A cottage teeters on the shore at Roy Carpenter's Beach in South Kingstown, Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012. Credit: NBC News 10

What do the 2010 March Floods, Hurricane Irene, and Tropical Storm Sandy all have in common? These three 100-year events (meaning there is a 1% chance of this type of storm happening once a year) have all occurred within the past two and half years.

Failing to change how we view significant storm events (e.g., it’s just a fluke), affects how well and whether we plan for future storm events. Viewing these storms as “just a bad run,” or “ a freak storm” denies the reality of a changing climate and its effect on weather, precipitation and the severity of storms. In this way, our point of view can threaten our ability to change our approach to development and planning in a way that preserves our assets for future generations. Ultimately this short-sighted point of view is used to justify an unwillingness to move away from static planning concepts, like planning for a 100-year flood, which, to be sure, allows for more development short-term, but, is of little use when planning the life expectancy of coastal development or construction already along our river banks and in our flood plains.

After the March 2010 floods submerged and disabled three major municipal sewer treatment facilities for more than a week, wiped out dams and bridges, destroyed homes and business built along the banks of the Pawtuxet River, and pushed massive areas of pavement up with surges of water from swollen rivers, and, after incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, what did we do? We left our sewer treatment facilities where they were; continued to plan for and permit development for 100-year storms; rebuilt the bridges; repaved the parking lots that were built within the flood plains of major rivers; talked about how we could get environmental regulations out of the way of job creation and economic development, and; tried to get back to normal.

We did the same after Hurricane Irene (a category 1 storm that left half of state’s residents without power, many for more than a week, and which resulted mandatory evacuations for low-lying communities including Charlestown, Narragansett, South Kingstown, and Westerly over storm-surge related concerns. We fixed the roofs, removed the trees, restored power, and petitioned the coastal management agency for the construction of 202 foot seawall (price tag, about a million dollars) in Matunuck to guard against storm surge and erosion.

The goal always the same:  just try to get back to normal as quickly as possible.

Piles of sand plowed from Matunuck Beach Road, South Kingstown, Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012. Credit: NBC News 10

In the immediate aftermath of Tropical Storm Sandy, our third major storm event in less than three years, and a storm that resulted in more serious damage in some of our coastal communities than was experienced during the Hurricane of 1938 (portions of the seawall in Narragansett dislodged; homes and businesses shattered all along the coast; infrastructure, like the bath house and boardwalk in Galilee, washed away; mounds of sand covering roads throughout South County, and breakers compromised) – maybe we should start asking ourselves, “What is normal?”

Because to “get back to normal” under a planning regime and system-wide frame of mind that does not understand, appropriately consider, or strategically plan for the effects of climate change on our coastline, our natural resources, our communities and our economy; well, that is not  “normal” at all. If all we’ve learned as a result of these past three storms is to get milk and water, buy a generator, install a sump pump, get flood insurance, trim down branches and trees that might fall on power lines; and bring in more line and more contractors to assist with power outages, then we haven’t really learned anything at all.

Does it makes sense to rebuild infrastructure, at a significant cost to the taxpayers, in areas that we know will continue to be vulnerable? Should we seize the opportunity to undo a past planning decision that undermined the ability of a natural system to absorb flooding or protect against storm surge and erosion, like removing parking lots that were paved over marshes, and wetlands, or removing hard shoreline structures that accelerate erosion along the beaches? Should we be planning for 500-year or 1,000 floods (the Netherlands and Japan protect their residents against a 10,000-year flood)?

We cannot continue to plan and build according to standards that don’t contemplate climate change and its effects on our built and natural environment. Ignoring the policy and economic conversations that need to happen about the costs of coastal protection versus costs of land-use relocation as well as the potential for movement of populations and infrastructure is irresponsible and will come at a great price.

A wave crashes over a seawall on the Atlantic Ocean during Hurricane Sandy in Kennebunk, Maine, on October 29, 2012. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

By now, you have undoubtedly seen the photos – Manhattan’s flooded streets and subway system, fallen trees in Massachusetts, debris littering beaches and towns up and down the Eastern seaboard. Sandy’s impacts were not only widespread, reaching from the Caribbean to Nova Scotia, but they were record-breaking in severity. It is no exaggeration to say that the effects of climate change are being felt – not tomorrow or in any other vague future – but right now. Today.

We have rounded up a selection of CLF’s articles on Hurricane Sandy, on climate change and on the connection between a warming climate and increasing weather volatility.

Here is a selection of our articles:

On Sandy:

• Sandy in New England: We Can and Must Change the Pattern of Loss – November 1, by John Kassel
• Change is Hard, Necessary: Rethinking Our Electricity Supply Post-Sandy – Nov 1, by Seth Kaplan
• The New Normal: A Post-Sandy Point of View - October 31, by Tricia K Jedele
• Brace for Impact – Heavy Weather Ahead (and a Changing Climate is Part of the Reason it’s Happening) – October 25, 2012, by Seth Kaplan

On Climate Change:

• Generation to Generation; Crisis to Crisis – October 24, 2012, by John Kassel
• The Price of Cranberries: Other Crops Rise & Fall With Changing Climate – October 16, 2012, by Malcolm Burson
• Wind Power Key to Solving Climate Change – October 4, 2012, by Diana Chace
• Cleaner Cars, Cleaner Air – October 1, 2012, but Sandy Levine
• Everything You Know Is Wrong: Growing the Economy Without Growing Electricity (and Energy) Demand – October 1, 2012 by Seth Kaplan
• Thune for Thought: Is Climate Change Really Happening or is it Not? – September 26, 2012, By Tricia Jedele
• Why We Do What We Do: Unfortunately Global Warming Is Real and is Having Real Effects Here and Now – October 31, 2011, by Seth Kaplan

On CLF’s Advocacy Work related to Climate Change:

• Support Grows for CLF’s Fight to Secure a Fair Review of Northern Pass – October 25, 2012 by Christophe Courchesne
• Why We Need to Fight For Cape Win. Now. – October 3, 2012, by John Kassel
• RGGI’s Results: Good For Our Climate, Economy, and Consumers – December 6, 2011 by N. Jonathan Peress
• We Can Get There From Here: Maine Energy Efficiency Ballot Initiative – December 5, 2011, by Sean
• Mahoney
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Program is a Win for the Economy and the Environment – So Lets Do More! – November 15, 2011, by Seth Kaplan

On Hurricanes:

• On the Anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene: Untold Stories of What Went Right
• On Irene Anniversary: Lakekeeper Looks for Lessons Learned – August 27, 2012, by Anthony Iarrapino

Thrill seekers at Hampton Beach in Hampton, N.H., on Oct. 29. Cheryl Senter For The Boston Globe

As Hurricane Sandy, the “Frankenstorm,” bore down on the East Coast Monday, the widespread and devastating impacts were immediately felt. With 30 deaths confirmed as of writing, 7 million people without power, and an anticipated $20 Billion in damages, the severity of the impacts cannot be exaggerated.

We have compiled a selection of great coverage on Hurricane Sandy’s impacts state-by-state across New England, as well as the connection between increasingly volatile storm systems and climate change.

On Hurricane Sandy and its Impacts:

• Superstorm Sandy: A State-by-State Snapshot – CBS News
• New England: Assessing Sandy’s Damages – The Weather Channel
• Hurricane Sandy in Photos: After Landfall — The Atlantic “In Focus”
• Northeast Suffers Huge Damage in Storm’s Path; Millions Without Power – NY Times
• Sandy: Photos of the Storm – Huffington Post
• Sandy’s Trail of Devastation — CNN
• Superstorm Sandy Smashes Records – Thingprogress.org

Rhode Island:

• Video: Sandy Sweeps Cottages Out to Sea in Rhode Island – turnto10.com
• Chafee: RI Coastal Communities Pounded by Sandy – newstimes.com

Massachusetts:

• Map: Power Outages Across Massachusetts – Boston Globe
• Photos: Hurricane Sandy’s Local Impact – Boston Globe
• Hurricane Sandy Leaves Hundreds of Downed Trees in its Wake – Boston Globe

Maine:

• Videos: Hurricane Sandy hits coastal spots in Maine – Portland Press Herald
• Mainers Breath Sigh of Relief After Dodging Worst of Sandy – Portland Press Herald

Vermont:

• VT Escapes Big Sandy Hit, Governor Offers Others Help – Boston Globe
• Unlike Most Places, Vermont Lucky With Sandy – Burlington Free Press

New Hampshire:

• New Hampshire Cleaning Up After Sandy, One death caused by storm – WMUR NH
• Widespread Power Outages Left by Sandy in N.H. – Seacoast Online

On Sandy, Hurricanes, and Climate Change:

• Watching Sandy, Ignoring Climate Change – The New Yorker
• State of the Science Fact Sheet: Atlantic Hurricanes, Climate Variability and Global Warming – NOAA
• After the Storm: The Hidden Health Risks of Flooding in a Warming World – the Union of Concerned Scientists
• 5 Things Hurricane Sandy Reveals About Global Warming – Popular Science

If you have a sense that this business of hurricanes becoming routine in October is new and that we didn’t use to have to worry about such storms with names starting with S, T and higher in the alphabet so much in the past then you are correct.

As Hurricane Sandy (no relation to CLF’s ace Vermont Senior Attorney Sandy Levine) moves up the coast it is worth noting that some of the sharpest observers of our climate and weather, like the founder of weather website Weather Underground the redoubtable Dr. Jeff Masters, are seeing a very real relationship between our changing climate and the advent of these “perfect storms” that bring tropical and winter weather into a fiendish collaboration.  As Dr. Masters writes (note sentence I have underlined in particular):

The Northeast U.S. scenario

If Sandy makes landfall farther to the north near Maine and Nova Scotia, heavy rains will be the main threat, since the cold waters will weaken the storm significantly before landfall. The trees have fewer leaves farther to the north, which will reduce the amount of tree damage and power failures compared to a more southerly track. However, given that ocean temperatures along the Northeast U.S. coast are about 5°F above average, there will be an unusually large amount of water vapor available to make heavy rain. If the trough of low pressure approaching the East Coast taps into the large reservoir of cold air over Canada and pulls down a significant amount of Arctic air, the potential exists for the unusually moist air from Sandy to collide with this cold air from Canada and unleash the heaviest October rains ever recorded in the Northeast U.S., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. This Northeast U.S. scenario would probably cause damages near $100 million dollars.

 The story is clear and frightening.  Warmer water (a clear part of the story of global warming) is keeping these tropical storms alive later and later in the year and putting water into the atmosphere that then pours down on us in these storms.

And you were wondering why we were so intent on taking the steps needed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming? The answer is very clear: self-preservation.

There comes a time when you just have to say that enough is enough.

That is where we are in the world of climate advocacy.

As Bill McKibben laid out in his essay on Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math we can no longer ignore the deep and fundamental need for action to save our climate, our families, our communities and our environment from catastrophe – and that there are powerful, entrenched and well-financed forces who will do just about anything to thwart our efforts.

The primary tools that CLF employs in the fight for climate protection are law, science and economics.  We fight for a thriving New England in court and work with smart business people to build markets for renewable energy like wind farms and to foster energy efficiency, the clean resource all around us.  And we are fighting to ensure that the governments of the region live up to their pledges to create great places where there is more walking and less driving and more of the remaining cars pollute less. We know that this work is essential if we are going to win the war to save our climate.

Courtesy 350.org

But sometimes we need to do more. One thing we need to do, in addition to our calm and civil lawyerly work, is to get angry and push back in the right ways at the right times and in the right places.  This is the spirit behind the Cape Wind Now! campaign that CLF and its partners have launched to call out the fossil fuel powered interests fighting against renewable energy. It is also the driving force behind the Do The Math tour and campaign led by 350.0rg.

And now it is coming to a concert hall near you. This event is a unique blend of “multimedia lecture . . . organizing rally [and] live musical performance” that is not to be missed. CLF has helped to arrange for this important effort to land at the historic Orpheum Theater in Boston on November 15 – tickets are still available!

Before coming the Boston the tour stops in Portland Maine on November 13 and then off on a cross-country odyssey from New York to Los Angeles, to Seattle and then Colorado and many stops in between and on the way.

New England Cranberry Harvest. Photo courtesy of Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs @ flickr

Cranberries. Fall is the season for the sweet-tart fruit from this New England crop, grown and enjoyed across the region for generations. According to a recent story in the Portland Press Herald, this year’s crop looks especially abundant due to unusually warm weather. But these changes could come at a cost that’s greater than the price of cranberries to accompany your holiday turkey.

According to a Cooperative Extension cranberry specialist quoted in the Press Herald, the reason for the bumper crop may be warmer weather related to climate change. What’s more, this trend could make it possible to successfully grow other crops not usually found in northern New England, like peaches. One farmer has already decided to plant kiwi.

CLF is partnering with the American Farmland Trust and the New England Sustainable Agriculture working group to advance the regionally-produced share of agricultural products in our grocery stores, and to sustain New England’s working farms. With that goal in mind, this expansion of crops and diversification of business may seem like good news.  As any working farmer will tell you, adapting to changing conditions by selecting new varieties and hedging against loss is something they do all the time. But as that same farmer would tell you, gaining the opportunity for one new crop will likely come at the expense of losing another.

Cranberries did well this year because of an exceptionally early thaw. Many maple syrup producers, on the other hand, struggled with a much shorter tapping season, a situation that is becoming more likely every year. The maple trees will still be there (they grow as far south as Virginia), but the sap we love as syrup won’t flow if the ground hasn’t frozen for the required time.

Up with cranberries and down with maple syrup – the rise of one may come with the fall of the other. Is this a cost we are willing to accept?

Even though the exact path of climate change affecting both New England and New England’s agriculture remains uncertain, one thing is clear: our climate is changing – a reality already documented in the northern migration of harmful insects and the redrawing of the USDA plant hardiness map.  While we may applaud the efforts of New England farmers to adapt to changing circumstances and become more “climate resilient,” we can’t afford to ignore what’s causing the changes in the first place.  We need to do more to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution causing global warming. Our current climate trajectory involves risks, the scope of which we’re still trying to understand – and likely won’t be able to fully map until it’s far too late.

And so, as much I enjoy Maine peaches, it’s important that we recognize that there will be climate change winners and losers. Not only will this be on the farm: it will be true across New England’s economy. CLF’s support for sustainable regional agriculture, whether in a vacant lot in Boston or northern Aroostook County, Maine, will be critical.

photo courtesy of Dave Clarke@flickr.com

Wind power plays a key role in addressing climate change. Developing wind power and other clean sources reduces the use of fossil fuels, reduces carbon dioxide emissions, and helps to stabilize our climate.

Climate change, with record-breaking droughts, catastrophic floods, and unprecedented heat waves, is upon us.  The only way to keep the crisis from getting much worse is to sharply reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

We can do a lot with efficiency. We can insulate and air-seal our homes, businesses, and public buildings. We, as a nation, can choose to build and drive more fuel-efficient cars. We can drive our cars less, choosing to carpool, bicycle, or take public transportation whenever possible.

But efficiency is not enough.  As long as we use electricity, it must come from somewhere. That’s why all the New England states have specific goals for getting more electricity from renewables.

Every wind turbine, solar panel, or hydro turbine reduces the use of fossil or nuclear power. Eighty-eight percent of the electricity used in New England is generated from either fossil fuels or nuclear power. Nuclear power leaves behind radioactive waste that remains poisonous, essentially, forever. We urgently need to generate more clean, low-carbon, renewable power. We need to use all clean sources, use them together, and use them now.

All energy production takes its toll on the environment. In addition to the climate impacts of fossil fuels, all energy has local impacts where it is mined or produced. Because of this, our first priority must be to be to use less energy through efficiency and conservation.

But we also need to decide where the energy we do use comes from. When we in New England get our energy from fossil fuels and large hydro, we export some of our environmental impacts. By making our own energy, we take responsibility for ourselves.

Wind power is one of the cheapest and most abundant sources of renewable energy. According to the federal Energy Information Agency, electricity from new, utility-scale wind projects costs one-third less than comparable large solar projects. A 60-MW solar project, large enough to replace the wind power from Sheffield or Lowell, would also take up a lot of land – about 1 square mile, or 640 acres.

Home-scale power generation, such as rooftop solar, provides an essential piece of the puzzle; but it alone, or even coupled with efficiency, is not enough to meet our power needs. We still need other sources of power.

Every day, people and businesses in New England use electricity. We turn on lights, TVs, air conditioners and computers. Every time we hit that switch, the electricity comes from somewhere. Wind power generated in New England is part of a responsible choice to meet our power needs and tackle climate change.

photo courtesy of dklimke@flickr.com

Cleaner cars are on the way. In an important step for climate change and air pollution, Vermont is updating its vehicle air emission rules so we can all have cleaner cars and breathe easier.

The rule follows California’s standards and reduces the allowed emissions and greenhouse gases from cars beginning with the 2015 car models.

The greenhouse gas reductions contained in the proposed amendments are expected to reduce new passenger vehicle carbon dioxide emissions by about 32-36% by model year 2025.

Cars that are 1/3 cleaner. That’s a huge step in the right direction. Transportation is responsible for nearly half of Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions. These emission controls are vital to achieve Vermont’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

CLF and Vermont have a long history of support for cleaner transportation. In a lawsuit where CLF provided key support, Vermont defeated a challenge from the automobile industry to previous emission rules. The decision was followed in other states and continues to pave the way for reduced emissions.

Conservation Law Foundation joined with other organizations and submitted these comments in support of Vermont’s rule.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), if airlines were a country, they would be the world’s seventh biggest polluter. Aviation carbon emissions are expected to rise to 3.5 billion tons by 2050. The European Union’s requirement that all airplanes landing in the EU reduce the carbon pollution that is causing global warming, would lower carbon dioxide emissions by 70 million tons per year – equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road.

On Saturday, September 22, 2012, a bill to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme to reduce carbon pollution from airplanes passed in the United States Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate bill, S. 1956, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), will allow U.S. airlines to ignore the European Union’s requirement that they reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming. If the U.S.-based airlines choose to ignore the E.U. law, they could be on the hook to pay huge penalties, which undoubtedly and inevitably will be a cost passed on to consumers.

I am less concerned about the price of my airline ticket than I am about the significant costs that come with our federal government’ and our Congress’ inability to get out of its own way when it comes to responsibly acting to reduce the threat of climate change. I understand that this is election season, and some of the Senate races are tight, and airlines can be powerful lobbyists, but, it is 2012 and an anti-climate emissions control bill is passing via unanimous consent in the United States Senate? Either climate change is really happening or it isn’t.

I expect Fox News, the Tea Party, and even the Wall Street Journal to get its facts wrong about climate change. They have attempted to undermine climate science conclusions by cherry-picking data and attacking individual scientists every chance they get. And, I am not so naïve to think that control of emissions responsible for climate change will ever happen with a Republican majority in Congress (even though the United States Supreme Court said carbon dioxide could be regulated by the federal government nearly 6 years ago). But, I am completely flabbergasted by the fact that the United States Senate unanimously acted to defeat the effectiveness of a good climate reduction law. Not a single Senator stood up in opposition. Not a single Senator even used this as an opportunity to speak publicly about climate change and the implications that passing an anti-emissions control bill via unanimous consent would have on our collective campaign to stop climate change.

For 650,000 years atmospheric carbon dioxide has never been above 300 parts per million. Today, it is screaming toward 400 parts per million. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world, under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

And, the rocket scientists agree. That’s right. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s or NASA’s website states that “the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.” The scientific evidence for the warming of our climate is unequivocal and the cause of it, which should be obvious at this point, is the uncontrolled global burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas). The effects of a warming climate are only slightly more obvious than the fact that the climate is warming and humans are causing it.

For example, this is the second time in less than two years that the Petermann Glacier in Greenland has calved icebergs double and quadruple the size of Manhattan. Global sea level rose almost 7 inches in the last century, but the rate in the last decade is nearly double that of the last century. Arctic sea ice is retreating and thinning at unprecedented rates, West Nile Virus is now something for which people cancel summer events and New Englanders are still recovering from significant storm events that have wiped out whole communities.

At 2 a.m. on September 22, 2012, the United States Senate voted by unanimous consent that U.S. airlines could choose to ignore the European Union’s requirement that all airplanes landing in the EU reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming. Either climate change is happening or it isn’t. But, once you look at the data, once you subscribe to the opinion that it is happening, you have an affirmative obligation to take all reasonable steps to responsibly address the problem. If the Senate believes the evidence of 1300 scientists, NASA, and their own eyes, they should vote accordingly.