This holiday season, what do many Americans have to be thankful for? In tough times, one answer that will be heard around more holidays tables is: “Jobs. Green Jobs.” At least, that’s my answer.

Yesterday was my first day as Conservation Law Foundation’s Senior Communications Manager. I feel fortunate to work for CLF, not simply due to this organization’s impressive history, or due to the great respect I have for all of my coworkers (pictured above). While unemployment remains stubbornly high, and job-creating clean energy programs are coming under attack, American workers face a difficult road. To have a job now is to be fortunate, to have one that works to build a vibrant future is to be blessed.

And so this Thanksgiving, I plan to give thanks for my job: one I believe in, and one I share with dedicated people. But I wonder: How many Americans can join me in giving such thanks? The answer depends upon how you decide to count.

Take the term “green jobs.” The definition of what precisely constitutes a “green job” can quickly become hard to constrain, as this Time story from 2008 argues. Phil Angelides, then Chair of the Apollo Alliance, defined a green job this way: “It has to pay decent wages and benefits that can support a family. It has to be part of a real career path, with upward mobility. And it needs to reduce waste and pollution and benefit the environment.”

What about the clean economy? According to a recent report by The Brookings Institution, in 2011 the clean economy employs some 2.7 million workers. You’ll also see that these jobs are growing – in some segments, explosively. Sectors such as wind energy, solar PV and smart grid grew at a “torrid pace.” As Bob Deans over on NRDC’s Switchboard said so well, “green jobs are growing strong in a weak economy, supporting nearly 3 million American families in hard times.”

However, if you look at their methodology, you’ll see Brookings is only talking about the “clean production economy.” There are more people working to put America on a path to a thriving, sustainable future than those producing goods and services. There are people – like those of us at CLF – working in environmental advocacy. There are environmental journalists and photographers. There are scientists, consultants, fishermen, and investors. And there are many, many others.

I tried to find an answer, a number, to describe just how many Americans work in green jobs. I wondered: who else depends on a thriving environment for their future livelihood?

The answer is simple: all of us. The environment is not an economic sector any more than air is a private commodity. Those who work in green jobs share a mission to create a more sustainable future — a future that we all share.

And so, this Thanksgiving I plan to give thanks – thanks to my colleagues at CLF, to my friends at organizations like NRDC, Patagonia, BluSkye, and others.  I plan to give thanks to the 2.7 million workers in the clean production economy. May that number continue to rise.

If you can, email me the names of organizations, jobs or people to whom you give thanks to for helping to create a more sustainable future. I’ll compile your answers into a future post.

In the meantime, from both myself and all of us here at CLF, have a happy, sustaining Thanksgiving.

New England Deserves A Healthy Ocean

A healthy ocean provides New England with so much—a place to relax with our families, a good living for those in the fishing and tourism industries, and habitat for an amazing array of sea life.  With the right planning, they could also provide us with clean renewable energy from offshore wind and solar power, and create thousands of new jobs for New Englanders–the health of our coastal waters and the habitat they provide for ocean wildlife sustainably brings $16.5 billion to our region’s tourism and fishing economy every year.

In order to sustain healthy coasts and oceans, and the economies of coastal communities that depend on them, we need your help to encourage our New England Governors to work together with federal, tribal and state agencies to implement a National Ocean Policy.

The National Ocean Policy (NOP) builds on the success of ocean management plans in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by bringing together coastal business owners, fishermen, scientists, the shipping industry, conservationists and other ocean users and the many government agencies charged with managing our ocean resources to create a sustainable plan for our ocean’s future. The NOP calls for immediate steps to protect critical marine habitats, ensure a sustainable future for our fishing industry and coastal communities, reduce coastal pollution and promote the responsible development of offshore renewable energy.

If we are going to preserve our beaches and coastline, protect marine life and promote the growth of our sustainable ocean economy, we need a strong National Ocean Policy. That is why it is so important that you write your Governor today to urge them to support this policy, and healthy oceans for all.

As American dependence on foreign oil only grows stronger, high unemployment remains steady, and pollution continues to rise, the current state of domestic affairs seems bleak.  One bright spot, however, aims to address and make a serious dent in these national crises: the electric vehicle (EV).  So bright is the future of EVs that over 180 businesses, municipalities and public interest groups – including the CLF – have signed a statement of support to advance EVs in the U.S.

With the magnitude of national problems and the strong universal support for the EV solution, I set out, as a newbie to EVs, to understand what all the hype is about.

Edison with an electric car in 1913. (Photo credit: americanhistory.si.edu)

While long touted as environmentally friendly and in many aspects superior to fossil fueled vehicles, the EV remains little understood, especially to a novice like myself.  Typically, when I hear EV I think Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid, but as the name implies, these are hybrids of gasoline engines and rechargeable electric batteries.  An EV is different as it runs on 100% electric power, foregoing the need for gasoline, excessive emissions, and perhaps most importantly, excessive prices at the pump.  In fact, using the national average of $ 0.11/kwh, it costs a mere $ 2.75 to fill up an EV Nissan Leaf to travel 100 miles!  To travel 100 miles in my modest Subaru Impreza at my local gas station’s regular unleaded price of $ 3.72, it costs $ 16.90!

The Tesla Roadster, the industry's fastest production EV at 3.7 0-60 mph and 245 mi. range. (Photo credit: Tesla Motors)

But someone like myself may ask: Where do I charge up?  The answer is simple: At home!  While the infrastructure for public charging terminals is still under development, imagine if you could essentially have a fuel station at your home, open 24/7, and charging next to nothing rates.  Well no need to imagine, as home charging stations for EVs are the mainstay of the current EV fleet, with charging times ranging from 3 to 7 hours to charge a car from empty to full.  With prices ranging from $1000-$2200 installed, home charging stations can appear pricey.  But no need to fear the sticker, as you will easily make that cost back in a year, as my Subaru Impreza has an EPA estimated annual fuel cost of approximately $2,500, compared to the EV Nissan Leaf’s annual fuel cost of around $550!

Finally, for those of us who have a hard time conceptualizing a world where cars run on electricity, Nissan has an interesting ad that flips the perspective to a world where everything runs on gasoline; suffice it to say, you don’t want it.

What can the EV do for American job growth?  For starters, EVs have already been successful in jumpstarting job growth and placing the U.S. in a competitive position in the manufacture of EV components.  Within three years, more than 20 different EVs will be on the market, with EVs and their components being built in at least 20 states.  Furthermore, the future of EV infrastructure will provide countless job opportunities for Americans, which will not only strengthen our economy, but do so in an environmentally and economically sustainable way.

While cost savings and job growth are both attractive benefits to EVs, perhaps the greatest benefit is to environmental and public health.  The transportation sector is a significant cause of both global warming and air pollution, which affects everything from the global climate to those with sensitivity to air pollutants, such as asthmatics.  EVs have little or no tailpipe emissions, and even when power plant emissions are factored in, still have lower overall emissions of CO2 and other harmful pollutants, than traditional fuels.

Finally, where utilities provide clean energy options – natural gas, wind, solar, etc. – EVs could become truly zero emission vehicles, turning one of the America’s biggest environmental and public health problems into a solution for the world to follow.

As America faces some of the most difficult economic and environmental times in our nation’s history, the EV stands as a simple solution to tough problems.  It is not often that a decision can be made that saves you money, creates jobs and improves environmental quality.  The EV does all three.  The only thing standing in the way of success is ultimately the consumer, of which I will happily become one at the next chance I get, knowing that my EV will essentially pay for itself, while creating American jobs and saving the environment.

Editor’s note: Cory McKenna is a Cavers Legal Intern at CLF Maine. He is a student at the University of Maine School of Law.

With the passage of the state budget this week, the Maine legislature put politics ahead of the people in rejecting the Efficiency Maine Trust’s effort to maintain its funding for electrical efficiency programs. The Trust was proposing to increase a charge to electricity ratepayers in order to to sustain its funding levels for electric efficiency over the next three years and replace drained federal stimulus funds.

This was the perfect opportunity for our elected officials to help fulfill their campaign promises to produce growth and economic development in the state. How surprising then, that when presented with a chance to invest in a program that provides at least three dollars of return for every dollar invested, create thousands of jobs in Maine and stimulate commerce, the legislature’s Republican majority and Governor LePage openly rejected it.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the vote was at least in part a product of bias among  conservatives against a program that, because it happens to be good for the environment and was widely supported by Democrats, is perceived to have liberal leanings. In reality, the Trust and its programs are just as much about energy cost savings and economic development, goals to which both parties should aspire. The Trust is the public entity that helps to fund projects that enhance the energy efficiency of Maine’s homes, businesses and industries.

The work of the Trust is important for several reasons.:

• The financing provided by the Trust inspires the replacement of outdated technologies, from machinery to light bulbs, in favor of more energy efficient alternatives that reduce overall energy consumption.
• Less energy consumption means lower electrical bills for the recipient, lower energy prices and less frequent costly upgrades to our electrical transmission infrastructure to accommodate increasing demand, savings that are shared by all Mainers.
• The funding provided by the Trust is only a portion of the overall efficiency investment. The Trust’s “seed money” results in significant private investment, borrowing from banks and other forms of financing. In short, the added push of the Trust’s funding for a project results in a commercial ripple effect that benefits many sectors of our economy, providing jobs and demand for products.
• Greater energy efficiency means less electricity needs to be produced, which translates into reduced consumption of fossil fuels and reduced pollution.

But increasing electricity charges can’t be good for Mainers you might suggest. Therein lies the rub. First, the proposed increase was small, approximately one dollar a month for the average household—the cost of a cup of coffee. Second, the economy is not going to rebound while we stand by idly wishing for a miracle, it takes investment to get a return and the Trust is proven to produce returns. In 2010, the EMT saw its $17 million investment in efficiency projects render a lifetime energy savings valued at $95.7 million and serve as the impetus for an additional $76.9 million in private investment in businesses and homes across Maine. Efficiency spending not only saves money– it is an economic driver. Indeed, the Trust funding that the Legislature just denied was predicted to produce an $840 million benefit to Maine energy consumers.

So why would our governor and the legislature effectively defund a program that could generate such significant financial benefits to the state? The answer appears to be party politics that defy logic and economic policy and theory. Perhaps worst of all, it also happens to deviate from state law which requires that Maine, through the Trust, fund and pursue maximum achievable cost-effective levels of energy efficiency.

At a time when Maine’s new governor is trying to revive the false choice of business versus the environment, the Oakhurst Dairy company is proving that what’s good for the environment is also good for business.  As shown in this recent article, this family-owned business, based in Portland, ME, is not just talking the talk but walking the walk when it comes to environmentally-conscious businesses.  From committing to selling only artificial growth hormone-free milk to installing solar panels to heat water used to clean milk cases to its delivery fleet of trucks that use biodiesel and aerodynamic skirts to increase fuel efficiency, Oakhurst Dairy has significantly reduced the amount of oil and diesel fuel it otherwise would have used, and in doing so, reaped significant savings.  As one might expect of a company that started 90 years ago as a small dairy in Portland, Oakhurst takes the long view when it comes to how best to keep its niche in the market, and that’s good for Maine.

The state of Maine is steadily moving forward in its quest to potentially purchase an East Millinocket landfill as part of an effort to save two paper mills that are responsible for hundreds of jobs in the Katahdin region.  The State’s rationale is that in order for the mills to be acquired and reopened by a new company, the liability of the landfills that have been the recipient of waste from the mills for decades must be separated from the mills themselves.

While the intent of the State to try and resurrect the source of up to 600 jobs in the Katahdin region is a good one, this action brings to mind the old saw that “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.” If the state were to acquire the landfills, the facility’s operations and maintenance costs alone are estimated to be a minimum of $250,000 a year.  Those costs pale in comparison to the estimated $17 million to clean up and close the landfills (which only have a few years of capacity left) and does not include costs to clean up groundwater or soils contaminated by more than two decades of unpermitted landfill leachate (liquid that moves through or drains from the landfill) that has been discharged into the groundwater and surface waters in the region, discharges that are ongoing and in violation of both state and federal laws.

CLF raised these concerns in a letter to the Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee last week, and called for the Committee to thoroughly explore the liability issues the state might incur as a result of purchasing the landfill, as well as how the State would provide funding to properly close and clean up the contamination associated with the landfill. Right now, the state has no dedicated source of funds to meet those costs. In addition, there is a potential constitutional issue concerning the State’s ability to take on such a large liability without a two-thirds vote of support in the Legislature and approval by the people.  CLF will continue to review this issue and determine whether or not action is necessary to address the issue of unpermitted discharges with the DEP and the Legislature.

Take a deep breath. Are you taking your clean air for granted? Don’t.

Today, the EPA proposed a rule to reduce hazardous emissions from coal and oil-fired power plants, such as mercury, arsenic, heavy metals, acid gases and dioxins, which cause thousands of deaths every year. This “air toxics rule” finally implements instructions that Congress gave to EPA in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. This much overdue effort, which builds upon decades of Clean Air Act implementation by EPA, protects the public health and serves as a reminder that if the EPA was stripped of its authority to enforce the Clean Air Act, essential safeguards like this wouldn’t exist.

The Clean Air Act is the most successful law our country has ever had to protect public health, preserve our environment and boost our economy. However, the key tool to ensure that protection is in jeopardy. Our senators are facing mounting pressure from our country’s biggest polluters to block the EPA’s ability to do its job, leaving harmful emissions from coal-fired power plants and other sources unchecked and threatening the health of our families and communities. Tell your senators that you expect them to protect you and your family, not big polluters.

New England states have shown leadership in passing progressive environmental laws to protect the health and homes of New Englanders. But it’s not just about us. Our region bears the brunt of pollution from power plants in the Midwest transported here by prevailing winds, which adds to pollution produced locally. Without federal EPA regulation, New England will remain vulnerable to harmful emissions literally blowing into our region.

Tell your senators today that you don’t take clean air for granted and that they shouldn’t either. Ask them to defend the EPA’s ability to do its job and enforce the Clean Air Act. Our region and our nation’s health, economy and environment depend on it.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

Yesterday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the city’s 10-year Waterfront Vision and Action Agenda.  New England cities should take note of this forward-thinking plan, which knits together a dizzying array of restoration activities to ensure that NYC’s rivers, harbors and 500-mile waterfront remain world class amenities for its residents and visitors.

The waterfront plan incorporates key elements of NYC’s Green Infrastructure Plan, released last September.

Among other things, NYC plans to invest over $4 billion over the next 20 years in modernizing infrastructure to control pollution to the city’s waterways.  Recognizing it would need to invest huge sums to protect and enhance its critically valuable waterfront, the city did its homework.  Experts found that using green infrastructure approaches to reduce sewer overflows over the 20 years would result in cost savings of $1.5 billion.  NYC’s vision for restoring water quality now includes a mix of strategic investments in some “grey” or hard piped infrastructure – the sort cities have employed for the past century – along with a hefty proportion of green technologies.  In addition, the plan includes $900 million in private investment.

One inch at a time

Green stormwater management techniques, often referred to as “Low Impact Development,” model nature’s way of handling runoff from paved areas during storms – the runoff is cleansed by soil and plants in vegetated areas, then evaporates or is filtered back into the ground.  Wetlands, green roofs and even specially designed rain gardens and street trees can serve this function.  Dumping polluted stormwater runoff into natural wetlands isn’t on its own an acceptable solution, so green infrastructure approaches add new vegetated areas where the treatment occurs.

The status quo is that street runoff co-mingles with human wastewater in the sanitary sewer system, overwhelming the pipes and treatment plants.  Instead, the city plans to send street runoff into new green treatment areas designed to manage stormwater.  NYC has set its sights on diverting runoff from the first inch of rainfall from 10% of paved area. Keeping this quantity of runoff out of the combined sewer system, experts predict, will have dramatic water quality benefits.

Everybody pays, everybody wins

NYC’s waterfront vision is an impressive example of coordination across a tangle of city and state agencies, public and private entities.  The city’s action plan to cut back sewer overflows relies on public and private entities to restore water quality over the next 20 years.  The city will soon require new development to include state-of-the-art stormwater management, recognizing that private property owners will benefit from the improved waterfront and the public goals cannot be accomplished without their contributions.  If all goes as planned, many more New Yorkers will enjoy views of blue harbors from atop green roofs…

A picture worth a thousand words-- especially if they're spoken at a public hearing. (Photo credit: CLF)

This has been a busy week for CLF, as we continue to respond to the ongoing efforts of the LePage Administration to weaken Maine’s environmental protections. On Monday, February 14, immediately prior to the scheduled public hearing on the LePage proposals, the LePage Administration submitted an actual bill, LD1, that encompassed some but not all of the proposed “reforms.” The public hearing immediately following this announcement, held by the Legislature’s Regulatory Reform Committee, was attended by hundreds of opponents, including many members of CLF. At the hearing, CLF Maine Director Sean Mahoney submitted testimony to the Committee criticizing any attempts to drive a wedge between strong environmental protections and a vibrant economy. It is imperative that this Administration understands that much of Maine’s economy is built on its unique environment and quality of place.

At a separate press event at the State House on the same day, CLF Maine Board Member Hoddy Hildreth lent additional words to the CLF cause, stating his opposition to the rollbacks and calling the attempt to revive the false choice between pickerels and payrolls “hogwash.”

What now? CLF has filed additional requests to the Governor’s office and the Department of Environmental Protection under the Freedom of Access Act in connection with the new bill, LD1. Many of the original proposed “reforms” will now be the subject of separate bills that will be presented later in the session, and CLF will be providing updates as we get information.  An initial public hearing on LD1 is now scheduled for February 24 at the Cross Building at 10 a.m. We invite you to join CLF and our allies at this hearing, and show the Administration that the environment is important to the people of Maine.