Urban agriculture is taking off in Boston, from neighborhood gardens and markets to City Hall. Since January 2012, staff from Boston Mayor Menino’s office, along with a number of farming advocates, urban agriculture experts, and neighborhood representatives have met monthly to draft a new section of the Boston Zoning Code, Article 89.  Article 89 addresses the growing interest in urban agriculture – and specifically commercial urban agriculture – by expanding opportunities and reducing local regulatory barriers in Boston.

A comprehensive draft of the proposed rezoning has been completed, and Article 89 is now available for review.  The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) has arranged a series of neighborhood meetings in the city to discuss the draft Article.  A list of neighborhood meeting times and dates can be found here.  The first meeting is tonight at Suffolk Law School  (120 Tremont Street, Boston) from 6-8 PM.  Please join CLF in coming to this meeting, or another meeting in your neighborhood, to show your support for urban agriculture in Boston!

Urban agriculture increases access to affordable, healthy food, builds community connections, and fortifies our ties to the local environment.  At CLF, we are excited about the opportunity to help improve urban agriculture in the city of Boston, and thus support moving Article 89 forward.  We do have some concerns with specific provisions in the Article and appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge these concerns at neighborhood meetings.  We will post more regarding Article 89 here, including more detail on our concerns, as the summer community process moves forward – we encourage you to check back here for more information in the coming months.

photo courtesy of Shannon Henry @ flickr.com

The past few weeks have not been kind to Vermont Yankee or its owners. Investment analysts continue to raise doubts about Yankee’s economic future. It is costing more to run the plant and its future looks bleak.

In Vermont, hearings began last week before the Public Service Board on whether state approval should be granted. Entergy’s four – that’s right, four – law firms are packing the hearing room, but the plethora of high-priced lawyers are having a hard time showing that Vermont will be better off to keep the plant running. Much of their time is spent raising objections and claiming nearly every matter is out of bounds, and cannot be considered by the Board.

The Board must decide if continued operation is in Vermont’s best interests. Matters of radiological safety cannot be considered by the state board, but matters of economics, power supply and the environment are fair game.

During the first week of hearings, Vermont Yankee’s witnesses were on the stand. It was an impressive collection of corporate executives, economists, professors and power professionals. Their testimony had been previously submitted in writing. The hearings allowed the Board and the parties to ask questions.

Just like the tired old plant, the questions revealed real cracks in Vermont Yankee’s claims. One of Entergy’s top executives acknowledged “very serious issues” regarding “misinformation” about the existence of underground pipes at the plant in 2010. He also acknowledged a number of past incidents where penalties had been imposed for failing to follow required rules.

On power supply, the plant is not needed for reliability. The lights will still stay on without Vermont Yankee. There is an excess of power available in New England and the growth in renewables alone over the next decade is greater than the total output of Vermont Yankee.

When asked about environmental problems at the plant, Entergy’s executive confessed he is not an expert on environmental law noting he took that class “Pass/Fail” in law school. Too bad. Vermont deserves better.

Hearings continue February 19 at the Vermont Public Service Board, and are expected to finish February 25. The Board has asked for additional Entergy witnesses to explain how it has complied with prior commitments and also about events that happened in 2010. The State of Vermont, Conservation Law Foundation and the other parties will then make available their witnesses who will answer questions about power supply, the environment and economics.

 It’s July 4^th – as you head out to your favorite swimming spot, consider this…

While New England is home to many clean, scenic beaches, the sad truth is that hundreds of beach closures occurred in 2010 across the New England states.  Check out NRDC’s new report, Testing the Waters to see where your state ranked, and how clean your favorite beach was last year. (Spoiler alert: if you’re in Maine, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island, there’s room for improvement).

Why are these problems so pervasive?  Polluted stormwater runoff and sewage overflows are the major culprits – making beach closures more likely after it rains.  In Massachusetts, 79% percent of ocean beach standards violations happened within 24 hours after a rainstorm, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.  

The solutions are not cheap – to tackle this set of problems problem will require a sustained commitment to fixing and improving underground sewer pipes, enlarging wastewater treatment plants, and installing green stormwater treatment to capture and clean runoff from roads and parking lots.  

The cost of doing nothing is also significant.  The US EPA estimated that in one year, 86,000 people lost a chance to swim because of beach closures in areas affected by stormwater pollution.

Clean water is essential to a thriving New England.  That is why CLF is applying legal leverage to improve management of sewage and stormwater runoff across the region.  We’re working toward a day when the pollution that causes beach closures will be a thing of the past, and swimmers will have their pick of beautiful New England beaches – whether or not it’s recently rained.

Thanks to all of the CLF members and allies who called and e-mailed their US Senators about the oil drilling vote today. The nasty McConnell bill needed 60 votes to pass and was defeated by a final tally of 42 ayes to 57 nays. Most of New England’s delegation voted the right way but Sen. Scott Brown and Sen. Kelly Ayotte voted in favor of the drilling bill today and last night in favor of retaining taxpayer subsidies for the five biggest oil companies. Clearly some education is needed. Maine’s senators both voted correctly yesterday on oil subsidies but today Sen. Snowe kept her record clean on oil drilling with a no vote while Sen. Susan Collins unfortunately decided to support oil drilling.

Besides the attempts to increase oil drilling, the McConnell bill included a section that would have greatly limited the ability of citizens to access the courts and get a fair hearing in front of a judge. It would have denied the award of legal fees to organizations bringing successful lawsuits against oil companies. With tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies aiding oil companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on lobbying, do oil companies really need to skew citizen access to the courts and put their greasy paws on the scales of justice? Are there limits to their greed and attempts to manipulate the law?

Legislated requirements to drill off the coast of Virginia or mandate certain oil sales in Alaska creates a slippery slope to drilling in New England. We don’t need oil rigs on Georges Bank or massive petro-chemical infrastructure in our coastal communities. That’s why this vote was important for New England. Thanks for taking action today and thanks for your continued support for CLF.

Photo courtesy of NRCM

At a press conference held yesterday, CLF and our colleagues at the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) shined a spotlight on 50 bad bills that are now working their way through the state Legislature. If passed, these bills could:

• Open up the three million acres of the North Woods to development
• Repeal the ban on BPA and flame retardant chemicals that are hazardous to our health
• Allow big polluters to not be held accountable for cleaning up their own mess

A list of those bills is here, as are some media clips from Maine Public Broadcasting Network, the Portland Press Herald and the Lewiston Sun Journal related to yesterday’s conference.

The assault on Maine’s environmental protections continues, and we will continue to fight back—but we need your help. If you haven’t already, please add your voice to the effort by contacting your local legislator, submitting a letter to the editor to your local paper, or by becoming a member of CLF.

A new report from the Washington, D.C. –based Brookings Institution found that two of Maine’s metro areas drive 54% of the state’s economic output, amounting to $2.7 billion dollars in gross domestic product.  Portland-South Portland-Biddeford and the Lewiston-Auburn areas are also responsible for creating 51% of the jobs here in Maine, despite only accounting for 47% of the population.  Currently, the ZOOM bus service provides limited yet very successful service between Portland and Biddeford.

Representative Moulton’s bill, LD 673, “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service,” seeks to improve that existing service and add a much needed route up to the economic hub of Lewiston-Auburn.  This critical and long overdue link would connect 106,539 L/A residents with 266,800 jobs in the Portland-Biddeford area, according to the Brookings Institution report.  The report notes that 60.4% of the state’s innovation workers are located in the Portland metro area.   Doesn’t it make sense to connect major population hubs with innovative jobs?  That is what the ZOOM bus bill contemplates, all with the comfort of modern wi-fi access to provide for a better connected, more productive work force.

The report also credits the Bangor area with 11% of the state’s economic output.  Imagine increasing bus service to the Bangor area after the successful implementation of the current bill to reach a trifecta of economic growth, job creation and mass transit.  According to the report, these metropolitan areas represent the engines of state economic growth and concentrate the assets critical to building the “Next Economy.”  And while that is very exciting news, the fact is, we can’t afford to ignore the mass transit connections that will help move the people of the state of Maine forward in a competitive economy.

With all the work we do heading up the front lines of environmental advocacy, it’s pretty common to see CLF in the news. But to see us in a book that made it onto lists of 2010′s best nonfiction books was (for me, at least) pretty exciting. This book is Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food, by Paul Greenberg, and it details the evolution of four species of fish and the people who love (and catch and eat) them: salmon, sea bass, cod, and tuna. Working in the field of ocean conservation, I was naturally pretty jazzed about the opportunity to read and review a book about, well, four fish. But even if you’re not naturally drawn to the ocean and its inhabitants, this book may still be for you!

That’s because more than being just an inventory of changes in global fish stocks or a history of fisheries, Four Fish is an exploration of the relationship between man and the wild and between man and his food. Greenberg’s premise is that we are at a “crucial point” in our relationship with the ocean. For so many fisheries, including the ones about which Greenberg writes here, long gone are days of effortless plenty. At the same time, technology is allowing us to catch the fish that are left with ever-increasing precision, and advances in aquaculture are allowing us to actually farm fish. But does this alter the fundamental wildness of the resource? For example, does state-of-the-art gear that lets fishermen see and target schools of fish beneath the surface turn fishing from a fair fight into one where the fish are inevitably the losers? And are farmed salmon, genetically different from wild salmon and raised away from natural systems, still really salmon? Of course, it’s impossible to deny aquaculture’s potential for improving human welfare by providing a relatively inexpensive source of protein to those whose access to fish would otherwise be limited. But (and this is my question as much as it is Greenberg’s) does this mean we are obliged to rely on aquaculture not just to fight real hunger but to satisfy consumer preferences for fresh fish, year-round, nation-wide? Is there some measure of restraint that we as consumers can reasonably be expected to have?

Philosophical questions aside, where does CLF come into all of this? As the catalysts for change, of course. We pop up in the chapter on cod, where Greenberg notes that despite depleted New England fish stocks, no action was taken until CLF sued the federal government for failing to protect the ailing stocks, leading to a management plan for groundfish fishing. Greenberg notes this case as the turning point after which the federal government jumped in and tried to meet its responsibilities to protect stocks, calling consequent fishing closures “something completely new in the history of man and fish.” Perhaps my favorite scene in the book is when Greenberg goes meta and meets up with Mark Kurlansky (the author of Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World, another great read and a fan favorite over here at the Ocean program) for a cod taste test. The wild cod wins, although Kurlansky finds it a bit flavorless, but he concludes that that’s how a cod should be – and the texture of the farmed fish is all wrong, probably because it hasn’t developed the muscles that a wild cod gets from living “a cod’s life.”

Above all, Greenberg is pragmatic, ending his book with both priorities for sustaining wild fish as well as principles to guide us as we go forward with domesticating “the last wild food.” In my opinion, it’s this ability to understand the world from dueling perspectives, and to accept each as valid, that makes this book a truly great read. Whether fishing for wild salmon or discovering the secrets of breeding farmed fish, whether proclaiming his love for fishing or promoting conservation and restraint, Greenberg is thought-provoking in an informative but modest way, and I know I for one will be thinking about the issues he raises for a long time to come.

Editor’s Note: The Conservation Law Foundation was misidentified in the book as the Conservation Wildlife Fund.

Regional is the new national. Solutions to the environmental problems that threaten our economy, our security and our health are not coming from Washington. Instead, they’re being forged by energetic and creative problem-solvers like CLF who work in regions and states and strive to create models for the rest of the country. This is CLF’s moment.

But we can’t do it small.

To be truly effective in the face of the unprecedented challenges facing New England, we need a movement behind us. We need neighborhoods standing up for their right to clean air and water, cities and towns demanding better transportation options, and a whole region clamoring for clean energy.

About a year ago, we started work to ensure that our story was clear and compelling and inclusive enough to engage a whole region in our mission. We began by asking employees and board members, partners and adversaries, long-time members and new friends what draws them to CLF. Resoundingly, we heard: “CLF protects my New England.”

This notion of protection is inherent in CLF’s brand: our region’s abundant natural resources, as well as its historic cities and towns, are in peril from the impacts of climate change and other realities of modern life. CLF has a long and successful history protecting New England’s environment – from a landmark lawsuit that prevented oil and gas drilling off of our shores to developing green car insurance that rewards people for driving less. At CLF, protection is not about keeping things the way they were. It anticipates the reality of a changing environment and is on the cutting edge of planning for it, to ensure that our region will continue to thrive. This kind of protection requires pragmatic, science-based approaches, fearless creativity, and a willingness to collaborate to find solutions to our most complex challenges.

To convey the many facets of CLF’s brand, built painstakingly over 44 years, we needed to refine, not redefine, our story. We started with articulating our mission:

CLF protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people.  We use the law, science, and the market to create solutions that preserve our natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy.

And our vision:  A healthy, thriving New England – for generations to come.

Our new logo, with the emphatic red “zing,” is the ultimate distillation of CLF’s brand. It’s at once humble and outspoken, pragmatic and creative, patient and dynamic. And yet, it’s simple. Similarly, our new marketing and communications materials – both digital and print – are designed to let our stories stand out. There is lots of white space, an antidote to our tendency to accumulate. Our new design will discipline us to be economical with our words and keep our messages crisp and clear.

Economy of words is never more important than in a tagline. Our five are the answer to every question about why we do what we do:

For a thriving New England

There is no doubt that our ability to communicate our story effectively is key to achieving our mission. It is the currency with which we develop relationships with our members, with foundations who share our vision, and with influencers in the legislature and the media who help further our cause. With a great story to tell and, now, a great way to tell it, we are ready to seize this moment for CLF and galvanize all who would join us in protecting our New England.

U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)  issued a statement about President Obama’s speech calling for a complete clean up of the oil spill and enactment of comprehensive energy and climate legislation that concluded with the following paragraph:

“Finally, the President called on America to begin a transition to cleaner, renewable energy. As people all across our nation watch the oil pouring into the Gulf, they are asking ‘isn’t there a better way?’ The answer is yes, there is a better way, and we must begin to lay that foundation now. Oil has paid tremendous dividends to our country. It helped us win World War II, it helped create an industrial revolution and it built the greatest middle class the world has ever seen. But, it’s time has come and is moving past us, and the transition to clean renewable energy is one our country has to begin immediately.”

The source of these powerful words is very important.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics Senator Landrieu has banked $751,744 from oil and gas interests since 1989.

The big question now is whether Senator Landrieu and other past friends of big oil are truly seeing the light and will spurn that greasy embrace in favor of clean energy and climate protection.