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?

Last night, I sought refuge from the oppressive heat by taking a long swim in the cool, clean water of our local lake.  Families and young children packed the shallows where they found relief from record-breaking temperatures.  Floating along in this happy summer scene, I could not help but think of how fortunate we are to live in a country where our laws recognize that our happiness, our safety, and our economy depend on our ability to keep our water clean.

Thanks to the Clean Water Act, many waters are safe for swimming. Call your Senators to let them know you support this important law and want to ensure that all of our waters are safe for swimming, drinking, and fishing before it's too late.

In many places across the nation, the freedom to swim safely on a hot summer day was only a dream a generation ago when raw sewage and industrial pollution choked our nation’s waters.  Without the pollution controls and infrastructure investments required by the Clean Water Act and the work of groups like CLF to ensure that the law was being followed over the last forty years, water that is “drinkable, fishable, and swimmable” would still be beyond the reach of most Americans. Yet there remain many rivers, lakes, and bays from New England to the Gulf of Mexico and beyond where the Clean Water Act’s promise of water safe for recreation, drinking, and wildlife conservation have yet to be fulfilled.

POLLUTION CAN MAKE YOU “DEATHLY SICK”

Earlier this month, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe–one of the most anti-environmental members of Congress–received a stark reminder of how the dream of a swim on a hot summer day can quickly become a nightmare when we don’t have enough clean water.  Inhofe reported getting “deathly sick” from an upper respiratory illness he contracted when he swam in Oklahoma’s Grand Lake during a recent blue-green algae bloom caused by the combination of excess pollution and extreme heat. Fortunately, his 13 year-old granddaughter had the good sense not to join him in the illness-inducing swim.

Despite searing heat, swimmers stayed out of the slime-coated waters of Lake Champlain's St. Albans Bay most of last summer. Earlier this month, the Vermont Health Department warned swimmers about blue-green algae blooms that have appeared in the Bay again this summer.

From Vermont’s Lake Champlain to Cape Cod to Rhode Island’s Narragansett Bay and in many lakes, rivers, and streams along the way, pollution from poorly-treated human waste and dirty runoff from streets, parking lots, and agricultural operations is feeding the growth of harmful blue-green algae of the sort that made Senator Inhofe feel “deathly sick.”  Added runoff from extreme rainfall events and hotter temperatures caused by global warming, will require even stronger clean water restoration and protection measures as we adapt in a changed climate.

THE CLEAN WATER ACT IS UNDER ATTACK

Sadly, some in Congress are attacking the EPA and the Clean Water Act, cynically attempting to free polluters of accountability under the false claim that pollution control is bad for the economy.  Click here to read about some of the “dirty water” bills being pushed through Congress by the Tea Party and some powerful Democrats who are in the pocket of the coal companies.

Twenty-eight years ago, the heavily-polluted Boston Harbor beaches were the poster children for the unfulfilled goals of the Clean Water Act.  Using enforcement tools under the Clean Water Act, CLF and U.S. EPA forced the beginning of a cleanup effort that many an overheated Bostonian can be grateful for as they head to the water this summer. The tremendous economic development that has occurred on the Boston waterfront as the water became cleaner is powerful proof that the Clean Water Act is a responsible and balanced tool for achieving many of society’s goals.  CLF and EPA are continuing the work under the Clean Water Act to ensure that Boston Harbor beaches remain safe for swimming and that citizens in upstream communities along the Charles, Mystic, and Neponset Rivers enjoy the same freedom to boat and swim without fear of becoming sick from pollution.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

As the U.S. Senate starts to consider the “dirty water” bills coming from the House, Senators are faced with a clear choice.  You can make a difference by calling or emailing your Senator and urging them to reject attempts to gut the Clean Water Act and weaken the EPA. Click here to find the phone number or email address for your Senator.  Join CLF in speaking up for clean water before it’s too late. 

A judge in New Jersey has determined, after an exhaustive legal proceeding, that RGGI, the regional program to regulate emissions of Carbon Dioxide (the primary pollutant causing global warming) from power plants,  can and must keep confidential internal market information. All sophisticated auctions and markets, like the stock and commodities markets have very similar rules because the traders who operate in these markets could potentially manipulate and subvert the market if they had internal information, like exactly what other businesses bought and sold, and the exact prices they paid.

When the ideological opponents of climate action filed a lawsuit in New Jersey to force full disclosure of all information about the RGGI auction they were in effect asking to force disclosure of this information, a release that would have created a real risk of market manipulation.  Even more suspiciously, it appeared that some of those same opponents were financially backed by businesses who were trading in the RGGI market and would have financial interests in the release of that information.

Now that lawsuit has been dismissed by a wise judge in New Jersey.  In a 75 page decision (posted on the website of the organization that brought the lawsuit) the judge determined that “Clearly, the RGGI auction information is often identified as confidential due to the detrimental effect its release would have on the auction process . . . Thus, the court agrees with defendants that the [disclosure] request—including the names of the bidders, individuals bids, and amount and type of allowances requested are proprietary commercial or financial information and should be not be disclosed.”

The bottom line is that RGGI continues to function, acting as a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and a critical source of support for clean energy development, especially the deployment of energy efficiency.  It is a well functioning market and program and should be preserved and enhanced.  The judge’s decision was not unexpected as this kind of internal confidentiality is so needed and common and is a complete vindication for the states in the RGGI program and the folks who administer the program for them.

It’s constant, it’s overwhelming, and it’s likely never to go away. What is it?  It’s information overload. We live in an age where everyone has an opinion, everyone wants a voice in the debate, and everyone thinks they’re right. With the Internet at our fingertips and the media hounding us with article upon article, it’s hard to know where to stand on hot topics like renewable energy.

We’ve probably all experienced that moment – eating our eggs and toast in our favorite diner, enjoying our cup of joe, and reading the morning paper – when we come across a letter to the editor arguing that wind power will improve energy security, energy prices, and climate change. Confusion sets in. You’re unsettled, perhaps even bothered. Didn’t yesterday’s article lambast wind power for its inefficiency, its price tag and its destructive scenic impact? Who has the facts right and who has the facts wrong? If wind is supposed to bring energy prices down, why is the electric bill creeping up month after month? If wind integration makes the grid more stable, why do you keep hearing that wind will only cause more power plants to be built? And if wind is so great, why are parts of the West disassembling their wind farms and halting project development? Why, wind proponents, why?

These are the right questions to be asking, and we’re glad you’re asking them.  These very same questions are being asked of wind project developers here in New England, most recently by the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) in connection with First Wind’s proposed Bowers Wind Project, a 27 turbine wind power project to be located in the Downeast Lakes area of Maine. Opposition to the Bowers Project stems almost exclusively from the visual impacts the project might have on a portion of the local economy, guided fishing. In all other respects, the project is commendable – Bowers will make use of existing logging roads and transmission lines and anticipated environmental impacts from the project’s construction are expected to be minimal.

CLF supports this project and, anticipating the confusion under which LURC might be working, submitted testimony from two experts to dispel some of the myths that the wind debate has generated. Specifically, Dr. Cameron Wake testified on the impacts of climate change on Maine and New England’s natural resources and how wind power is one tool to be used in addressing that challenge; and Abigail Krich testified on the systemic benefits of integrating wind power into the electric market.

After peppering Ms. Krich with questions, the Commission walked away with two major takeaways from her testimony:

• Wind power does result in cost-savings because it brings the costs of generating electricity down. Unfortunately, those savings are all but wiped out by the increasing cost of transmitting electricity.
• Increasing the amount of wind power generated and used in New England will not require the construction of additional power plants to balance wind’s variability. The New England Wind Integration Study, performed by ISO-NE, concluded that even if 12,000 MW of wind power were integrated into the system, no new power plants would be needed to balance wind’s variability.

While CLF appreciates that the scenic impacts of these projects are, at the end of the day, a highly personal matter (or as my Latin teacher would say, “de gustibus non est disputandum” or “taste is not a matter of debate”), it’s important that objective facts not be obscured by subjective, and ultimately misleading, ones.

Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

July 1: “Federal judge puts an end to judicial fishing season for Amendment 16,” by Peter Shelley

June 30: “Overfishing 101: How Science Helps Managers End Overfishing and Rebuild Depleted Stock Populations,” by Lee Crockett

“New England’s listening session on the National Ocean Policy was this week – how did fishing factor into the conversation?” by Talking Fish

June 29: “The Catch of Climate Change: What is Ocean Acidification?” by Nancy Shrodes

Flooding in Minot, ND (photo credit: USACE)

Earlier this month, my CLF Vermont colleague Anthony told the tale of his brush with a changed climate in dealing with flood waters in the Montpelier area.  Severe weather around the country continues to make news, with record floods in North Dakota and an “exceptional” drought and wildfires in the Southwest.  Although it got lost in the controversy over Al Gore’s critique of the Obama administration’s climate efforts, Gore’s essay last week in Rolling Stone also highlighted the mounting evidence that that climate change is causing severe weather and resulting disasters – record droughts, fires, floods, and mudslides - to increase in intensity and frequency all around the world. 

This week, a three-part series of articles in Scientific American is tackling the same issue.  (Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 is coming tomorrow.)  Some key points: 

• Global severe weather data – not just sensational anecdotes – are demonstrating that climate change is the culprit.  As series author John Carey puts it, “The signal of climate change is finally emerging from the ‘noise’—the huge amount of natural variability in weather.”
• Extreme weather is now regularly happening in places it has been exceedingly rare, and weather events are becoming much more intense, even where severe weather is a way of life.
• What we are seeing is, essentially, elementary physics and meteorology at work.  More heat means more evaporation, and more water in the atmosphere changes longstanding weather patterns, often in dramatic ways.  As these patterns change, scientists are finding tipping points and feedback loops that are making severe weather events even more diastrous.
• Climate scientists are increasingly able to finger climate change as the reason for the severity of individual weather events, including Hurricane Katrina and the 2003 European heat wave.

I urge you to read the whole series, and to share it with others.  Whether the next weather disaster is front-page news or actually hits home, as it did for Anthony, severe weather is yet one more reason why aggressive policies to transform our energy and transportation systems to curb emissions of greenhouse gases are so overdue.  As Betsy Kolbert eloquently argued in the New Yorker earlier this month, it is simply not true that these weather tragedies are “beyond our control.”

Last Friday, I got a bad taste of life in a changed climate.

After barely sleeping through a night filled with constantly rumbling thunder, hail, whipping winds, and the most incredibly intense rain I have ever seen, my cell phone rang at 4:50 a.m.  The panicked voice on the other end was a friend who owns a downtown business with his wife.  Apologetically, he asked for help.  The Winooski River, which flows through downtown Montpelier, had broken its banks and was creeping toward their shop’s doorstep and they needed help getting merchandise up and out.  We spent a frantic hour packing inventory into cars as the water continued to advance and noisily poured into their basement.  Once they were as prepared as possible, I rushed to join my fellow citizens  helping other businesses as the air filled with the smell of sewage and fuel oil mixing into the river as buildings became inundated.  By 8:00 a.m., I finally got to CLF’s offices where the alarm was sounding to signal that flood waters in the basement were threatening the electricity.  Fortunately, forecasted rain did not fall and the river levels subsided throughout the course of a day that saw most businesses closed.

Though flood waters have receded in the neighborhoods and towns surrounding CLF’s office, reminders of last week’s terrifying deluge abound.  As you walk in the door to our building, a powerful smell of mold and mildew assaults you–a side-effect of our flooded basement.  Downtown dumpsters still overflow with discarded merchandise ruined when floodwaters rushed into low-lying businesses, some of which have yet to reopen.  Some city roads are still washed out and the City’s sewage treatment plant is assessing damage after it was completely underwater much of last Friday.  With the immediate crisis passed and the long recovery beginning, many are starting to ask whether this kind of flooding may be the new normal resulting from climate change.

Flooding at Montpelier's sewage treatment plan resulted in sewage discharges to the Winooski River. City residents await a final estimate of the cost to repair damage to the plant. (Photo credit: Louis Porter)

At this point, I am supposed to offer the obligatory caveat that we cannot measure climate change by any one single weather event.  Sadly, we don’t have to. Extreme weather is becoming the norm–just as so many climate scientists have for so long been predicting that it will.

The flash flooding that wreaked havoc across New England’s north country last week comes on top of earlier spring flooding throughout the Lake Champlain region.  In fact, Burlington, VT has recorded its wettest spring ever in 2011–as have several other parts of the country.  Before flooding came to our neck of the woods, we watched in horror as tornado after tornado flattened parts of the south and midwest.  And before that, all eyes were fixed on deluged areas along the Mississippi.  Just last spring, we were reporting on this blog about horrendous flooding caused by historic rain storms in Rhode Island and elsewhere in southern New England.  After all this, I refuse to believe the climate skeptics who argue that extreme weather has nothing to do with the rising global temperatures that made 2010 the second warmest year on record with the highest carbon output in history, pushing greenhouse gas levels to dangerous new heights.

In this last month, our region and our nation has seen climate change first hand and it sucks.  There’s just no other way to put it.

Politicians talk often about Americans as world leaders.  Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change , we are leaders in polluting the atmosphere with climate-changing greenhouse gases.  It does not have to be this way.

Americans have a choice.  It is up to us to demand that our elected officials like Senators Scott Brown and Kelly Ayotte stop doing the bidding of the mega-billionaire oil barons, coal companies, and their legions of bought-and-paid for climate change deniers while America continues to suffer devastation from climate change that they claim is not happening or is not a problem.  Climate change is happening!  It is harming Americans all across the country–from Barre, VT to Joplin, MO–and undermining the stability upon which our prosperity is based.  The time for action in Washington is long passed.

We can make the changes needed to stave off catastrophic climate change and–like Chicago–adapt to the climate change already happening.  Here in soggy Vermont, there are lots of hurting businesspeople, homeowners, and municipal officials realizing we have no time to waste…

Fire Boats Attempt to Control Fire on BP's Deepwater Horizon

US SENATE VOTES TODAY ON OIL SUBSIDIES AND DRILLING TOMORROW

The biggest oil companies in the US receive billions of dollars of US tax subsidies each year. The most profitable companies in the world are making billions in profits while speculators boost the price of each gallon of gas and home fuel oil. In fact, in the first quarter of 2011, the major oil companies made $30 billion in profits.

Some in the Congress seem to think that oil companies profits are not high enough. Last week, the House of Representatives voted to approve three bills that would increase oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts — including in New England’s ocean and on historic Georges Bank. These bills did nothing to reduce the taxpayer subsidies enjoyed by oil companies.

This week the US Senate has a choice to either remove $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies that go to oil companies OR to make it drastically easier for oil companies to drill in our most sensitive ocean and coastal areas. In the next two days the Senate will vote on two separate bills: The Menendez bill, S 940, would eliminate $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies that could be used for debt reduction. The McConnell bill, S.953, will allow oil companies to stay on the public dole by keeping their taxpayer-funded subsidies AND it would increase dangerous oil drilling in America’s most sensitive ocean areas. In a move that would give oil companies an even greater gift, Sen. McConnell has indicated that he could swap his introduced bill with the text of the pro-drilling bills that were passed by the House last week.

One of the House-passed bills, HR1231, actually requires the Department of Interior to “make available for leasing and conduct lease sales including at least 50 percent of the available unleased acreage within each Outer Continental Shelf planning area” or “any state subdivision of an Outer Continental Shelf planning area that the Governor of the state that represents that subdivision requests be made available for leasing.” This bill would require oil and gas development in New England’s ocean despite test drilling in the 1970s and early 1980s that shows New England’s ocean has only 3 percent of US oil and gas deposits. The harmful effects of oil drilling on New England’s ocean wildlife and recovering fish populations would likely create more economic costs than gain. The industrial development that accompanies oil drilling such as onshore pipelines and infrastructure would irrevocably alter our coastal communities.

New England needs clean, renewable energy and deserves to be allowed to leave polluting, dangerous fossil fuels in the past. Instead, short-sighted Congressional politics could force industrial scale oil drilling operations in New England’s ocean waters for the first time. We can do better. Call your Senators today and tell them that oil subsidies and unsafe oil drilling should not be in the future of New England’s ocean or coastal communities.

Call your Senators today — Tuesday, May 17 — through the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Urge your Senators to SUPPORT Senate bill 940, the “Close Big Oil Loopholes Act.”

Urge your Senators to OPPOSE Senate bill 953, the McConnell Dirty Drilling Bill.

Major voices in the New England Fishing community speak up in support of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in this letter to SeafoodSource (a fishing industry website):

The oceans provide food for the world. As fishermen, growers, employers, and participants in the seafood industry, we are gravely concerned about the silent toll that ocean acidification has begun to take on marine resources. Seafood supplies, and our jobs and businesses, depend on healthy oceans.

That’s why we support continuation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI helps to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large power plants in the 10 states from Maryland to Maine.

These emissions don’t just foul the air. They mix into the oceans and increase the acidity of seawater. More than 30 billion tons of CO2 poured from the world’s tailpipes, smokestacks and cleared lands in 2009, mostly from burning coal, oil, and gas. In seawater the CO2 forms carbonic acid. The acid depletes the ocean’s rich soup of nutrients that support shellfish, corals, many plankton species and the marine food webs that underpin the world’s seafood supply.

(more…)