The Massachusetts’ Water Resource Authority’s decision to release 15 million gallons of untreated sewage into Boston Harbor’s Quincy Bay during last weekend’s storm felt to many like a giant step backward in the decades-long fight to clean up Boston Harbor. The good news is that there are actions that can be taken today that could have kept MWRA officials from having to make that decision in the future—implementing green stormwater infrastructure to reduce the burden on our sewer pipes, reduce flooding and make communities more resilient to climate change.

Many of our state’s aging sewer systems become overwhelmed with a mix of rainwater and sewage during large storms. That’s why MWRA officials were stuck between a rock and a hard place, forced to choose between quietly releasing 15 million gallons of untreated sewage into Quincy Bay or letting the water flood the station and release that sewage into basements, but sparing the Harbor. The problem runs deeper than this one incident—during last week’s storm, there were equally damaging releases of raw sewage into neighborhoods and into the Mystic and Charles Rivers as well. (See video footage here).

Massachusetts can stop these incidents by investing in green stormwater management techniques to enable communities to better prevent sewer overflows and save money over the long term. Some of these techniques include the use of permeable pavement, green roofs, rain barrels, even gravel—anything that will absorb stormwater and diminish runoff from hard surfaces. These actions can be taken by homeowners in and around their homes, at the city scale by greening streets, parking lots, and alleys, and at the state level, by greening state highways and universities.  Massachusetts residents can urge their towns to adopt bylaws requiring green stormwater and green building techniques to be used in all new construction or infrastructure projects. Cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York are already rolling out these techniques and finding that they are both cost-effective and environmentally sustainable.

Fortunately, we have a chance RIGHT NOW to tell the state of Massachusetts how important it is to us to keep stormwater in check. The U.S. EPA is currently working on a stormwater permit that will govern the stormwater management of communities across Massachusetts for the next five years.

Help Massachusetts prepare for the next storm before it happens. Tell our government that we need a stronger stormwater permit to govern Massachusetts waterways and keep our communities pollution-free.

Former NY Times Reporter Andrew Revkin – now Senior Fellow at the Pace University Center for Applied Environmental Studies while still writing and moderating the NY Times Dot Earth blog – provides a good overview of how the media has fundamentally under reported the climate story drawing upon this cool diagram.

This is the challenge of addressing such a large and systemic problem – how do we sustain focus, interest and energy around an issue that by definition is global, long term, pervasive and does not have a signal moment of crisis.

CLF’s Seth Kaplan in an Op-Ed article from the October 26, 2009 Boston Globe:

THE BLUR of details and fog of ideological attacks can obscure the truly essential in the current congressional debate about legislation to confront global warming while building a green economy: the stark need for immediate action.

The bill recently unveiled by Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer represents an important step forward. The bill is not perfect, and ways that it can be strengthened are discussed below. However, it does include some of the most essential tools for addressing this most fundamental of challenges.

The Kerry-Boxer bill sets hard targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions consistent with the need identified by science. It creates new tools for tackling the job of climate stabilization while leaving in place the US Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to use tried-and-true tools in this cause. The citizens of Massachusetts should feel strongly about maintaining those tools: our attorney general’s office led the charge that culminated in a Supreme Court declaration that greenhouse gas emissions can be addressed under the decades-old federal Clean Air Act.

This core of essential provisions – a science-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions and sustained EPA authority – provides a solid foundation for federal climate legislation.

Kerry took a critical step toward moving the legislative process forward when he coauthored a New York Times op-ed article with Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, describing a course to the 60 votes needed for Senate passage. In his collaboration with Graham, Kerry is acting in the best tradition of reaching across the aisle to “get to yes.’’ However, while bipartisan compromise is essential, a climate bill must not be traded for the environmental soul of the Senate. Packaging a climate bill with provisions, hinted at in the op-ed, that make the climate challenge more difficult and that Kerry has long (and appropriately) rejected, such as opening fragile coastal waters to oil drilling, should be a nonstarter. The same is true for proposals to pour billions of dollars into expensive nuclear power plants, especially given the long-unanswered questions about the safety and security of those plants, the very dangerous waste they produce, and the opportunities that would be lost for investing instead in truly sustainable and clean energy resources.

Good federal climate policy will emphasize clean and cost-effective measures like energy efficiency, both supporting state efforts and introducing strong new federal mandates for deployment of efficiency resources. It should also bring forward state and federal incentives and standards for renewable energy, like wind and solar, breaking our dependence on dirty and imported fossil fuels. It should create a framework for planning new transmission lines to support a massive ramp-up in renewable electricity generation, while respecting the critical role of states and regions in electric system planning.

These clean energy provisions, as well as the excellent building and energy code provisions from the House’s Waxman-Markey bill, will fit cleanly into a Senate climate bill. The final legislative package must include smart “cap and invest’’ provisions that set out a mechanism for auctioning pollution allowances and investing the proceeds in clean energy, especially efficiency and conservation measures that can slash greenhouse gas emissions while reducing energy bills and fostering livable communities. It should also support clean transportation planning and infrastructure and mandate use of low carbon fuels.

The legislation also should build upon New England’s nation-leading role in beginning the process of purging our fleet of old, inefficient, and polluting coal-fired power plants – an essential transformation that can be accelerated and replicated nationally by a strengthened climate bill setting clear standards implemented through a rapid phase-in.

Passing climate legislation will not be easy. We must continue to look to leaders like Edward Markey and Kerry to press forward with this most difficult yet essential of tasks. If we do not fully support and help them and their colleagues to deliver on this critical legislation, we will both court disaster and bear responsibility for dumping an increasingly heavy burden on our children.

October 24, 2009 is the International Day of Climate Action, and author Bill McKibben’s advocacy movement known as 350.org has been getting a lot of attention. 350.org is coordinating a widespread day of environmental action with one goal: solutions to the climate crisis.

Why 350? McKibben argues that it is the safe upper limit in atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured in parts per million. In order to avoid an environmental catastrophe, it’s the number targeted by this movement. In this week’s Yale Environment 360, economist Frank Ackerman argues that what is good for the Earth is good for the wallet. Of course, it is an alarming idea that this is the “safe” level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as we are at 390 already – and rising.

Though 350.org’s wide umbrella includes some efforts that are problematic, the message is a powerful one: the time for solutions is now. The medium of that message, hundreds of thousands of people at 4,000 events in 170 countries, is even more striking.

To locate an event in your local community, use the map below:

To hop on this trajectory of a reduction in global carbon dioxide levels, learn the 5 things that New Englanders must do in 5 years, and 5 things that you can do in 5 minutes.

Tar sands activists unveil massive banner in Alberta, Canada

Pop quiz: Which country is the biggest exporter of oil to the United States?

Venezuela? Mexico? Saudi Arabia? None of the above. The correct answer is America’s neighbor to the north, Canada.

In a story that will almost certainly not make headlines in mainstream American news outlets, a group of activists blocked tar sands mining operations in Northern Alberta. The activists unveiled a massive banner and chained themselves to equipment.

Most of Canada’s oil comes from the tar sands – a bitumen rich deposit of sand, clay and water the size of England. It is the single the largest industrial project in the world.

Creating usable petroleum from the tar sands isn’t easy – or environmentally friendly – and has only been feasible in light of higher oil prices and newer technologies.

According to Greenpeace:

Tar sands Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, already nearing those of Norway, could soon more than triple to 140 million tonnes a year, as outlined in a Greenpeace report by award winning author Andrew Nikiforuk released this week. At that point they would equal or exceed those of Belgium, a county of 10 million. These numbers account only for the production of tar sands oil, and do not account for the massive additional GHG impact of burning the fuel.

Tar sands mining has other detrimental impacts on the environment, including toxic runoff and deforestation. CLF’s work on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is intended to, among other things, reduce use of bitumen mining.

The activists hope to put the tar sands in the spotlight as President Obama and Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, meet in Washington, DC today.

The Boston Globe today presents an excellent editorial on the misguided proposal for the power plant in Somerset Massachusetts:

ONE OF THE state’s “Filthy Five’’ coal-burning power plants is trying to turn itself into a Cinderella of clean-burning electricity generation. Since the makeover includes a first-in-the-nation commercial use of a certain technology to reduce dirty emissions, the state should give it a closer environmental review. (MORE)

This particular proposal is one that CLF is engaging in many ways, including in a pending court case (somerset-sc-clfs-memo-suppt-of-jdgmt-8-10-09).  And earlier on in the legal process this plant was (among other issues) discussed in an Op-Ed by Dr. James Hansen.  It has been the subject of ongoing upset, protests and opposition.

If you want to support our work on cases like this – go for it – or just comment below if you have a local coal fired power plant giving you gas.

I always say that mantra number two for a climate advocate is “Yeah, we have to do that too.”  As in, “We need to be more efficient AND we need to build wind farms AND we need to build transmission lines to support the wind farms AND we need to build sidewalks and transit so people can drive less, etc . . . “  You get the point.

And mantra number one is: “The scary part is . . .” because every time you think you have seen it all, something worse and new comes along.

The latest comes to us from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.

Excellent discussion of this at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress blog.  And here is the NY Times article.

Will this motivate you to take action?

There’s a lot of talk about 2012 being the end of the world. And if it’s not 2012, it’s the swine flu.

But how will it really end? If the latest scary climate science is any indicator, it looks like humans may be to blame. We know that climate change is happening all around us, but it looks like things are changing a lot quicker than any of us expected. As such, it’s time for a climate change reality-check. Did you know?

• Temperatures are already on the rise. Since 1970, winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased by an average of 1.3 degrees per decade—changing and damaging marine life, forests, agriculture, recreation and human health.
• Extreme storms are becoming more frequent. Boston and Atlantic City, for example, can expect a coastal flood equivalent to today’s 100-year flood every two to four years on average by mid-century, and almost annually by the end of the century.
• The oceans are rising. Scientists project that sea levels could rise another 4.5 feet by the end of the century—inundating our coastline and claiming countless low-lying communities from Portland, Maine to Boston to Hyannisport and beyond.
• Heat waves are expected to increase. Within our children’s lifetimes, Northeast cities like Boston or Hartford could experience 20-30 days above 100 degrees causing pain, distress and even increased mortality for our vulnerable citizens.
• Our snow season is becoming shorter and shorter. By late this century, the length of the snow season could be cut in half across northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, and reduced to a week or two in southern parts of the region, a trend that may have already begun.
• Plant and animal populations are shifting northward. Species like the fir and spruce are expected to all but disappear from the region by the century’s end. The Baltimore oriole, American goldfinch and song sparrow populations will become much less abundant.
  (Source: NECIA’s “Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions”)

The facts speak for themselves. It’s clear that the road on which we’re traveling is a dead end. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to make a u-turn—but it’s going to take your help to turn this country and this planet around.

What can you do about it?

As we catapult towards the point of no return, it’s time to hit the brakes. Confront the climate threat today and demand a new energy and climate law now!

It takes less than 30 seconds to use and customize our pre-written letter to your Senators urging them to pass a smart and effective “cap and trade” climate law. Click here to do your part.

According to an April 2008 National Science Foundation press release discussing the findings of a Russian/American scientific collaboration, even the world’s largest freshwater lake–Siberia’s Lake Baikal–is feeling the effects of a changing climate and not in a good way.  Drawing on sixty years worth of data collected under grueling weather conditions (negative 50!) throughout the tumult of 20th century Russia, researchers document long-term warming trends that are changing the lake’s pristine waters and unique habitat. We’re talking about global warming affecting the health of a 25-million year-old lake that contains 20% of the world’s fresh water and 2500 plant and animal species that make their home there but nowhere else.

Global climate change threatens the pristine waters of Siberia's Lake Baikal--the world's largest freshwater lake. That's bad news for much smaller and less-resilient lakes like Lake Champlain. (Image source National Science Foundation, Nicholas Rodenhouse)

Closer to home, CLF has been making the case that global climate change is aggravating pollution and food web problems in Lake Champlain–one of the ten largest fresh water lakes in the United States.

For decades, many agencies of the United States government including the Environmental Protection Agency have produced studies warning that global climate change will likely make water pollution problems worse because we can expect:

• “warming water temperatures to change contaminant concentrations in water and alter aquatic system uses”
• “new patterns of rainfall and snowfall to alter water supply for drinking and other uses leading to changes in pollution levels in aquatic systems, and” (editor’s note–this summer sure seems like we’re seeing a new rainfall pattern in New England)
• “more intense storms to threaten water infrastructure and increase polluted stormwater runoff”

–EPA National Water Program Strategy Response to Climate Change

The Lake Baikal study is further confirmation that global warming and water quality issues are deeply intertwined.  It should serve as a wake-up call to government officials charged with cleaning up and preventing pollution because “[t]his lake was expected to be among those most resistant to climate change, due to its tremendous volume and unique water circulation.” If climate change is affecting Baikal, it’s certainly affecting Lake Champlain and other freshwater bodies throughout New England (not to mention the major impacts on our Oceans).

While we must do all we can to slow down and reverse the worst of what global climate change will bring–an effort CLF is leading in New England–it’s long past time to start factoring the reality of ongoing climate change into predictions about water pollution and decisions about pollution prevention and cleanup.

EPA had that chance when it reviewed and approved Vermont’s proposed phosphorus pollution cleanup target–or Total Maximum Daily Load– for Lake Champlain in 2002.  It had plenty of its own research that could have and should have shaped important decisions regarding:

• the amount of pollution reduction needed
• the likely effectiveness of different proposed pollution cleanup activities
• the likely cost of cleanup and prevention activities

Despite all the global climate change studies EPA and the U.S. Government had created with your tax money–EPA failed entirely to factor climate change into the water quality equation for Lake Champlain. That’s why CLF has filed a lawsuit in federal court to hold EPA accountable for this failure before it’s too late for Lake Champlain.  What good is scientific research if you don’t use it to shape decisions in the real world?  Click here to read a copy of the complaint and stay tuned for updates as the case moves forward.