Be a superhero. Take the T.

In his column in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser illustrates that densely developed cities are better for the environment than leafy suburbs. The column correctly states that the average household in Boston’s urban core emits significantly fewer pounds of carbon dioxide per year, in part because people in the city drive less. Unfortunately, the column also states that public transportation “does little to balance the scales”— a statement that could easily be misinterpreted to mean that the use of public transit does little to decrease carbon emissions. In fact, Glaeser’s research that formed the basis for his conclusions indicates that although city dwellers tend to use more public transportation than suburbanites, their carbon footprint is still significantly lower precisely because the emissions from transit are modest relative to the contributions of cars. Travel by public transportation emits about half as much carbon dioxide per passenger mile than private vehicles, and uses about half the fuel.

Glaeser’s message is clear. If we’re going to minimize our carbon footprint, we need to not only support denser development in downtown Boston, but also greater investment in our underfunded public transportation system.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and innovative transportation for all New Englanders.

Members of Mt. Holyoke's crew team pass Mt. Tom in the early morning.

CLF today announced that it intends to file a federal citizen suit against Mt. Tom Generating Company, FirstLight Power Resources and GDF Suez North America, the owners of Mt. Tom Station, for ongoing violations of the Clean Air Act. Mt. Tom, a 50-year-old coal-fired power plant in Holyoke, MA, is one of the top five sources of toxic emissions in the state, and one of the plants targeted by CLF’s Coal-Free New England campaign.

“The soot Mt. Tom releases contains dangerous pollutants that threaten the health of everyone who breathes them–particularly children and the elderly,” said CLF staff attorney Shanna Cleveland. “Despite recent investments in new technology, this plant is unable to operate in compliance with the law, and therefore within the limits of what is considered safe for human health.” More >

NSTAR Green 100 customers got a rude shock last week when a notice from the utility informed them, without any explanation, that their green power premiums would be going up by more than 300 percent in March. What’s up with that?

What’s up is that prices for natural gas, the dominant fuel used to create electricity in our region, are way down.  Meanwhile, the price of the clean, renewable wind power that NSTAR Green customers are buying to reduce our dependence on such polluting fossil fuels as gas and coal, is stable. So, because the NSTAR Green premiums are pegged to the price of power from those fossil fuels – i.e., the price of its “Basic Service ” – when the differential between its Basic Service and the cost of wind power increases, the premiums go up.

What NSTAR failed to explain to its Green customers is that, even with the  hike in premiums, customers will still pay the same or less  for their total energy bill (basic electric supply, transmission and distribution charges, plus the green premium) than they paid when the program first started. Other than the obvious environmental and public health benefits of consuming less fossil fuels, NSTAR Green customers also get the benefit of more stable and ultimately lower total energy prices over time. The drop in traditional electricity prices is temporary, and it is inevitable that they will soon rise again, given the finite nature of fossil fuels and the environmental, public health and national security costs of burning them. When the price of traditional electricity increases in the future, NSTAR Green premiums will go back down.

We wish that NSTAR had taken this opportunity to tell its customers who have chosen to buy clean power that their investment continues to be a sound one, one that will ultimately save them money by getting off of the fossil fuel roller coaster.

Grist, the environmental news website has a good piece about a book called Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth about “the 2 billion or so young people who will be stuck dealing with global warming and weirding for their entire lives — and who have to figure out how to do it sanely and humanely.”

As the author of the book Mark Hertsgaard notes in an article  in The Nation adapted from his book, “”My daughter and the rest of Generation Hot have been given a life sentence for a crime they didn’t commit.” Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, there are still climate deniers out there who claim that global warming isn’t real–and we need a multifaceted, aggressive, solutions-oriented approach to overcome that hurdle and start cooling things down (so to speak). The latest paleoclimate data suggests that things are even worse than computer models have projected–up to two times worse, according to Climate Progress author Joe Romm.

States like Massachusetts are developing nation-leading strategies to reduce that life sentence, maybe even with a chance of parole. Most recently, last month, Governor Patrick announced the release of the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan, which will reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. That’s the maximum target authorized by the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act– a sign that the state is committed to combating climate change. A centerpiece of the Plan is Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance (PAYD), a market-based, mileage-based solution that rewards drivers for driving less, and an initiative that CLF has been working on for over a decade.

But the work is far from done. Before we can implement measures that will lead New England to the clean energy future it deserves, we have to eradicate the outmoded, dirty sources of power that brought us here in the first place. CLF’s Coal-free New England campaign is designed to do just that, by pushing for the shutdown of the seven major coal-fired power plants in New England that are still in operation, and combined provide about 10 percent of the region’s power and 25 percent of the power in Massachusetts.

Generation Hot may be hot right now, but you know how trends work–they fade. And with a lot of hard work and ingenuity, Generation Hot will be on its way to becoming the most unfashionable generation yet.

Less than a week after I posted my blog post about the environmental and health problems associated with road salt, the Boston Globe published an article about de-icing alternatives some Massachusetts communities are turning to. Boston has received almost 50 inches of snow this winter compared to a total of 17 inches on average around this time. We can only assume that it means we’re using record amounts of salt to combat all this snow. While it is difficult to say if the increased snowfall we’re seeing is directly related to climate change, increased temperatures tend to increase evaporation thus resulting in increased precipitation.  (In the Northeast, there has been a 5 to 10% increase in annual average precipitation since 1900.) More generally speaking, scientists are increasingly concerned about the link between global warming and anomalous winter weather (such as the bizarre snowstorms seen recently in the South). As such, it is encouraging to hear that towns are looking to more environmentally friendly alternatives to deal with our new weather conditions as the planet continues to warm.

Besides rock salt (sodium chloride), calcium chloride and magnesium chloride can be used in colder temperatures but unfortunately, they are significantly more expensive than the traditional rock salt. Instead a growing number of Massachusetts communities are returning to an age-old solution: brine. The mixture is a combination of rock salt and water. Applying brine before snow falls and ice forms on the roadway (known as “anti-icing”) can prevent snow and ice from sticking to roads. Unlike plain old rock salt, this stuff doesn’t bounce or get blown off the roads like we’ve all seen. As such it dramatically reduces the amount of salt used and the time it takes to remove snow and ice from the roads in turn saving towns money. A study done in Oregon and Washington state showed that anti-icing can decrease costs by more than 50% compared to conventional de-icing. And it reduces the amount of salt that gets into our drinking water and the negative impacts on the environment.

This yet again reinforces the idea that solutions that are good for the environment are often also good for people and the economy.

When the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan came out on December 29, laying out roughly 40 policies to get the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, the proposal to test a fledgling concept called Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) (See page 61) auto insurance emerged as the plan’s poster child. We at CLF felt like proud parents. You see, CLF devised the concept of PAYD auto insurance more than a decade ago as a market-based solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. Over the past 10 years, in addition to offering partially mileage-based insurance policies through its Environmental Insurance Agency (EIA) subsidiary of CLF Ventures, CLF has engaged insurance industry leaders, regulators, policymakers, and the environmental community in exploring the potential for PAYD to be implemented on a broad scale.

True PAYD, which is not currently offered in Massachusetts (or any New England state), is priced based on the number of miles a policy holder drives, after taking into account traditional rating factors like where the car owner lives and their driving history. By creating a variable structure for insurance rates, as an alternative to the current fixed annual premium, PAYD would provide a powerful incentive for drivers to reduce their mileage. Put simply: drive less, pay less.

Does that mean the corollary is drive more, pay more? Not necessarily. In November, 2010, CLF and EIA released the results of a study that showed that if auto insurance were priced by the mile, drivers would reduce their mileage, lowering their accident risk while also reducing fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion. It also showed that car owners, regardless of where they live or work, could save money under a PAYD system if they drive fewer miles than the average for their area. Because a PAYD system by design reduces risk and accident costs, ultimately insurance prices would come down for the lion’s share of drivers.

Unlike the current insurance model that generally doesn’t care how much someone drives, the PAYD system would ensure that drivers pay their fair share for the amount of risk they incur, and eliminate the subsidy that low mileage drivers currently pay for high mileage drivers.

More data are needed to understand how to make PAYD work for as many Massachusetts drivers in as many different situations as possible. A flexible program that benefits the broadest spectrum of drivers is the key to gaining the widespread adoption needed to achieve the maximum environmental, public health and economic benefits of PAYD.

Could PAYD, which would help the state meet its climate goals and reduce accident costs while giving car owners more control over their auto insurance pricing, work in Massachusetts? We think so, and a pilot program is a great way to find out.

What do you think? Could PAYD benefit you?

It’s difficult to imagine a day like today in Boston without the aid of salt to make our roads safe to use. For those of us in the snowier parts of the country, road salt is a necessary and accepted part of our winter. It’s cheap, effective and it allows commuters, motorists and emergency vehicles to safely reach their destinations in harsh conditions. According to the Salt Institute, Americans used 22 million tons of road salt in 2008. In a different study by the National Research Council, Massachusetts tops the list of of states with the highest road salt-use at, 19.94 tons per lane-mile each year, surpassing even New York, with 16.6 tons per lane-mile. Under MassDOT salt policy, salt or sodium chloride is applied at 240 pounds per lane-mile. In other words, trucks in Massachusetts are dumping more than a ton of salt every 10 lane-miles in a single application! Salt does not evaporate or otherwise get removed, so one has to ask: what is the fate of all this salt that is dumped on our roads?

Unfortunately, most of it is washed off of roadways by rain runoff and snow melt and enters our rivers and streams or percolates through the soil into our drinking water supplies. That’s the situation that Cambridge, MA has been combating for years. This densely-populated city gets its water from two reservoirs, both located next to Route 128, making it particularly susceptible to salt contamination. Another town suffering from the same issue is Boxford, MA. The town launched a suit against the state highway department, MassHighway, to close its salt storage shed, contending that it was responsible for contaminating at least 30 local wells. Aside from the ecological damage of excess salt, there are also health and financial burdens associated with high salt levels in public and private water supplies. High salt levels can result in skin and eye irritation and pose a danger for individuals with sodium-restricted diets, according to the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

MassHighway is already under court order to manage stormwater runoff after CLF’s successful suit in 2008. Hopefully this effort will divert some of the salt from our waters and, in turn, lead to better health for both the environment and the MA residents who live in it.

CLF Senior Counsel Peter Shelley spoke to Boston’s ABC affiliate WCVB-TV in response to Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke’s decision on Friday to reject Governor Patrick’s request to increase catch limits, citing the lack of scientific and economic evidence indicating that such an increase was necessary. Shelley stated that the industry has actually benefited economically by the new catch limits since they went into effect in May 2010, while fish stocks have been steadily increasing.

“There is a win-win that can be seen by restoring the fish populations. You can’t have a healthy industry that’s based on a resource base that’s disappearing,” Shelley said during the segment.

For those of you who missed Friday’s broadcast, click here to watch the clip online:

Today,  Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke made the decision to reject Governor Patrick’s request for emergency action to increase catch limits for Massachusetts fishermen, in violation of the groundfish management plan that CLF helped to pass, which has been in effect since May 2010 and was helping to create positive, sustainable change in the state’s fisheries. Several weeks ago, the Governor petitioned Secretary Locke to declare a state of economic emergency in Massachusetts fisheries and was supporting a lawsuit that challenged the plan, putting fish and fishermen at risk.

“With his decision to reject Governor Patrick’s request to increase catch limits, Secretary Locke has rightly rejected the notion that the new fisheries management plan is contributing to an economic crisis in the Massachusetts fishery,” said CLF Senior Counsel Peter Shelley. “On the contrary, fishing industry revenues in Massachusetts are up 21.9 percent over 2009 in just the first seven months under the new “catch shares” management system.  The Governor’s demand for emergency action was more politics than economics.” Read more >