The news from the Nation’s Capitol is bleak.

The United States Senate will not consider anything remotely like comprehensive energy and climate legislation before its August recess.

While it is good that they will be looking at legislation to address oil spills and laudable energy efficiency efforts like HomeStar the decision to not address the underlying climate and energy crisis is tragic. However, even after the BP oil disaster, Congress still continues to leave New England’s ocean and our coastal communities at risk of the next big spill.

Effectively, Congress is turning its back on the science that describes the fundamental peril facing our climate, the families who need the jobs that a surge of green development will bring and embracing a course of continued dependence on imported oil and dirty coal.

The handful of Senators who have blocked progress on this critical legislation should be ashamed of the damage they are doing to our environment, our economy and our communities.

Global Warming is real . . .  and I don’t just say that because it is really hot outside.

Yet again the core science presented by such reliable sources as the National Research Council has been vindicated.

As the New York Times reports a fifth official commission report (know as the “Muir Report”)  has come out debunking the fake “scandal” generated by public release of illegally obtained emails between scientists.   Opponents of action on global warming had attempted to portray those emails as showing the existence of some sort of conspiracy to distort science to meet a political agenda.  These were ironic accusations as the small band of climate deniers (whose lack of credentials and credibility is documented in this recent paper in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences) have been engaging in exactly that practice.  In a similar vein, an expert panel convened by Penn State University found that allegations that those same emails showed improper behavior by Prof. Michael Mann of Penn State were unsupported and cleared him completely.

The new British report concluded that the “honesty and rigour” of the scientists was not in question but that there had been a failure to be as open to inquiries and requests for public information and data as they should have been.

And there is the real scandal: that the opponents of sound science and action on global warming have created a toxic dynamic that drives climate scientists into a virtual bunker, rightfully fearing that speaking the truth will result in massive waves of harassment and attack.

There is much more that science needs to tell us about our climate. But the basic principles are clear – and even presentable in rather entertaining cartoons.

Not surprisingly the scientists over at Real Climate engage the news of the “Muir Report”  in depth, as well as the vindication of Michael Mann at Penn State.

The time is long past for the public dialogue and for our political leaders to walk away from these phony debates and focus on solutions.  So what are you waiting for tell your Senator to take action !!  While none of the climate or energy  bills rattling around Washington are perfect (and some are quite bad) the only way to make them better is to force an active debate and a real and concerted effort to solve the climate and energy crisis that we face.

Climate advocates breathed a collective sigh of relief today when the U.S. Senate rejected Senator Lisa Murkowski’s resolution to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions with a vote of 53-47. Backed by big oil lobbyists, the defeat of the bill signified the triumph of science over politics—at least for now.

Earlier today, I discussed this ridiculous debate that occupied the Senate all day on the radio.  There was some interesting press in the run up to the vote.

And when the dust cleared, CLF issued this statement:

“The decision by the United States Senate to reject the Big Oil Bailout is a victory for science, the environment and efforts to build a new clean economy,” said Seth Kaplan, CLF’s Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy. “Senators Dodd and Lieberman of Connecticut, Senators Reed and Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senators Leahy and Sanders of Vermont and Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire have all taken a stand against big oil and in favor of protection of our environmental, economic and public health and national security. We are hopeful that Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire and Senator Brown of Massachusetts will realize they have made a mistake and join the effort to protect our environment and grow clean energy jobs.”

What is truly amazing is continuing denial about the science of climate change among the 47 senators who supported Murkowski’s resolution. The National Research Council, at the request of Congress, delivered yet another report (well, really a series of reports) that make it crystal clear that global warming is real, is caused by humans, is causing real harm and will cause very great harm unless action is taken. Meanwhile, senators and representatives continue to support initiatives that will back big polluters and limit the power of the EPA.

CLF acknowledges the 53 senators whose votes amounted to today’s victory, and thanks all of our members who responded to our Defend the Clean Air Act action alert.

Tony Hayward of BP

The BP oil disaster has now reached its one month anniversary. No viable solutions are at hand for shutting down the underwater geyser, cleaning up the soiled marshes or restoring the damaged economies of coastal communities. The “outhouse” failed and the “top hat,” “top kill” and “junk shot” are still theories. What’s the performance assessment from the BP CEO? “Extraordinarily successful.” In fact, if BP continues on their chosen strategy, says Man at the Helm Tony Hayward, it just might be an improvement for their reputation!  Bravo Tony. Shirley Temple‘s sunny outlook pales in comparison.

The arrogance seen on display is not new. It’s the same gall we have seen in the Congress with Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s incredible response that the solution to the BP oil disaster is to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It’s the same predicted blindness we have seen from the industry spokesmodels who were scolded by President Obama last week. This is the same greed that has other oil companies rushing to seek 20 new waivers from environmental analysis for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico SINCE the Deepwater Horizon erupted.

The Obama Administration has taken some much needed action to establish an independent investigation commission and to – finally – address the rat’s nest of collusion and corruption at Minerals Management Service. We are thankful to have New England’s Rep. Ed Markey and Sen. Bernie Sanders helping to lead reform. Other areas of the country which are faced with new oil drilling such as the coast of Virginia are seeing the real face of oil, not the shiny industry portrayal. But, why wait any longer? We need real action. We need President Obama to reinstate the 20 year moratorium on oil drilling.

As the BP oil spill heads east the US Coast Guard, BP and the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection are planning a coordinated response in the event that oil reaches the western coast of Florida, reports Offshore Magazine, a publication dedicated to issues related to the offshore oil drilling industry. (The ability to plan is certainly a good thing because, as we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.) Late yesterday NOAA predicted that impacts will not reach the western coast of FL for at least 72 hours at current rates. However, the reports are coming in of the oil slick now moving within a few miles of the Mississippi and Alabama coasts.

Preparing for a catastrophic oil spill on Florida’s famously white sand beaches reminds me of a House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee hearing in early 2009 where one rather certain freshman Louisiana Congressman gave a stern lecture to the Executive Director of the St. Petersburg Convention and Visitor’s Center about the fallacy of not embracing oil drilling a few miles from the Florida coast. D.T. Minich was testifying that the tourism industry drives in $300 million dollars in tax revenue to Pinellas County, Florida alone and tourism delivers $7 billion a year to just that portion of the state. Why would they risk a truly sustainable golden goose? Yet, the point was lost on the oily faithful.

The insistent reliance that Big Oil and their Congressional cheerleaders place on the worth of oil receipts seems to carry a different kind of value, almost a higher moral value than an equal dollar generated by tourism, recreation or the ecological services that are the basis for commercial and recreational fishing. Is it possible that the real value of an oil buck might carry a little more if it boosts an electoral campaign rather than just pay some short order cook’s light bill? Where does all that Big Oil money go? The Washington Post reports this morning that British Petroleum has already “mobilized a massive Washington lobbying campaign” and that BP has spent $20 million on Washington lobbying since that February 2009 hearing where Rep. Freshman tried to proselytize the Florida tourist industry. We know that Congressional campaigns get more expensive each cycle and there are always open checkbooks willing to help finance them, but somehow there is still a well dressed emperor strutting down New Orleans’ Canal Street who has no shame about defending an industry that puts ocean wildlife, coastal workers and their communities, and the health of the planet at grave risk.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ announcement that he will retire from the United States Supreme Court will bring some much needed attention to the larger issue of judicial nominations under the Obama Administration. 

These days, it is hard to  find a good word to say about the ultraconservative majority of the United States Supreme Court that Justice Stevens has tried, with limited success, to counterbalance.  That’s especially true for those who care about clean water (query: because clean water is fundamental to human survival and prosperity, shouldn’t we all care about clean water?)  In a few short years, the Roberts’ Court’s rulings have managed to seriously undermine and restrict one of America’s most important and successful laws–the Clean Water Act. 

For example, the NewYork Times recently reported on the chaos one of the Court’s rulings has created:

Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.   As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them.  And pollution rates are rising.

A majority of these Justices seems intent on handing down a death sentence to the Clean Water Act

In another example from 2009, Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Corps., the Court badly misinterpreted the CLEAN WATER ACT to reach the conclusion that a gold mining operation was entitled to a permit allowing it to discharge “210,000 gallons per day of mining waste into Lower Slate Lake, a 23-acre subalpine lake in Tongass National Forest,” even though the ” ‘tailings slurry’ ” would “contain concentrations of aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury” and would “kill all of the lake’s fish and nearly all of its other aquatic life.” 

President Obama has an important opportunity, actually I would argue it’s a responsibility, to rebalance the federal judiciary after years of ultraconservative domination and transformation.  (If you want to understand how the judiciary was so effectively radicalized by the right, read Jeffrey Toobin’s book “The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.”).  The administration’s slow pace and cautious character in nominating people to fill court vacancies has been drawing criticism since November of last year as evidenced by this New York Times editorial.  Unfortunately, recent reporting in the L.A. Times indicates that President Obama still hasn’t made much progress due to a combination of White House inattention and timidity and Republican obstructionism in the Senate.

Terrible judicial decisions, like those discussed above, are turning this country’s essential environmental protection laws on their heads and at the same time putting the public health and environmental sustainability of this country at great risk.  America has some excellent environmental laws.  To be sure, we need to make them stronger to deal more effectively with newly-understood challenges like global climate chaos.  But when we have judges who are ideologically unwilling to affirm the pollution-controlling principles set forth in the laws, we have no hope of achieving the level of environmental protection essential for our continued national prosperity.  

If we want to ensure that our environmental laws work to keep us healthy and happy, we must urge President Obama to follow the lead of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in appointing judges like the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. 

Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood the purpose of our environmental laws and the values that motivated their enactment by bi-partisan majorities of Congress

Justice Douglas truly understood the values that informed Congress’ adoption of such successful laws as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Wilderness Act.  In his 1961 memoir “My Wilderness; East to Katahdin,” Douglas expounded on the value of rivers as public resources:

“Rivers are choice national assests reserved for all the people.  Industry that pours its refuse into rivers and the other commercial interests that use these water highways do not have monopoly rights.  People have broader interests than moneymaking. Recreation, health, and enjoyment of aesthetic values are part of man’s liberty.  Rivers play an important role in keeping this idea of liberty alive.”

For this and all the other ideas of liberty that are threatened by a judiciary dominated by radical conservatives, we must take action.  Call or email the White House and ask president Obama to find us the men and women who will follow in the tradition of Justice Douglas, and help the president fight to get them appointed to the federal courts.

The average American spends 2 ½ hours a day in the car. That’s about 73,000 hours in a lifetime—and tons of havoc wreaked on the environment. The transportation sector is the fastest growing single source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the country, which pollute the air and contribute to global warming.

Tackling this challenge means both reducing the amount of driving by smarter development and building transit and reducing the pollution pouring out of each car. Four out of five of the New England states did the next best thing—reduced the amount that cars would be allowed to pollute in the first place.

Yesterday, the Obama Administration adopted those regulations nationwide, unveiling the first-ever federal clean cars standard that will limit the maximum level of GHGs that can be emitted by new cars and trucks. The new laws are expected to cut GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent between models made in 2009 and those made in 2016—a change equivalent to taking 21.4 million of today’s cars off the road.

This decision is a major victory for CLF. When it comes to clean cars, we’ve been here since the beginning. For two decades CLF has fought for stronger limits on tailpipe emissions from cars.

Early national tailpipe emissions and fuel efficiency standards adopted in the 1960s and 70s improved the fuel economy of the average American vehicle from 13 miles per gallon in 1975 to 22.6 mpg in 1987 and began the process of reducing pollution from cars. Over the course of the 1980’s and 1990’s CLF worked in New England to ensure that our states in partnership with California would lead the nation in a journey towards lower emissions cars.

That journey took a new and interesting path in 2002 when the state of California adopted the Pavley standards, also known as the California Clean Car Standards, which set stringent emission standards for global warming pollutants  from cars.

CLF participated in the California process, urging that the standards be written in a manner that would allow them to be implemented in our states.  Once the standards were in place CLF then, working with allies in many states, launched a largely successful effort to get the standards adopted in the New England states.

It wasn’t easy. The automakers fought back by suing in both California and in New England. CLF served as “local counsel” to a coalition of environmental groups as we all worked with the states to achieved victory in two landmark cases in Vermont and Rhode Island in 2008, forcing automakers to comply with state emissions regulations and in effect implementing the “clean cars program” in every New England state except New Hampshire.

The momentum from the legal victories in Vermont and Rhode Island, as well as the parallel victory our allies achieved in court in California, provided key fuel for the effort that led to the adoption of those state standards on the national level.

But the work’s not done. Today, CLF is focused on pushing hard for the adoption and implementation of a Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to gradually lower the carbon content of fuel. In 2008, CLF successfully worked with the governors of 11 northeast and mid-Atlantic states as they formulated and signed an agreement in which they pledged to develop an LCFS in the future.

CLF also continues to aggressively protect the right of the states to develop a statewide LCFS, and deter opponents who could threaten the longevity of those standards. CLF served as a third party legal counsel on behalf of the state of California in federal litigation challenging the state’s precedent-setting LCFS. Lastly, CLF is forcefully engaging with congressional staff, senators and representatives to fend off federal legislation that would thwart the ability of the states to continue to lead the LCFS effort and the next generation of car standards.

President Obama’s adoption of the California standards nationwide, ending a longtime battle between states and automakers, demonstrated to us at CLF that what happens here in New England really can serve as a model for other states, and that states have the power to create momentum for sweeping change that can influence policy on the federal level. CLF is proud that New England continues to lead the nation in taking action to identify and solve environmental problems and will continue to fight to ensure the states have, and use, the tools to provide a powerful model for national action.

CLF in the News:

New Federal Car Emissions Standards Hailed in Maine, Anne Mostue, MPBN
White House Follows Vermont’s Lead on Clean Cars, Paul Burns, vtdigger.org

Our hearts go out to New Englanders dealing with the flood disaster caused by record-setting rainfall over the last couple days.  The director of CLF’s Rhode Island Director, Tricia Jedele, has circulated some extraordinary pictures of the deluge that really bring home the scope of the devastation.

The tragic events playing out on the ground in Rhode Island–flooding and subsequent failure of public health infrastructure like sewage treatment plants–have been eerily predicted as likely outcomes of human-caused climate change.  But when you see the destruction occurring in Rhode Island and elsewhere in southern New England, you realize that terms like ”climate change” or even “global warming” are grossly inadequate descriptions of what is really going on: total climate chaos.  

CLF's Rhode Island Director Tricia Jedele documented the awesome, destructive power of the Pawtuxet River swollen by intense rains.

Here are just some of those eery predictions taken from a 2008 EPA National Water Program strategy document titled “Response to Climate Change” at p. 11 (note that this document was created during the Bush Administration so it probably underplays the science a bit).  The report cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) conclusion that “annual mean precipitation is very likely to increase in Canada and the northeast United States” as a result of climate chaos.  It concludes that the climate chaos we are causing with our greenhouse gas pollution will “alter the hydrological cycle, especially characteristics of precipitation (amount, frequency, intensity, duration, type) and extremes” p. 10 The report also concludes that: 

• increased frequency and intensity of rainfall in some areas will produce more pollution and erosion and sedimentation due to runoff (EPA 2007h);
• “[w]ater-borne diseases and degraded water quality are very likely to increase with more heavy precipitation” (IPCC 2008, p. 103);
• potential increases in heavy precipitation, with expanding impervious surfaces, could increase urban flood risks and create additional design challenges and costs for stormwater management” (Field et al. 2007, p. 633);
• flooding can affect water quality, as large volumes of water can transport contaminants into waterbodies and also overload storm and wastewater systems (EPA 2007h)

Tens of thousands of homeowners in Warwick and West Warwick are learning firsthand how flooding can shut down wastewater systems, badly contaminating the rivers and backing raw sewage up into people’s homes.  Yesterday’s Providence Journal reports that it may take days or even weeks to get the plants in those communities up and running again.  

The serious water pollution is not limited to raw sewage.  Today’s Burlington Free Press carries a stunning AP photo of a massive oil slick running through a flooded industrial area near the Pawtuxet River under the headline “Worst Flooding in 200 years.”  The story goes on to recount the serious damage to bridges, highways, dams, and personal property caused by the floodwaters throughout New England.  Incidentally, right next to the headline about flooding, the Free Press reports that “Vermont headed for record heat” this weekend. 

Sadly, above the stories on record-breaking flooding and record-breaking heat in the Burlington Free Press , the top headline reads “Obama expands drilling.” 

We must learn the hard lessons from this hard rain: Climate chaos is happening and it is already costing our society billions in hidden costs associated with climate disasters like the recent flooding.  The longer we wait to take serious actions to stem our emissions of greenhouse gases, the higher the price we will have to pay.  This week, the price is being measured in destroyed infrastructure, lost productivity from businesses that must stay closed during flood disasters, badly-contaminated-disease-bearing water, displacement of people whose homes are destoryed, and the list goes on.  

The message that Tricia Jedele sent along with her pictures brings home another point about the environmental justice aspects of this most-pressing human problem. ”There is a connection here to how our failure to respond appropriately to climate change and address adaptation will disproportionately impact the poorer communities.  The small mom and pop, main street types of businesses will be hardest hit.”

These costs MUST be part of the cost-benefit analysis that is driving debates over issues like expanding offshore drilling for more fossil fuels to burn in America’s cars.  When your car is under water and the bridges and roads you need to drive on are too, are you really all that excited that we sacrificed our oceans and increased our reliance on the fuel sources causing climate chaos, all so we could save 3 or 4 pennies per gallon at the pump?

Since 1977, CLF has led efforts to block offshore drilling in the North Atlantic, particularly in the area of Georges Bank. CLF’s efforts were instrumental in winning drilling moratoria in Georges Bank through 2012.

This morning, President Obama announced new plans for offshore drilling. Here’s what Priscilla Brooks, Ph.D., CLF’s Ocean Conservation Program director, had to say.

“The Gulf of Maine is a national treasure and Georges Bank an economic engine for many of New England’s coastal communities.  While we are pleased that the Administration chose to spare those and other important national marine resources in the Pacific and Alaska from this new wave of offshore prospecting, we are dismayed that the Obama administration feels it politically expedient to continue the prior administration’s pursuit of the destructive and risky business of oil and gas drilling off our shores,” Brooks said. ”Not only does that pursuit threaten unique underwater habitats, fisheries and marine wildlife, but it is the wrong solution to the twin challenges of achieving energy independence and addressing climate change.  We can’t drill our way to a solution for either challenge. If we are to break our country’s addiction to fossil fuels, we need to go boldly down the path of clean energy like greater efficiency and renewable power from wind, waves and sun and not be diverted by these distractions. We reject the notion that continuing to pursue extraction and burning of fossil fuels over a long time horizon is a necessary component of a comprehensive energy and climate solution.”

If you would like to speak with Priscilla or CLF vice president Peter Shelley, please contact CLF communications director Karen Wood at (617) 850-1722, or you may contact them directly at the numbers below:

Priscilla Brooks, CLF, (617) 850-1737
Peter Shelley, CLF, (617) 850-1754