits, but anyone who thinks changing the system will be as easy as selecting a site, telling the neighbors about the benefits, and awaiting approval and praise is in for a rude awakening. CLF Ventures looks forward to working with communities and project proponents to engage in open, clear discussions of the real impacts and benefits of organics management facilities so that all stakeholders share the same understanding of the issues and speak with the same terminology.

A few weeks ago I attended a conference in Washington, DC that brought together environmental groups from all over the country. In speaking with my colleagues, I was reminded of how this country is a patchwork quilt: each of us brought a unique set of challenges, a strong independent sense of identity, and solutions to regional challenges – solutions that are sometimes adopted at the national level. This certainly is true of New England.

Over the last year, two events have emphasized the importance of interregional coordination. In the process, they have reminded me of New England’s long history of regional cooperation to advance nation leading clean energy projects, and of the way in which those have been adopted on the national stage.

The first of these issues is FERC Order 1,000 – a significant reform to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s position on “electric transmission planning and cost allocation requirements for public utility transmission providers” issued in June of 2010. That Order, and material explaining it, can be found on the FERC website. The new rules announced in that Order mandate that utilities operating wholesale electricity systems across the country engage in a process of regional planning. Here in New England, we have been doing that for as long, if not longer, than anywhere else in the country, so that part of the order will prompt new regional innovations largely elsewhere in the country. Another part of the order instructs regional operators of the electric grid to consider the public policy mandates of the states in their region in the planning they do for their part of the grid. The New England states have a variety of innovative policies intended to bring about a clean energy future. How our regional grid operator accounts for those in its planning is very likely to break ground for the rest of the country.

Similarly, the recent breakthrough settlement agreement by the Patrick Administration in the proposed merger between NStar and Northeast Utilities also reminded me of the need for regional coordination. Consider the scale of the proposed utility: As The Boston Globe reported, “the proposed $17.5 billion merger… would create the largest utility in the region, [and serve] nearly 3.5 million electric and gas customers from Westport, Conn., to Pittsburg, N.H., near the Canadian border.”

With a reach extending from southern Connecticut to Northern New Hampshire by way of Boston, the resulting utility has obligations under a variety of critical state policies intended to protect the environment and build a resilient clean energy economy. The right to operate as a state-sanctioned monopoly is conditioned on the utility meeting those obligations. The initial terms of the proposed merger did not meet those requirements; the merger as revised by the settlement, as my colleague Sue Reid said, “ensures that this powerful new utility will be in lockstep with Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy policies and propel the state forward instead of backwards in implementing them.”

This cases highlight the need for advocacy groups to be able to field their teams  on a scale and in a manner that that rises to the challenge of the moment. The NU/NStar merger required us to play on a regional scale; FERC Order 1,000 provides a chance to use the federally regulated planning process to advance critical state policies that are designed to build a cleaner and thriving New England. The challenges we face, and the institutions we engage (like utilities), are large and extend across our region and beyond, not respecting traditional boundaries. CLF must meet this challenge with size, scale, intentions, goals, and strategies that are appropriately sized to meet those challenges.

Given New England’s strong tradition of leadership on energy and environmental issues, I have confidence we have the tools required. However, as my conversations in DC emphasized, what is appropriate here in New England is not appropriate for every region.

Given the differences between the various regions of the country, and various areas within those regions, I wonder: To what extent can we successfully plot a common future? These questions are as relevant within New England as between regions.

Driving south from Acadia National Park in Maine or Hanover, New Hampshire, or east from Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT the scenery changes, the weather warms and the population becomes more dense. Though each place is in New England, each feels very different – and, if you ask someone on the street, chances are they’ll tell you just how unique and independent their town or city is. The same is true as you travel north from Atlanta or NYC to Boston, or east from Chicago or San Francisco. Within New England, as within our country, our differences can be easier to see than our shared future, but it is the latter that requires our attention.

More and more, we have the tools. That puts us in a good position to work together, town by town, region by region, for a thriving New England, and a thriving country.

More and more, studies are recognizing the positive benefits of environmental improvements to communities. Now, potential changes to IRS non-profit reporting rules would allow nonprofit hospitals to report the cost of the environmental improvements they make.

IRS Schedule H is a mandatory reporting form introduced by the IRS in 2008. Its purpose is to quantify, in a way that is comparable across institutions, how nonprofit hospitals meet their community benefit obligations and therefore document their tax-exempt status. Schedule H requires hospitals to report on total community benefit and charity care expenses as well as proportion of total institutional spending on these categories. Changes to the reporting rules, released in draft form on December 15, 2011, will allow hospitals to report on costs associated with their community-building activities, such as activities to protect/improve the community’s health or safety.

The rule change now allows hospitals to include activities related to “environmental improvements” if the activity:

1) is provided for the primary purpose of improving community health;

2) addresses an environmental issue known to affect community health; and

3) is subsidized by the organization at a net loss.

The potential implications of this rule change could see a great positive benefit for communities since hospitals would now have additional incentive to implement activities with environmental and community health benefits. CLF Ventures, the market-based strategy consulting arm of Conservation Law Foundation, is encouraged by this rule change.

Working to support local sustainable agriculture by buying local produce, increasing recycling which reduces landfill burdens, or promoting carpooling or public transit to reduce emissions are all potential items that could be documented under these new rules as they support a hospital’s community mission and would be considered environmental improvements. At the same time, the IRS rule change explicitly forbids inclusion of environmental improvement expenses that are “primarily for marketing purposes,” so ostensibly, nonprofit hospitals will have to implement meaningful environmental improvements in order to receive credit for them.

As nonprofit institutions’ tax-exempt status come under increased scrutiny, both in and outside of Massachusetts, nonprofit hospitals will have an interest in augmenting the share of their total expenses that count as “community benefits.” The Affordable Care Act requires nonprofit hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments every three years. The proposed changes to the IRS nonprofit reporting rules provide nonprofit hospitals a new opportunity to include within these needs assessments information about potential improvements to air quality, water, energy systems, etc.—and a new incentive to implement measures that can benefit both the environment and local community health.

Courtesy of bradlee9119@flickr. Creative Commons.

The triple bottom line has become both a catch phrase and, increasingly, a realistic goal for everyone from investors to activists and urban developers. But in Massachusetts, aging MBTA trains and infrastructure coupled with proposed fare hikes and service cuts stand in the way of achieving the triple-bottom-line promise of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).

TOD projects are generally comprised of mixed-use or mixed-income developments that are situated within a half-mile of a mass transit station. They provide residents with easy access to the places they want to go (jobs, doctors, movie theaters, etc.) and place businesses within reach of employees and consumers along the mass transit system.

One of the advantages of TOD projects is their potential to achieve triple-bottom-line returns, providing economic, environmental, and community benefits simultaneously. By encouraging people to use mass transit and rely less on automobiles, TOD projects help to reduce both noxious auto emissions and climate-altering greenhouse gases. In fact, people in highly walkable neighborhoods drive nearly 40% fewer miles than their counterparts in the least walkable neighborhoods, which can reduce traffic-related emissions by as much as 2,000 grams of CO₂ per person per day. Furthermore, the increased walking (at least 10 minutes daily on average) reduces the risk of obesity, regardless of age, income, or gender.

So TOD opens up new opportunities for growth without requiring the costly, carbon-intensive infrastructure needed for cars, and contributes to healthful, walkable neighborhoods that attract both businesses and residents. Sounds great, right?

Unfortunately, there’s a hitch. TOD projects rely on the assumption that the transit system is capable of supporting them. Here in Massachusetts, proposed MBTA fare increases and service cuts, as well as our aging transportation infrastructure, may prevent TOD projects from delivering on their promise. This is a bad thing for Massachusetts residents, for our economy, and for our environment.

The MBTA is old. After putting off badly needed maintenance on the Red Line for several years, an entire section has been shut down on weekends for emergency repairs, cutting off access for parts of Cambridge, Somerville, and beyond. And faced with a $161 million budget deficit, the T is now considering drastic fare increases and draconian service cuts, including potential elimination of over 100 bus routes as well as weekend service on the commuter rail and some subway lines.

The MBTA’s proposed fare increases and service cuts are unacceptable for MBTA riders and could prove disastrous for TOD projects, past, present, and future. Discouraging people from taking public transportation—either by eliminating MBTA service or making that service prohibitively expensive for riders—undermines the triple-bottom line goals of TOD. It may sound obvious, but TOD requires a healthy, functioning, financially accessible transit system to realize its full potential.

CLF is asking the state legislature and the governor to find a comprehensive solution to the MBTA’s funding problems, not just a band-aid for the coming year’s operating budget. And CLF Ventures is committed to finding triple-bottom-line solutions, like TOD, where profitable developments can also yield environmental and community benefits. Without continued investments in our transportation infrastructure in Massachusetts and a comprehensive solution to the T’s funding problems, TOD could become a triple-bottom loss for the economy, the environment, and for MBTA riders.

Sleep is a wonderful thing, and it’s necessary for good health. As someone who doesn’t always get enough, I understand people’s concern that wind turbines are disturbing their sleep, or if built, will. Yet the report this week from  the state’s expert review on the science did not find sufficient scientific evidence that wind turbine noise impacts are loud enough or have the right characteristics to physically disturb people’s sleep.

The panel did find limited evidence that some people are annoyed by noise from wind turbines, due to a combination of “the sound itself, the sight of the turbine, and attitude toward the wind turbine project.” In other words, if you are annoyed by the presence of wind turbines, you might also be annoyed by the noise from them. Still, the report disavows claims that wind turbines are associated with adverse health effects.

But, if you are one of the 44% of Americans who have trouble sleeping (according to a Consumer Reports 2008 survey) and you are annoyed by nearby wind turbines, it’s not hard to see how you would link the two together and associate sleep problems with the sound from the turbines. The value of a scientific review is to sort out whether there is sufficient evidence to support claims that the cause (i.e., noise from wind turbines) resulted in the effect (sleep disturbance or health problems). The review by the state’s expert panel did not find sufficient evidence to support the causal link between noise from wind turbines and health problems or disease, debunking the claims of “wind turbine syndrome.”  “Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically.”

The story is a bit more complicated for sleep disturbance. The report states, “A very loud wind turbine could cause disrupted sleep, particularly in vulnerable populations, at a certain distance, while a very quiet wind turbine would not likely disrupt even the lightest of sleepers at that same distance.” The question becomes, how loud is loud enough? or what is the threshold at which disturbance occurs?, and that answer doesn’t definitively exist.The science tells us some of what we need to know, but still leaves uncertainty about how to ensure that wind turbines don’t disturb poor sleepers. For example, if the disturbance is a function of one’s attitude about wind turbines, it might not be possible to avoid disturbance for some people.

The key question is, what do we do with this information? How does the science help us make sound decisions about siting wind energy? The data do not suggest we stop all development of wind energy facilities because they pose unacceptable health risks. The evidence does not support that. Regardless of how uncomfortable we may be about making decisions under uncertainty, the reality is that we always operate under uncertainty – and there is no avoiding that. We can never be certain about the future. An appropriate path forward for wind energy decision-making is to use the best available information to make siting decisions that address abutters’ concerns, such as incorporating good design principles to minimize any annoying effects. In fact, that is what the expert panel recommends.

The good news is that having a wind turbine in your back yard will not make you sick. The bad news is you might be disturbed by it, and that is an important consideration for decision makers. Those directly impacted by wind siting decisions should have the opportunity to participate in them, to minimize the potential for disturbance. CLF Ventures’ Wind Siting Guide offers guidance on how to engage stakeholders in such decision processes.

Renewable wind energy offers many benefits, including energy independence, reliable pricing, and no ongoing emissions. As we strive to achieve a cleaner energy future, which necessarily includes wind turbines, we will need to take measures to minimize the annoyance impacts of living near them, since they will always be in somebody’s back yard. Robust community processes will help us make better design decisions and minimize the impacts.

Leaves are falling, autumn has arrived – and so has a new look for CLF Ventures, CLF’s non-profit strategy-consulting arm. CLF Ventures bridges the public and private sectors to advance innovative, market-based solutions that benefit the environment, society, and our clients’ bottom line. With a new logo and a newly redesigned website, CLF Ventures is taking our message of “Environmental Gain – Economic Advantage” to the next level.

The new CLF Ventures logo was designed to complement the CLF logo while capturing the unique mission and value that CLF Ventures brings to our clients. The two overlapping leaves in the new CLF Ventures logo embody our message that the environment and the economy are interconnected, not mutually exclusive, and that we need to pay attention to both to have a truly thriving and sustainable economy. “If you really look closely,” says CLF Ventures CEO Jo Anne Shatkin, “you see the “V” inside the leaves – that’s the “V” for Ventures, but it’s also a check mark, which says ‘yes, we know how to make things happen.’ CLF Ventures is like those two overlapping leaves. We’re uniquely positioned to help our clients because we’re part of the environmental community and we understand what businesses and innovators need to operate and thrive.”

The redesigned CLF Ventures website highlights the breadth of our services and the wide variety of partners we help. Our new homepage features a revolving showcase of the “Four I’s” – Innovate, Incubate, Integrate, and Initiate – which captures CLF Ventures’ mission to bring about positive environmental change through the marketplace. Many people are familiar with CLF Ventures’ work to help facilities integrate their operations with sound environmental principles and operate both sustainably and profitably. But CLF Ventures also helps entrepreneurs and clean technology leaders innovate their products and technologies and bring them to market. We incubate replicable, new businesses that create shared value and improve the environment. And we initiate opportunities that propel new investment models toward the triple bottom line. Our redesigned website allows us to share our story – and our mission – with a broader audience. We hope you’ll check out www.clfventures.org and let us know what you think.