In a tearful April 1st press conference at the Medford, Massachusetts Office of Rep. Ed Markey, House Speaker John Boehner announced that he had changed his mind about climate science and was now in favor of dramatic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I was listening to NPR the other day, as you know I am a big fan, and I heard this terrifying show about the long term effects of our greenhouse gas emissions and I realized that I have been dead wrong about how to protect my nation, my constituents and my family.” The Speaker then broke down in tears.

More to come . . .

The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the New England Fisheries Management Council met yesterday and today in Boston to review the report developed by the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI) in support of Governor Patrick’s request to the U.S. Department of Commerce for emergency relief for Massachusetts fishermen. The MFI report concluded that recent fishery management actions had produced losses on the order of $21 million dollars for Massachusetts fishermen and that catch limits could be raised without compromising the health of the fish populations or the conservation objectives of the management plan.

The SSC is a distinguished, international panel of scientists, some of whom have been assessing fish populations in New England for decades. Specifically, the SSC was asked to review several positions taken by the MFI report:

1.      Whether the methodologies used to calculate the biological reference points and the catch limits represented the best available science;

2.      Whether the methodology chosen to set catch limits resulted in an overly conservative approach because of “double counting” of scientific uncertainty;

3.      Whether there were other aspects of the fish modeling, such as the presence of so-called “retrospective patterns” in the models,  that resulted in overly cautious adjustments of the catch recommendations;

4.      Whether there were any recommendations for additional information that could be used in the future to improve the assessment process.

The SSC did not agree with any of the science-related assertions in the MFI report. In their discussion, they noted a number of places where the conclusions were based on faulty premises or ignored widely recognized issues that the scientists who had developed the original catch limit recommendations had addressed when they set the limits.

They concluded that the stock assessment and catch specification process was fully consistent with best scientific practices, that there was no “double counting” of uncertainty or risk, and that the annual catch limits could not be increased without increasing, in some cases significantly, the risk of meeting the conservation objectives of the New England Council and the federal statute that controls harvest, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In their brief economic review, the SSC rejected the analysis and conclusions from the MFI report. Aside from noting that it was questionable to draw economic or social conclusions from a new management plan that had only been in effect for six months, the SSC noted that the report misrepresented $21 million of theoretical losses as actual losses and did not account for the revenues from the numerous other species that groundfishermen pursue in addition to the groundfish species. A number of SSC members also indicated that comparisons to the 2009 fishing year were not proper since the scientists had all concluded that the 2009 catch limits were set significantly too high for many species. The SSC agreed by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year, and provided no evidence of an economic crisis.

The SSC did acknowledge that there was always room for improvement in fish stock assessments and that additional research on both the assessment methodologies and a range of social and economic effects should be considered in the future.

The MFI report has now been rejected as a basis for emergency action or even immediate reconsideration of existing harvest levels by the Department of Commerce, a national scientific meeting of fisheries experts, and by the New England SSC.  It is time to move on and focus on continuing to improve the management system in New England so that we can restore healthy fish populations that support thriving and diverse regional fishing communities as quickly as practicable.

Question: What’s better than a bike share program in Boston? Answer: A bike share program in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline. And according to this article in yesterday’s Globe, a solution may be closer than we think. Local officials in those areas are exploring the feasibility of this the-more-the-merrier approach,  which would expand Boston’s original bike share proposal, first introduced about two years ago, into a regional program that would serve those additional densely-populated communities just outside the city’s core.

An effective bike share program would serve as a complement to the MBTA, increasing access to hard-to-reach areas not currently served by the T, such as Arlington, Medford, Somerville’s Union Square or Cambridge’s Inman Square, reducing stress on the MBTA system at peak times like during rush hour or following major sporting events (if you’ve ever tried to fight your way onto the green line after a Red Sox game, you know what I’m talking about) and providing yet another alternative to driving, reducing congestion on the city’s roadways.

Cities such as Minneapolis, Denver and Washington, DC already have bike share programs in place–and we should join them. CLF supports a regional bike sharing initiative for Boston and other sensible transportation alternatives that get more New Englanders out of their cars and into their communities, whether that’s on foot or by train, bus or bike.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and modernize transportation at clf.org.

As part of the national effort to streamline and improve regulations launched by President Obama in an Executive Order the Environmental Protection Agency is soliciting comments on what regulations should be “modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed” — so tell them what you think! They have a webpage that explains what they are looking for and provides an opportunity to submit comments online.

At a recent “listening session” held in Boston CLF offered these thoughts to EPA.  The deadline for comments is April 4, 2011– let your voice be heard !

Atlantic cod

CLF has been working for twenty years to end overfishing in New England and to rebuild the imperiled fish populations that are the foundation of our regional fishing future. The New England fishing industry was subsidized to grow so big that its capacity to catch fish exceeded the capacity of the ocean to produce fish, and historic lows of fish populations (determined using data that span many generations) were reached in the mid-1990s. Since that time, the struggle to re-balance fishing effort with natural reproduction levels has been economically painful, and with few viable, options many fishermen have been forced out of the business or into other fisheries.

We at CLF see some light at the end of the rebuilding tunnel now. Fish populations are coming back, and in some cases, like haddock, they are fully rebuilt. Others, such as Atlantic cod, won’t be fully rebuilt until 2026, but they are gaining ground. The most recent fishery management plan, Amendment 16, helps ensure the continuation of this rebuilding trend. This plan is being legally challenged by New Bedford and Gloucester and some others. CLF is for the first time intervening in a court action on behalf of the government to defend this management plan, which ends overfishing, establishes enforceable quotas on fishing, and offers new flexibility to fishermen in how and when they fish.

CLF is not alone in our optimism that Amendment 16 finally is creating a future for the fishing industry. For an interesting perspective from one of Congress’s great ocean champions, former Representative Tom Allen, read this op-ed he authored in the Portland Press Herald. In his writing, Tom displays the vision, the compassion, and the judgment that convinced his constituents to send him back to Congress time after time. He offers a different perspective on the doom-and-gloom that occupies much of the slanted reporting that some local papers have been carrying.

In arguments made today before Federal Judge Rya W. Zobel on the federal lawsuit regarding the New England fisheries management system known as Amendment 16, Conservation Law Foundation senior counsel Peter Shelley defended the process in which the new rules were developed and agreed upon at the New England Fishery Management Council and re-affirmed CLF’s support for the Amendment.

Shelley stated, “This lawsuit is not so much about the specific merits of Amendment 16, but more about the integrity of the process by which the new rules were developed and vetted and set into motion. The process, which involved all of the fishing interests, including some who today decry it and the outcome it produced, was fair, rational and legal. New Bedford’s interests were directly represented in those lengthy deliberations and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts participated actively in both the Amendment 16 science decision-making and the policy development. This is the New England Council’s plan, not a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plan.”

“CLF supports the Council’s approval of Amendment 16 not because it is perfect, but because it represents a reasonable decision, reached after an extended transparent public debate that reasonably meets the Magnuson Stevens Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements while attempting to provide additional flexibility for fishermen in the region to fish more efficiently and profitably if they want to. The related issues of consolidation and fairness in access to fish are on the Council’s plate now and should be carefully analyzed and debated.”

After the hearing, Shelley observed, “What we have learned over the past fifteen years is that strong and effective management of this important public resource, coupled with some degree of luck with Mother Nature, can restore fish populations to high levels and support a vital and stable domestic fishing industry. Amendment 16 is designed to accomplish that objective and is consistent with the Magnuson Act.”

Read the text of Peter’s full argument here.

The tragedy in Japan brings some very real risks of nuclear power into focus.  The ”GE Mark I Boiling Water Reactors” in Japan are the same type as the ones used at Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Plymouth, MA.

Our colleagues, nuclear experts David Lochbaum and Edwin Lyman at the Union of Concerned Scientists, are providing helpful and detailed analysis and insights about the unfolding nuclear events in Japan at http://allthingsnuclear.org/

It is worth a look.

An important development today in the Northeast Utilities/NStar merger proceeding: the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (MA DPU) announced that it will modernize the standard of review for utility mergers, including requiring that climate change impacts be taken into account. CLF issued the following statement in response:

Sue Reid, director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Massachusetts office, said, “The DPU’s decision to modernize the standard of review for utility mergers and require that climate change impacts be taken into account is a very welcome development. A merger like the one proposed by NU and NSTAR – which would create the largest utility in New England and one of the largest in the nation – appropriately should be required to meet a “net benefit” test, rather than the mere “no net harm” standard used in the past. This change goes to the core of the merger petition filed by NU and NSTAR. These companies now must bear the burden of proof to demonstrate how this merger would benefit the public – in terms of jobs created, consumer choice, renewable energy commitments, and greenhouse gas reductions in keeping with Massachusetts’ ambitious requirements. It also will provide a more meaningful opportunity to address widespread concerns raised by stakeholders from the environmental, business and labor communities about the potential impacts of the proposed merger.”

CLF intervened in the NU/NStar proceeding in January, 2011.

Boston has been ranked one of the top 15 major cities for transportation by NRDC’s Smarter Cities project.  The study does not rank the cities, but Boston comes out on top alphabetically before Chicago, New York, Portland, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington–which, in our minds, means it’s number one!

While this is probably extremely hard to believe for Boston commuters who experienced too many delays as a result of the cold weather this winter, we will take a win over New York any way we can get it–particularly as the 2011 Red Sox are about to face the Yankee$ for the first time in the Grapefruit League tonight.

What helped put Boston on top? Among the factors on NRDC’s list were our our heavily-trafficked, far-reaching public transit system, including the planned Green Line extension, a project in which CLF is very involved.

See for yourself. Check out why else we made the list, and start thinking about how we can help the ruefully underfunded public transportation system in Massachusetts get better.

See what else CLF is doing to build better ways to get around in your community.