While harm from climate change becomes more apparent every day, EPA is dragging its feet in setting much-needed limitations on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. This failure is a plain violation of the Clean Air Act. So CLF recently took the first step to spur EPA into action. Working with attorneys at Clean Air Task Force, we let EPA know that if it does not act, we will sue.

Kite on Marconi Beach, courtesy of EandJsFilmCrew @ Flickr. Recent extreme weather caused significant damage at Cape Cod’s Marconi Beach.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to issue regulations limiting emissions of air pollutants that may “endanger public health or welfare.” We know well that greenhouse gases drive climate change and therefore endanger public health and welfare in many ways: droughts pose risks to our food supply; sea level rise increases flooding of vulnerable communities; and extreme weather events threaten to wash coastal infrastructure out to sea. Nevertheless, during the early and mid-2000s, EPA all but ignored greenhouse gases. Many states and environmental groups (including CLF) sued to make EPA do something.

First, we argued, greenhouse gases are air pollutants subject to EPA regulation. Second, we said, EPA had to decide one way or the other whether greenhouse gases were dangerous; if so, the Clean Air Act imposes an absolute duty on EPA to regulate them. In a fine opinion by now-retired Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court agreed with us: greenhouse gases are pollutants subject to EPA regulation, and EPA had to decide whether they are dangerous. Two years later, EPA decided that greenhouse gases do, in fact, pose a danger to public health. This means EPA is required by law to regulate them.

After all that, EPA did begin to regulate greenhouse gases. However, it did not limit emissions from the single largest category of greenhouse gas polluters – power plants – which account for nearly 40% of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. If any polluters need robust regulation, power plants do. Finally, after more pushing from CLF and other environmental organizations, EPA published proposed standards for greenhouse gas emissions by power plants.

Under the Clean Air Act, these proposed standards started a clock – EPA had one year to issue final rules. Instead, EPA announced on Day 364 that the final rules would be delayed indefinitely. This delay is both illegal and wrong. EPA now has sixty days to fix its error and issue final rules that seriously address the most pressing problem of our time.

If it does not, CLF and Clean Air Task Force will turn to federal court to compel EPA to act.

In the aftermath of the storm called Sandy, there have been weekly calls for the federal government and for states to address how our country might adapt in response to a changing climate. A recent Government Accounting Office report, a petition to FEMA with which CLF has been involved, and the launch of a new Northeast regional web-based climate resource, all illustrate different aspects of this challenge.

Every year, the GAO provides an update to Congress as part of its “High Risk” series, detailing areas of government fiscal exposure and recommending actions to mitigate those. In this year’s report, GAO has added a new area of concern: “Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks.” The major finding? “The federal government is not well organized to address the fiscal exposure presented by climate change,” even though a National Research Council paper in 2010 concluded that “increasing the nation’s ability to respond to a changing climate can be viewed as an insurance policy against climate risk.” The conclusion? “The federal government needs a strategic approach with strong leadership and the authority to manage climate change risks….” Unfortunately, in areas such as federal flood and crop insurance, technical assistance to state the local governments, and disaster aid, there has been little progress to date.

This is illustrated by a petition filed in October by the Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation that calls on FEMA to abide by it’s statutory responsibility to include anticipated climate change effects in its approval of each state’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, the key document that the New England states use in planning how best to avoid weather and climate risks, and be eligible for disaster relief funds. CLF has urged our state congressional delegations to request that FEMA act on the petition, which it has thus far ignored.

As New England communities seek information and resources on best practices to assess and act on our changing climate, a new tool became available this week. NOAA, working with National Wildlife Federation, EPA, and others, has just opened the Northeast Climate Database, a searchable tool to provide regionally relevant climate information. Here you can look for reports and resources specific to a state, a geography such as the ocean shore, or an issue like public health in a warming world.

CLF has long been involved in these issues. From our active involvement in assuring that New England’s climate future is accounted for in National Forest planning, to tackling coastal adaptation issues in Rhode Island, and challenging the EPA for failing to address climate change considerations in its 2008 Lake Champlain cleanup framework, CLF has always been a regional leader in climate adaptation. As CLF staff attorney Anthony Iarrapino said, “Climate change is no longer an ‘if’ or a ‘when.’” I invite you to follow CLF as we act on CLF President John Kassell’s declaration that climate change is the key issue not just for CLF, but for all of us, over the next decade.

Last week I attended the Ninth Annual Rhode Island Local Food Forum, organized by Farm Fresh Rhode Island. The forum’s theme was “Center of the Plate,” reflecting its focus on local protein production. Particularly enlightening was a panel discussion whose moderator, academic chef Bill Idell, posed questions that resonate across the region.  These questions ultimately boil down to two big ones: First, what does a sustainable food system look like? And second, how can we make one happen?

The panel’s meat experts – local guru Pat McNiff of Pat’s Pastured and Mel Coleman from national good-meat powerhouse Niman Ranch – agreed that sustainable meat means raising animals in their natural habitats (not concentrated feedlots) and in a way that feeds both animals and soil. The panelists also highlighted that sustainable food systems require local capacity because geographically concentrated animal operations are at risk from extreme weather: last summer’s drought, for example, “force[d] livestock producers to liquidate herds because feed [wa]s too expensive.” All this means that local meat is not just grown in a place, but it also grows that place by enriching both land (ecologically) and community (economically).

Building capacity for local meat is tough, however, when farmers have limited access to land. This is the case in Rhode Island. Not only is land itself expensive here (as throughout New England), but property and estate taxes can make it almost impossible to keep productive land in agricultural use when it is more valuable as land for development (and is assessed as such for tax purposes). We at CLF are looking closely at this issue.

Moving from the land to the sea, the discussion yielded different insights from the panel’s seafood experts.  “Eating with the Ecosystem” founder Sarah Schumann and seafood-aggregation specialist Jared Auerbach of Red’s Best noted that sustainability means something much different for seafood than for meat, because so many fish and shellfish stocks are wild. They agreed that a sustainable seafood system should be biodiverse – instead of a singleminded focus on cod, for example, a sustainable system would mean sending more fluke, skate, scup, and squid to market. Diversifying the types of seafood we typically eat would allow overfished stocks to recover, and would also contribute to the resiliency of ocean life in the face of climate change and ocean acidification. Furthermore, a sustainable seafood system would mean – to borrow from Sarah Schumann – eating with the (local) ecosystem. Seafood brought in to local ports is easy to trace and to verify species, boat size, and fishing method – factors that are federally regulated but relatively easy to lose track of as more steps are added to the supply chain. Encouraging demand for diverse seafood products, localizing seafood markets with robust tracing and verification systems, and streamlining state and federal fisheries regulations would all help foster local, sustainable seafood systems.

All four panelists, farmers and fishers alike, agreed on another point: we need local, sustainable food systems both to limit and to respond to harms wrought by carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions cause climate change, leading to droughts and other extreme weather that disrupts agriculture; these disruptions, in turn, require robust local systems to add resilience to the global food system. And carbon dioxide emissions also cause ocean acidification, which poses an immediate risk to shellfish and a long-term risk to all ocean life.

All this highlights the importance of CLF’s farm-and-food and climate-change programs. Our work shutting down coal-fired power plants and promoting renewable energy helps to limit emissions that threaten our current food system (not to mention our planet). And our farm-and-food program promotes local and regional food systems that provide a broad range of environmental benefits. As CLF’s newest staff attorney, I am excited to be joining these efforts here in Rhode Island. The Local Food Forum made it clear that there are many good ideas brewing here – we just need to do the work to get our food policy right.

The Boston Harbor Association has a powerful message about the very real threat of sea level rise driven by global warming.  Their report, “Preparing for the Rising Tide”, is a dramatic wake-up call about the fundamental threat to the historic and economic heart of Boston.

The report starts with very solid science that shows how the homes, businesses and cultural institutions (like the New England Aquarium) that sit on the waterfront are now on the edge of entering, and have in some cases already entered, a very real danger zone.  A zone where the flooding and catastrophic damage that Hurricane Sandy brought to the New York region would tear across our coastline – with the prospect of worse to come.  Indeed, had Sandy hit only 5 ½ hours earlier than it did, when tides were high, the floodwaters would have reached Boston City Hall, nearly ½ mile inland from the City’s waterfront. In other words, Boston got lucky compared to New York City and other communities that were brutally whacked by the storm.  And this near miss begs the question:  do we really want to leave the vitality of our coastal communities to chance?

The report provides a few key lessons:

• Many vulnerable places, like the entrance to the UMass Boston campus, key MBTA stations like the one at the New England Aquarium and sections of waterfront buildings like the Long Wharf Marriott are in very real danger, today, from the severe storms that are becoming an unfortunate, and all too frequent, visitors to the Northeast.
• Indeed, some of these vulnerable places would have suffered very real and painful damage if Sandy had slightly changed course and struck Boston instead of New York, or if Sandy had arrived just a few hours earlier.
• As climate change continues to worsen due to the build-up of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, a build-up that grows a little bit every day, the likelihood of a severe flooding event increases. In a very real way the march of time is our enemy here – with each passing year, as we continue to pump enormous quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the chance of a catastrophic flooding event grows.
• Addressing this fundamental problem will require an integrated approach that reaches across all aspects of society, the economy and government – fundamentally transforming the way we plan, use our land and water resources, build, travel, manage our buildings and use energy – in order to make our communities more resilient and able to handle inundation and other impacts from the changing climate but also to reduce the emissions that are causing the problem in the first place.

In other words, while it remains critically important to tackle the root causes of climate change by reducing energy waste and cleaning up our energy supply, that’s not enough any longer. The emissions we produce today from driving our cars and heating and lighting our buildings will produce effects that are beginning to materialize now – as with Superstorm Sandy – and that will present ever more daunting challenges for future generations. We therefore need to brace for impacts that already have been set in motion. And we must adapt a broad range of infrastructure and institutions to make our communities more resilient to those impacts.

Conservation Law Foundation, as a group with roots in Boston and nearly 50 years of work here, applauds the work of the Boston Harbor Association in preparing and releasing this Report.  As a regional organization that works across New England, we recognize that the Report reflects an absolutely vital case study that provides guidance for planning and preparations in Massachusetts’ largest city, while also providing an example of the kind of sober analysis and planning that needs to unfold from Connecticut’s Long Island Sound coastline to the frigid waters of Downeast Maine.

This Report is a reminder that we must act now to protect our communities from the harm that has already been done – and we need to act on emissions reductions to prevent even worse and more catastrophic harm beyond the massive flooding outlined in TBHA’s chilling maps.   This is the mandate of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act that has been on the Commonwealth’s books since 2008. Having had the foresight to enact this law the question becomes whether we here in Massachusetts will have the courage to truly implement it.  TBHA’s Report, which looks at both the impacts that are unavoidable and the even worse impacts if massive greenhouse gas emissions continue, provides a compelling reminder of the  consequences of inaction.

August 29 – Fisheries Scientists across the Yellow Line? – In discussions about how to set catch limits for yellowtail flounder, some scientists may have crossed the line separating pure science from policy making.

August 31 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, August 31 – In this week’s Fish Talk in the News, a draft disaster relief package for the Northeast groundfishery; the mayor of New Bedford asks NEFMC not to reduce the catch limit for yellowtail flounder; dogfish receives MSC certification; NMFS adopts a new scallop stock assessment technique; warmer waters may be changing the distribution of New England fish stocks; the Ocean Health Index gives US oceans a low score for food production; and Coast Guard safety inspections for fishing vessels become mandatory this fall.

August 31 – A Proposal for NOAA – Why does this current crisis seem so familiar? As the populations of New England’s cod, haddock and flounder have continued to decline, it’s not surprising that the number of fishing boats chasing them have declined.

If you eat, particularly if you eat fruit or nuts, you might be interested in seeing this scientific paper on how global warming and related climate change will have on the trees that are the sources of the fruits and nuts we eat.  Spoiler alert – it isn’t good for them.  Specifically, the paper (to quote the summary) says:

Temperate fruit and nut trees require adequate winter chill to produce economically viable yields. Global warming has the potential to reduce available winter chill and greatly impact crop yields.

One of the co-authors of the paper is on the staff of The Nature Conservancy and they explain the paper in a press release and a detailed blog post.

The story is clear: fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not nuts (or a fruitless activity) – it is a deadly serious business that must be undertaken if we are going to save the world as we know it from vanishing.  The many people who depend on these most basic of foods, not to mention the animals and other plant species who depend on them, deserve protection and moving rapidly away from fossil fuels as the foundation of our energy and transportation systems is the only path open before us.