Hurricane Irene did not do as much damage as had been feared in New York City, but it brought much more human and environmental trauma two hundred miles or so to the north in Vermont.

The state is dealing with a second – and more damaging – round of historic flooding only a few months after Lake Champlain reached record levels in the spring. Three people were killed in the state due to the storm’s effects, and at least one more is missing.

Vermont’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure were battered as well. Several of the state’s covered bridges were damaged or washed away despite having stood for a century or more. At one point it seemed likely that water would have to be released from the Marshfield reservoir in order to save it, even at the risk of adding to flooding downstream. Although hundreds of households downstream from the dam were evacuated, the release of water did not prove necessary as floods crested.

“The scope of this disaster is unprecedented in modern Vermont history,” Vermont Transportation Secretary Brian Searles said.

On its own, the flooding of the last few days would have been a dire warning about how ill prepared the infrastructure in the state – and the region – is for sudden and violent rainfall, the kind we can expect to come along with climate change. But the devastation of tropical storm Irene was the second time this year that Vermonters have seen their wastewater treatment, stream banks, roads and bridges tested to the limits.

But despite these and other clear indications that our public infrastructure is not ready for weather that is likely to be wetter and more extreme we don’t seem to be able to cut spending on building and improving that infrastructure fast enough to satisfy national leaders.

And set aside for a moment the kind of innovative approaches we need so badly now such as green development techniques to handle polluted runoff from parking lots and roofs, better sewer projects with the capacity and technology to deal with higher water volumes and modern water management on farms. Our public spending on infrastructure projects of a more traditional kind has declined since the 1960s until now we invest half as much (as a function of GDP) as the Europeans, according to The Economist.

That historical decline in infrastructure spending has left those public projects we own in common at the weakest they have been in more than a generation, just when their strength will be needed to protect our homes, businesses and our lives. And that has happened just when we should instead be gaining the jobs and economic benefits of building the kind of modern projects needed to prevent personal, financial and environmental destruction from an increasingly violent climate we have brought on ourselves.

National Public Radio offers an excellent in depth piece about how the long running and devastating drought is permanently changing Texas.

The climate science is absolutely clear that such droughts are part of the effects of a warming globe (if you are a real wonk take a look at the academic papers on the changing climate, drought and forest health).

Of course, reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases causing global warming is not a targeted attack on that drought – but it is the only way to slow (and possibly reverse) the trend towards a world where such horrific and wrenching events are commonplace.   A thought that should resonate here in already soggy New England as we brace for the impact of a hurricane and consider the climate science that tells us that a warming world will give us more extreme precipitation events.

The situation starts to veer towards the absurd when you consider that some leaders of Texas are denying the very existence of the phenomena playing out in their own state.  Could it be that the people getting arrested in front of the White House trying to stop a tar sands oil pipeline are serving the people of Texas (and the future people who will have to endure similar biblical plagues like droughts and floods) better than the elected officials doing all they can to hobble efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

(photo credit: USGS)

With summer drawing to a close, it’s now clear that over the next 15 months until the 2012 elections many public figures are going to be existing in a fact-free zone.   Thus, we are beginning to hear again the denials of the fact that our earth is getting warmer as a result primarily of human activity and that the results of that warming will be wide-ranging. We can expect more severe weather events (droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes), rising water temperatures, declining Arctic sea ice, and disappearing glaciers, as well as impacts to a broad range of human and natural systems, including famine, displacement from flooding and desertification, and shrinking supplies of basic commodities.  It’s surprising that some would deny this, because we have been seeing all of these changes for some years now.

Our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists have compiled a helpful and thoughtful document that brings together the assessment of the National Academy of Sciences and statement of 18 other scientific organizations regarding climate science.  Hopefully these sober and clear analyses from the best scientists in the world can help keep the conversation about climate change based on facts and evidence, not hyperboles and anecdotes.  Climate change is occurring, and we need our leaders to focus on what to do about it, not how to ignore it. In these days of 24/7 exposure, where “fair and balanced” means giving equal weight to opinions that represent less than 1% as to ones that represent 99%, and where it seems that if one shouts something loud enough and often enough it’s eventually accepted as credible, we need to remember not only that there is no substitute for good science but also that there is no excuse for giving a free pass to those in the fact-free zone.

The earthquake yesterday had us all wondering about our friends who were closer to it.  After the earthquake, a  colleague from Virginia noted:  “We all abandoned our building, which is probably not what you are supposed to do, but it seemed safer to be on the street than the third floor of a violently shaking building.  What’s even more scary is that the epicenter was essentially under Dominion’s North Anna nuclear plant.  When the NRC came out with a report last March ranking North Anna 7th in the country in terms of risk of damage from an earthquake, the Dominion spokesman noted that the plant was designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9-6.1 earthquake.”

Well that’s about what yesterday’s earthquake was.  And similar to the events in Japan, only three of four back-up generators were operating.  As CLF’s president, John Kassel said after the Fukushima tragedy:  “Several of New England’s remaining nuclear power plants are on their last legs and continuing to prop them up at the taxpayers’ expense is not a viable long-term strategy.”    These margins are too tight.  As these events show, Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight for safety is too lax in the face of Fukushima and the inevitability of earthquakes and other disasters.

A new report released today indicates that a proposed Clean Fuels Standard could significantly strengthen the economy and boost energy self-sufficiency in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic by saving Americans billions in personal disposable income, bringing in billions more for participating states, and creating up to 50,000 jobs per year.

The analysis, conducted by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) on behalf of 11 northeast and mid-Atlantic states, shows that creating a Clean Fuels Standard would help strengthen the region’s economy while reducing America’s reliance on oil and our exposure to volatile oil prices by supporting a clean energy economy here at home.

It enumerates multiple economic and environmental benefits the standard could deliver in the next 10 years, including:

• Creating up to 50,000 jobs annually
• Increasing personal disposable income in the region by up to $3.2 billion
• Growing our state economies by up to nearly $30 billion dollars
• Reducing our region’s dependence on oil by as much as 29 percent
• Reducing harmful air pollution that causes climate change up to 9 percent

Under a Clean Fuels Standard being considered, oil companies would make their fuels 10 percent cleaner on average when it comes to carbon pollution, allowing them to do this any way they choose (such as boosting sales of electricity for electric vehicles, advanced biofuels or natural gas). This means billions of dollars would be reinvested in the states to develop clean, local alternatives to gasoline and diesel – rather than sending them overseas.

CLF is encouraged by the report’s positive findings. Sue Reid, director of CLF Massachusetts, said, “The status quo of continuing to burn billions of gallons of gasoline and diesel fuels year after year is unsustainable on every level. With gas prices a dollar higher than this time last year, our region should seize on this good news that cleaner alternatives present real economic opportunity for the region. A Clean Fuels Standard provides a viable path to meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets, and a way off of the fossil fuel roller coaster.”

Read reaction from other leading environmental and science organizations who support the Clean Fuels Standard here.

Water sampling confirms that pollution from the Vermont Yankee  plant is fouling the Connecticut River.  For the first time, water samples of the Connecticut River reveal that tritium, a radioactive substance from the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility, is in the river.   Previous sampling ignored Conservation Law Foundation recommendations and failed to investigate areas along the shoreline where the tritium from the plant would be expected to be found.

This finding confirms that the Vermont Yankee facility is too old to keep operating.  Beyond any legal violations, this shows the abject failure of Entergy to responsibly manage Vermont Yankee.  Entergy is first failing to avoid pollution problems and then failing to clean up the messes it makes.

The continued lackluster oversight by regulators must stop.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not allow Vermont Yankee to pollute with impunity.  Last week another radioactive fish with stontium-90 was found in the river.  This week tritium is confirmed in the Connecticut River.

Vermont Yankee should stop polluting our waters and Entergy should stop saying the plant is responsibly managed.

Salem News columnist Brian Watson presents a powerful case for moving forward with development of a wind turbine on Winter Island in Salem Harbor.   We can only hope that the good citizens of Salem, who are looking at a major transition as the coal fired power plant in their midst retires, will pay attention to his words and follow the leadership of Mayor Kim Driscoll, who has identified this project as (among other things) an important source of revenue for the City.  As the Mayor notes on Facebook regarding Watson’s column on the subject:

. . . While Brian doesn’t mention this in his piece, revenues from the proposed turbine will also directly help reduce the City’s +$1m annual electric bill, cutting those costs nearly in half and saving taxpayers substantial $.

Why buy when you can save? Power saved through energy efficiency is widely available, clean, and costs approximately one half to one third the cost of buying electricity from a power plant. During a nine-month workshop process with regulators, utilities and businesses, CLF recommended Vermont invest in far greater efficiency to aggressively tackle high-energy bills, curb pollution and climate change, and provide a more secure energy future. While Vermont regulators acknowledged that greater efficiency pays for itself and avoids more expensive power purchases and transmission upgrades, they ultimately approved only a small increase for efficiency efforts.

The Board’s order is disappointing. A limited number of businesses opposed increasing efficiency. This opposition is short-sighted. The most successful businesses are also the most efficient. They represent opportunities for growing our economy and keeping jobs in Vermont and pollution out of Vermont. With more energy efficiency, we can support and grow our economy instead of throwing our energy dollars out the window. Efficiency investments provide savings through financial incentives for equipment, lighting, renovation, and construction that allows buildings and homes to use less energy.

Even with this limited increase, Vermont will remain a strong leader on electrical energy efficiency. Unfortunately, there are still too many savings left on the table. As a result, Vermonters will be paying too much and polluting too much to meet our power needs. We could easily make twice the investment we are making now, and that’s what we should be doing. The Board’s decision is a baby step in the right direction, but we still have a marathon to run.

The Eastmain Powerhouses from space (photo credit: NASA)

Beyond the discredited sales pitch that Northern Pass will lower electric rates in New Hampshire, the developers have repeatedly claimed that the power to be imported through the Northern Pass project will be “low-carbon,” “clean,” and “green,” with “no greenhouse gases,” and “no global warming.” The power will also, we’re told, “improve the quality of the air we breathe.” The developers have said, over and over, that the project “is expected to reduce regional carbon dioxide emissions by up to 5 million tons per year, the equivalent of removing from the road one million cars annually.” In fact, the study on which this claim is based – a report (PDF) commissioned by Northern Pass and authored by Boston-based energy consultant Charles River Associates – began with the assumption that hydro power is “zero-carbon.” Let me repeat that: the developers’ claim that the project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a net 5 million tons is based on their unexamined presupposition that the power to be delivered by the project has no carbon dioxide emissions at all.

There’s no other way to say it: this assumption is false.

You don’t have to take my word for it; read Hydro-Québec’s own research report (4.4 MB PDF) on the net greenhouse gas emissions of the Eastmain 1 Reservoir, flooded in 2005 (aerial shots here). In an Orwellian twist, the developers of Northern Pass have repeatedly cited this very same research.

The Hydro-Québec report found that net carbon emissions from Eastmain-1 were 500,000 tons in 2006 and 165,000 tons in 2009, and are projected to average approximately 158,000 tons per year on a long-term basis.  While certainly less than coal-fired power plants – PSNH’s Merrimack Station emitted more than 2.8 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2010 – 158,000 tons of net carbon emissions per year is far from ”zero-carbon” or even “low-carbon” power.  Based on our own survey of reservoir greenhouse gas research, we have some serious questions about the report, and there is reason to believe that it understates emissions over time and per unit of energy generated. But the report does confirm that Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs will continue to emit more greenhouse gases per year than the natural environment they flooded. These emissions are locked in for decades if not centuries – unlike a power plant that burns fuel, you cannot turn off a reservoir.

When compared with the power plants that Northern Pass’s power could displace, new hydroelectric projects in their early years of operation are no cleaner in terms of carbon emissions.  According to the report, ”it takes about five years for the accumulated CO2 eq. emissions to fall below the [natural gas combined cycle] value” (p.15). So, on a net and cumulative basis since its flooding in 2005, the Eastmain 1 Reservoir has had the same carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions as a modern natural gas power plant that has the same power output and began operating in 2005. 

The report also highlights what appears to be a clear difference between the net emissions of a newly impounded reservoir and the emissions of a reservoir that was impounded decades ago: a new reservoir emits more greenhouse gases, as the vegetation and organic material in the newly inundated area decompose.

This distinction is especially important when considering the contradictory stories we have heard about where Northern Pass will get its power. On the one hand, Northern Pass’s website claims (click on “Hydro-Québec” on this page) that “Hydro-Québec does not need to build any new generation to support this project.” On the other hand, it is clear that Québec is developing and planning vast new hydroelectric projects, many of which will require new inundation and reservoirs, as part of a concerted strategy to maintain and increase exports to New England and the northeast United States. See Erin’s blog post from yesterday for more on Vermont’s new long-term contract with Hydro-Québec. 

In fact, Charles River Associates’ fundamentally flawed estimate of carbon emissions reductions depends on the development of new hydro projects in Canada. And just ten days ago, in testimony to Massachusetts regulators, Northeast Utilities’ CFO David McHale stated under oath: “We already know for a fact that the utility Hydro-Quebec has initiated the construction of dams, and we’ve already entered into the record a discussion about the Eastmain Water Reservoir that will provide the water source. So this is not speculative. They’re building the dams and they will go into service; and that will be the primary source, if not the exclusive source, of energy that will flow over [the Northern Pass] line. . . . [T]hat is the full expectation.” What McHale was referring to is Hydro-Québec’s major new project in the vicinity of Eastmain-1 – the Rupert River project (project website here and explanatory animation here). Since 2009, this 918-MW project – now in the final stages of development – has newly flooded 346 square kilometers  - an area about the size of two Lake Winnipesaukees. That Northern Pass power will be coming from new projects means that Northern Pass will enable and contribute to the substantial carbon emissions associated with new reservoirs.  There has been no accounting of the potential emissions from the Rupert project and other future projects that Northern Pass may make possible, and how they would cut into the potential emissions reductions Northern Pass and Charles River Associates have claimed.

These inaccuracies and contradictions are being disseminated with hundreds of thousands of dollars in media buys, money which could have been invested in engaging in a collaborative process to rework the current proposal.  This situation makes CLF’s fight for a world-class, independent, and comprehensive permitting process all the more important.

CLF has been adamant that the Department of Energy must consider the environmental impacts – including greenhouse gas emissions – of the hydropower generation projects and any other power plants in Canada that will supply the Northern Pass project.  Given the developers’ recent announcement of new delays in their schedule, there’s still time for the Department of Energy to change course and answer our call for a regional, holistic analysis of the right approach to importing power from Canada, taking into account the truth about that power’s greenhouse gas emissions.