For over 15 years CLF has been incubating an important new concept – car insurance that rewards you for driving less.  We have made it a reality through our affiliate – the Environmental Insurance Agency.

But to move into full scale operation of the concept we needed a full blown academic grade review of hard data to show that when you drive less you get into fewer accidents (yeah, I know it sounds obvious but we really needed to do that).

While the study is done, the results are in.  Read our press release about it. Read more information and the study itself (warning for the mathphobic, it has equations but you can skip them, they will not hurt you).

Or you can read about it on the Boston Globe website:

Pay as you drive car insurance? New study says a good idea

by Beth Daley December 2, 2010 03:11 PM

For several years now, Massachusetts environmentalists have said there is a better way of insuring drivers.

Called pay-as-you-drive, the idea has its roots in a link between miles driven and risk of accidents. Paying a certain amount of cents for each mile driven is a fairer way to insure drivers, many environmentalists say – and at the same time will encourage less driving, therefore emitting fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Now, a new study commissioned by Conservation Law Foundation that looked at $502 million of claims on more than 3 million cars in Massachusetts, found that basing premiums even partially on mileage could end the practice of low-mileage drivers subsidizing higher-mileage ones.

The study estimates that switching all Massachusetts drivers to pure per-mile auto insurance pricing would reduce mileage, accident costs, and fuel consumption by 9.5% and cut two million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Another model with a flat yearly rate, plus per mile pricing after the first 2000 miles, would reduce both figures by about 5%.

The study had some surprises, such as even though suburban and rural car owners tend to drive more than city dwellers, their per-mile charges could be lower than they currently play for traditional insurance if they drive less than the average for their area.

The study, by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Joseph Ferreira, Jr. and Eric Minikel, a recent MIT grad, is the first to link real miles driven with actual claims filed – the insurance claims the two examined totaled 34 billion miles.

“We believe that the proven benefits to business, consumers and the environment spelled out in this study make a compelling case for adoption of PAYD in Massachusetts and beyond,” said John Kassel, president of Conservation Law Foundation.

While prior research has shown that risk increases with mileage, CLF officials say the study brings it down to an individual level.

From November 15, 2010 Boston Globe:

There are reasons aerotropolis didn’t get off the ground

The following is a special edition of CLF’s e-News.  To receive this kind of carefully screened (no spam here!)  information and to support CLF join today.

We at CLF watched last Tuesday’s elections with great interest, and in some cases, trepidation. Our ability to be effective in our work is greatly enhanced when there is real leadership on environmental issues at the state level, especially when federal leadership is lacking. With some exceptions, New Englanders chose with their votes to continue the environmental progress we are making in our region. Now that the dust has settled, we are pleased to bring you this special post-election edition of our e-news. Below, you will find a state-by-state forecast of how the election results are likely to help or hinder our and others’ efforts to address the most pressing environmental challenges affecting our region, namely reducing our carbon emissions from energy and transportation, planning for and mitigating the impacts of climate change, supporting clean energy development that creates good, local jobs, and protecting our natural resources – all in the interest of a healthy, thriving New England for everyone.

An overarching challenge that every governor and legislature will face is how to strike a balance between budget pressures and appropriately staffing and supporting environmental protection agencies. Maintaining a balanced budget can lead a state government into making “penny wise and pound foolish decisions,” like underfunding stormwater and sewage infrastructure projects needed to meet federal mandates and protect public health. In a closely related vein, building up jobs and the economy will mean that environmental permitting must be fair and timely; underfunded agencies without adequate staffing and resources will not be able to meet that goal.

Maine

The election of Paul LePage, a Republican who, for the first time in four decades, will be a governor of that party with majorities from his own party in both the Maine House and Senate, is potentially a shift of deep significance. On the campaign trail, Governor-elect LePage questioned the fact of climate change, indicated support for offshore oil and gas exploration and new nuclear power plants, stated that wind power was still too unreliable to focus much attention on and suggested folding the Departments of Environmental Protection, Marine Resources, Conservation and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife into the Department of Agriculture.

Currently the mayor of Waterville and general manager of Marden’s, a discount department store, LePage has indicated that his primary focus will be on making it easier to do business in Maine. His generally moderate record in Waterville and the long tradition of bi-partisan consensus around environmental issues in Maine provide some suggestion that forces may be at work that will temper negative campaign rhetoric. But it will be a challenge to advance a science-based agenda in Maine that looks to energy efficiency and clean renewable resources as the building blocks of both environmental protection and economic development.

Maine voters returned its two members to the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Chellie Pingree and Rep. Mike Michaud. Both have solid records as leaders on environmental issues.

For more on Maine’s election results, read CLF Maine Director Sean Mahoney’s blog post on CLF Scoop.

Massachusetts

Governor Deval Patrick’s re-election on a platform of clean energy and economic development was a hopeful sign for Massachusetts, with potential for positive reverberations beyond the Commonwealth. The Patrick campaign bucked conventional wisdom by emphasizing the need to make longer term investments, like building Cape Wind and putting in place long-term contracts that use such projects to provide electricity at a stable and predictable price.

The continued efforts to implement legislation enacted over the last two years – including the Massachusetts Green Communities Act, the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act and the Massachusetts Oceans Act – will provide ample opportunities to press forward with that affirmative agenda of building a clean energy economy.

On the federal front, it is notable that the only newly elected member of Congress from Massachusetts (filling a seat to be vacated by retiring Rep. Delahunt), U.S. Representative-elect Bill Keating from the 10^th Congressional District, is a supporter of Cape Wind and received a state-wide award as “Environmental Legislator of the Year” when he was in the Massachusetts State Legislature, primarily for his water pollution work.

New Hampshire

The election resulted in a massive shift in the political landscape in New Hampshire. Prior to Tuesday, Democrats controlled both houses of the Legislature and the Executive Council under a Democratic governor. With the exception of Governor Lynch, who retained his office, Republicans swept other areas of the government. In the New Hampshire House and Senate, Republicans not only became the majority, but also achieved veto-proof majorities. In the Executive Council, which confirms nominations to offices in the executive branch and which approves government contracts, a Democratic majority not only was erased, but all five Council members are now Republican.

While it is important not to automatically assume that Republicans will oppose all effective and affirmative action on the environment, it is fair to note that New Hampshire’s Republican party adopted a platform that espouses positions that represent a retreat from state and regional efforts to tackle climate change. Whether there will be a serious attempt to translate these positions into policy remains to be seen.

On the federal level, Kelly Ayotte (R) won the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Judd Gregg. She defeated Democrat Paul Hodes, who vacated the Congressional District 1 seat to run for Senate. While in Congress, Hodes had been a strong ally on a variety of environmental issues. Republican Frank Giunta defeated incumbent Democrat Carol Shea Porter, also a strong ally on environmental issues, for the Congressional District 2 seat. Charlie Bass (R) won New Hampshire’s second Congressional seat (District 1), defeating Democratic candidate Anne McLane Kuster. Rep. Bass has shown leadership around key environmental issues before in Congress, including re-establishing passenger rail in New Hampshire, and has the potential to become an ally on future initiatives, including advancing renewable energy in the state.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island elected Independent Lincoln Chafee as governor. Among the three candidates running for governor, Lincoln Chafee was widely viewed as the candidate who was most likely to understand environmental issues and advance a pro-environmental agenda. Chafee advanced environmental issues as a U.S. senator and as the “new urbanist” mayor of Warwick, RI, where he championed a rail-based vision for development around T.F. Green Airport that is now coming to fruition.

David Cicilline, most recently mayor of Providence, was elected to replace Congressman Patrick Kennedy in the 1^st Congressional District. Cicilline’s strong record on environmentally sound urban development and energy efficiency as mayor of Providence suggests he will be an important voice in Congress. His successor as mayor of Providence, Angel Tavares, is widely expected to provide leadership in that key city that will build on the renaissance of the last decade.

Vermont

Vermont elected Democrat Peter Shumlin to serve as the state’s next governor. For many years, Governor-elect Shumlin served as President pro tempore of the Vermont Senate. As the leader of the State Senate’s majority over the past several years, Mr. Shumlin has led initiatives to address climate change, electric energy efficiency, renewable energy development, and to protect the state’s air, water and forests. However, the Shumlin administration has its work cut out for it to adopt strong environmental and energy policies in the face of record budget deficits.

Vermonters elected Republican Phil Scott, also a former state senator, to serve as the state’s lieutenant governor. While this post holds primarily ministerial responsibilities, Mr. Scott’s views on important environmental issues remain to be seen.

At the federal level, Vermonters voted to send Democrats Congressman Peter Welch and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy back to Washington for another term. Both members of Congress are considered to be pro-environmental and in favor of progressive energy policies, with Rep. Welch serving as a leader in the House on energy efficiency. Senator Leahy has now become Vermont’s longest serving senator and will play a key role in the leadership in Congress.

Lastly, Democrats gained unprecedented majorities in both houses of the Vermont State House, giving Governor-elect Shumlin the opportunity to work with friendly faces on crafting a legislative agenda.

Connecticut

The election of Democrat Dan Malloy, who won by a slim margin, is a cause for great hope and optimism in climate and energy circles. During the campaign, Malloy, the former mayor of the City of Stamford, articulated progressive and powerful ideas about the importance of confronting global warming, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building up both clean energy and broad transportation choices that build walkable and livable communities and presided over an exciting, sophisticated and innovative “microgrid” project.

The federal scene in Connecticut, including the election of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to the Senate, was characterized by preservation of a powerful delegation who will provide a strong voice in Congress for sensible energy policy and for investment in urban neighborhoods, a voice that will be critically needed given the larger makeup of the new Congress.

Sea Change.  Tsunami. Maelstrom.  Take your pick but the results of the mid-term election from an environmental perspective will bring an even more extreme and hostile approach to restoring, protecting and preserving our natural resources.  The change in Maine will be staggering – not once since the first comprehensive environmental statutes were passed in the 1970’s has there been a Republican governor and a Republican controlled Legislature.  And unlike the past leaders of the Republican party in Maine like US Senators Margaret Chase Smith and Bill Cohen or State legislators Horace Hildreth and Harry Richardson, today’s leaders of the Republican party have attempted to revive the old and false dichotomy of “jobs vs. the environment.”  At stake is the work of 40 years to provide a framework that allows Maine’s people and communities to thrive and protects Maine’s natural resources. We are in unchartered territory.

Governor-elect Paul LePage’s rhetoric on the campaign trail was alarmingly anti-environmental.  Beyond staking his election on dismantling Maine’s agencies tasked with safeguarding our environment, he has bluntly expressed support for offshore oil drilling in the wake of the worst oil spill ever experienced by our country.  He supports building wildly expensive new nuclear power plants.  Rather mind-numbing is the fact that he considers climate change to be at the least, subject to scientific debate if not outright denying it.  And he opposes sustainable  wind development.  Even more problematic is a pervasive sense that he simply doesn’t “get it” – doesn’t get the concept of sustainability, doesn’t get the economic value of a strong and vibrant environment and doesn’t get Mainers abiding conviction that ours is a unique state that merits strong efforts to maintain.

Willful ignorance may be trending in Augusta, but thoughtfulness  has a firm place in Maine’s culture. Those who are committed to a sustainable approach to managing our resources to benefit our people must now put the election behind us and focus on holding the line.  Open and active collaboration among Maine’s environmental community will be necessary to that effort.  We need to recognize that a majority of Maine people voted for two candidates who have long and distinguished records as environmental leaders and stewards.  Just as a majority of voters supported additional funding for the Land for Maine’s Future program, a clear sign that we continue to be willing to invest in safeguarding our environment.

The Conservation Law Foundation has always believed that a thriving Maine is the result of strong environmental protections and sound economic principles.  That belief – and CLF’s unique ability to translate it into practical, effective and results-oriented advocacy – will be more important than ever as a new administration attempts to dismantle the environmental protections of the last four decades.  We hope you join us in our collaborative effort to tackle the challenges that lay ahead.

So the 100% biodegradable packaging that PepsiCo uses for its Sun Chips snacks is going away because … well, isn’t it obvious?!

PepsiCo is taking the no-waste, completely compostable, producer-finally-taking-responsibility-for-the- waste-it generates packaging off the shelves because WE complained that the packaging makes too much noise. It is hard to believe that we as consumers would make the conscious effort NOT to buy a product simply because the part of the product that we usually throw away is too loud. The trash trucks barreling down the side streets to pick up garbage (not too loud), the people living near landfills raising their voices to complain about rodents and odors and air quality (not too loud), citizen voices raised in anger to complain about higher taxes to pay for the higher costs associated with disposal of trash (not too loud), but a socially responsible package, designed to reduce our carbon footprint, our trash footprint, our costs …too loud?

It’s time to shut up and make some noise! Be Loud, Be Proud … and, p.s. buy a composter.

Do you care about trash (or lack thereof)? Join CLF’s Trash Talk campaign. Listen for us on  95.5 WBRU or become a fan of the  Trash Talk Landfill on Facebook.

By now, you’ve probably heard a thing or two about the Circ, a proposed frivolous $60 million dollar highway project that threatens to rip through some of our state’s most pristine farmlands and wetlands. It’s unnecessary and destructive—and there are cheaper and cleaner alternatives.

What you may not have heard is that fewer than 20 people (according to the Burlington Free Press) have submitted comments voicing their opinion. No, that’s not a typo. Fewer than 20 people have spoken up about the Circ. We need to change that, and we need to change it now.

Here’s what we need you to do:

1. Submit a comment online against the proposed highway before the Friday, August 27 deadline.
2. Share this blog post via Twitter and Facebook with your family, friends and neighbors, asking them to submit a comment.

Not sure what to say in your comment to decisionmakers? Feel free to copy and paste the sample comment below:

The proposed Circ project is a bad idea for Vermont. The Circ will contribute harmful greenhouse gases, destroy farmlands and fragile wetlands, limit transportation choices, increase congestion—all while providing little benefit in travel time saved. Fixing existing roads and providing alternatives to driving—like freight rail, buses, carpooling and bike lanes—is cleaner, cheaper and more effective than the proposed Circ Highway project.

Comments are due by August 27—that’s this Friday! So please don’t wait. Our decisionmakers are listening, and we need as many people to speak up as possible. After you take action, please share this blog post far and wide to help get the word out.

Thank you for helping us put the breaks on the Circ project: Vermont deserves better!

Click the “like” button below to share this post on Facebook.

As I sit on the crowded 32 bus for my usual 50-minute-plus journey to get to work, I find myself wondering why no one seems to care that people who ride these buses regularly have to squeeze together as if trying to fit into a human sardine can.

MBTA buses.

The 32, which is almost always packed, worsens traffic on the already congested Hyde Park Avenue. It runs from Wolcott Square in Hyde Park, through Roslindale, to Forest Hills in Jamaica Plain. I’ve been taking the 32 bus my entire life; I lived in Roslindale until I was thirteen, then moved to Hyde Park. However, it hasn’t been until recently that I’ve started questioning the priorities of the MBTA.

Taking the 32 bus to Forest Hills then switching to the orange line to Downtown Crossing is the most convenient way for me to get downtown, where I’ve worked for the past two summers. I could also take the 50 bus to Forest Hills, which is sometimes a longer ride than the 32. The commuter rail, which costs more than twice the amount of the subway, takes only 20 minutes to get to South Station. My other option–taking the 33 or 24 bus to Mattapan Station, then taking the trolley to Ashmont Station, then switching to the red line–requires a little more effort and virtually the same amount of time. No relief.

Many times I have watched the commuter rail speed through Hyde Park Station, breathing in the fumes it leaves behind, trying to catch my breath as I race to catch the 32, and wonder why the people of this area are still cramming into one bus when there is a train that already runs through the neighborhood.

It has become quite apparent to me that the prices for the commuter rail need to be reduced so that common folk like me can afford to take it, otherwise there needs to be an extended train system to accommodate this area. Getting anywhere in Boston through public transit usually requires taking one of the four major lines–red, blue, green, and orange–all of which can only be accessed through a long bus ride from my area.

In an economy that’s stretched thin, like ours is, people have to go to greater lengths just to provide for their basic needs. Now, more than ever, there are so many other factors affecting daily life that to add something as miniscule as transportation to the laundry list is asking way too much for the average person. So instead, many are forced to brave long uncomfortable bus rides with the hope that there is at least one person associated with the MBTA who cares about providing adequate transit for those who need it.

I also cannot help but notice that some slightly more affluent areas of Boston seem to have a far more efficient transportation system than say, Hyde Park. This can only mean that public transportation is not prioritized by areas on a need basis. Don’t let the failing economy fool you; money is still being spent on public transit, just not in logical order. Despite what the MBTA cites as their reasons, the evidence is in the actions.

Maybe when I’m in my thirties they’ll finally get around to it.

Editor’s note: Tiffany Egbuonu is a Posse Scholar and a summer intern at CLF. She is entering her sophomore year at Bryn Mawr College in Bryn Mawr, PA.

Do you find yourself relating to Tiffany? CLF is working to bring accessible and affordable transportation to ALL people in the Boston metro area and beyond. Read more about CLF’s public transit work  here.

What would make your neighborhood great? Is it more jobs, better transportation choices, diverse housing opportunities, improved access to open spaces like parks and playgrounds? The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance (MSGA) Great Neighborhoods program wants to help turn your community’s dreams into reality. The MSGA is looking to partner with community groups to develop initiatives that will build better neighborhoods in the Greater Boston area.

The MSGA wants to hear from you. To put your ideas into action, submit a letter of interest explaining your proposed project and how it will benefit your community by July 15, 2010. The letter should be no more than 2-3 pages in length.

Click here to read more about the Great Neighborhoods program and view the MSGA’s official guidelines for writing and submitting your letter of interest.

How can law and policy influence design to make the metropolitan Boston area more livable and eco-friendly?

• How many cars can the Green Line Extension to Medford take off the roads?  Would pay per-mile auto insurance help?  Would better bike maps and paths?  How about green zoning ordinances?

• Can greenspace and access to riverfronts make our communities healthier?

• What if Wal-Mart and Lowe’s new stores don’t just use renewable energy, but also design their parking lots to stop runoff from polluting our rivers and streams?

• Can Mayor Menino make the city’s public housing as environmentally sustainable as the Apple store on Boylston St the Macallen Building Condos in South Boston?

Meet, greet and exchange ideas…or just kick back…with environmentalists and urbanists working on these issues and more!  Co-hosted by Boston Urban Exchange and CLF.

Boston-area Urban Development Meet & Greet
Location: Mantra (downstairs), 52 Temple Place, Boston, MA.
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 6-8 pm
Free admission, cash bar.
More info at http://buxmarch2010.eventbrite.com/

Our co-sponsors:  Boston Urban Exchange (BUX) is a gathering of planners, architects, urban designers, developers, ethnologists, technologists, entrepreneurs, policy-makers, artists and others who care about urban development in the Boston/Cambridge region.