On September 26, 2012 I posted a blog called Thune For Thought, in which I wrote:

“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. 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.”

Our climate champions across the nation abandoned their science-based advocacy about the reality of climate change and the extreme price tag that comes with our collective failure to act. They abandoned that advocacy immediately prior to the election, and disappointingly, during the election. They abandoned that advocacy even in the aftermath of the one-two punch of Super Storm Sandy and Nor’easter Athena.

Not a single elected official in Rhode Island, from the Governor to the delegation, has uttered the words climate change in any of these contexts.

After the November 6, 2012 election, nothing much has changed in Rhode Island or for the country in terms of political representation. Our delegation in Rhode Island remained the same: Reed, Whitehouse, Langevin, and Cicciline; our Governor remained the same: Chafee; our President: the same; and, the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives remained the same: blue majority in the Senate, red majority in the House.

The take home message is simple: Averting the climate disaster can’t be about party politics. We all lose if that is where the battle lines are drawn on the single most important issue facing our country. Averting the climate disaster requires science and the courage to act on it.

Dear President Obama, start acting on climate change.
Dear Senator Reed, start acting on climate change.
Dear Senator Whitehouse, start acting on climate change.
Dear Representative Langevin, start acting on climate change.
Dear Representative Cicciline, start acting on climate change.
Dear Governor Chafee, start acting on climate change.
Dear Rhode Island House and Senate Leaders, start acting on climate change.

We need science and courage, not politics.

From left: Barbara Kates-Garnick, Carl Horstmann, Tommy Beaudreau, and Sue Reid. Credit: Meg Colclough.

Earlier today my colleague Sue Reid, VP & Director of CLF Massachusetts, joined state and federal officials to announce the latest milestone for obtaining plentiful and clean renewable wind energy from the Outer Continental Shelf offshore of Massachusetts. Specifically, they initiated the process for developers to begin leasing and site assessment, and for data gathering and public input, to facilitate off shore wind deployment in an area approximately 12 nautical miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and 13 nautical miles southwest of Nantucket. (The federal press release can be found here.) The “Call Area” as it is termed, was identified following consultation with ocean users, such as fishermen and other stakeholders, through an intergovernmental renewable energy task force led by Massachusetts officials.

Today’s announcement follows President Obama’s State of the Union address, in which he expressed the compelling need to develop alternative sources of energy. CLF agrees: the environmental imperative and ongoing energy transformation replacing obsolete uneconomic fossil fuel power plants requires deployment of the full range of available renewable energy resources. Because offshore wind is strong and persistent, it is among our most robust emissions-free renewable energy sources. We also support the laudable efforts of the Commonwealth and federal government, who share jurisdiction over marine resources, to join initiatives to expand our clean energy resources with efforts to engage in thoughtful ocean planning, both of which have been major themes in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has been a leader in both coastal marine spatial planning and in offshore wind deployment. Those experiences are now being replicated by other states and the federal government – something CLF welcomes.

In speaking alongside Tommy P. Beaudreau, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director, and Barbara Kates-Garnick, Massachusetts Under Secretary of Energy, on the steps of the Wind Technology Testing Center, Sue said:

“One might think it’s unusual for environmental advocates to be championing efforts to develop energy resources; after all, CLF led the charge successfully fighting off all oil and gas drilling in New England waters. That’s because we recognize that, while we need to pursue a portfolio of clean energy alternatives, there is NO other resource that has the sheer magnitude of clean energy potential as offshore wind. Offshore wind holds promise for displacing many gigawatts of fossil fuel-fired generation, keeping the lights on and homes and businesses thriving while we shut down old, dirty, inefficient coal and oil-fired plants.”

She also underscored how important this work is. She said:

“While most local eyes are trained on a different Tommy, out in Indianapolis for a certain small-stakes football game, we’re thrilled that this Tommy, the new quarterback of the Obama Administration’s offshore renewable energy team, is in Massachusetts, focused on moving the clean energy ball rapidly down the field here, in concert with the Patrick Administration and a host of other stakeholders. This is a battle that we must win. Success is our only option.”

Sue is right – milestones like this help us to realize the potential for a new clean energy future—one that is being fostered in Massachusetts through some of the strongest state renewable energy policies in the nation. Our challenge is to advance from salutary policies to new renewable energy deployment that benefits Massachusetts with jobs, economic activity, cleaner air and a healthier environment. Today’s development was one step on a path just begun.

CLF's Melissa Hoffer at the No XL Rally Washington DC

And we did—at least for now.

The Keystone XL pipeline, proposed to be constructed by TransCanada, would bring 900,000 barrels per day of toxic tar sands oil 1,702 miles across six states and through the Ogallala Aquifer—which supports $20 billion in food and fiber production in the U.S. annually—from Alberta, Canada to Texas refineries.

On Thursday, the State Department announced that it would be delaying its decision on whether to grant a key permit that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline project to proceed, stating that alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills in Nebraska must be studied in order to move forward with a National Interest Determination for the Presidential Permit.  The State Department also announced that it will be examining “environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy.”  Nested in that parenthetical is a big victory for all of us who have been urging the federal government to review the project’s potential to contribute substantially to global warming pollution.

President Obama issued a statement supporting the decision noting that the permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment.  Today’s decision will push back completion of the additional environmental review process until at least early 2013. Following the announcement, TarSandsAction.org. spokesperson, Bill McKibben, declared, “It’s important to understand how unlikely this victory is. Six months ago, almost no one outside the pipeline route even knew about Keystone. One month ago, a secret poll of “energy insiders” by the National Journal found that “virtually all” expected easy approval of the pipeline by year’s end…A done deal has come spectacularly undone.”  Spectacularly undone, indeed.

The movement that has built up around Keystone holds lessons for climate and environmental advocates.  This is not the environmentalism of the 70s.  Last Sunday, I traveled with a group of friends to Washington DC where I joined thousands of other Americans to form a human circle around the White House and ask President Obama to deny the Keystone XL pipeline permit.  The event was organized by TarSandsAction.org, and at the pre- and post-circle rallies, we heard from Roger Toussaint, international vice president of the Transport Workers Union, who reminded us that this is not a labor versus environment issue.  Tom Poor Bear, vice president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, asked us to take heart in the fact that all races and men and women alike were joining together to fight this battle.  Naomi Klein (see her recent article Capitalism vs. the Climate) passionately relayed how hard people are working in Canada to stop the pipeline and its destruction of indigenous lands, and promised that if we work together and stop it here, our Canadian compatriots would stop it there; her thoughts were echoed by her countrywoman, Maude Barlow.  NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, who has for decades urged action to control greenhouse gas emissions, again called for action to reduce dangerously high levels of global warming pollution before it is too late.

Physicians for Social Responsibility warned that the human health impacts we already are experiencing from climate change are significant and growing—the World Health Organization estimates that there are 160,000 additional deaths annually around the world attributable to climate change.  John Bolenbaugh, a union worker who has blown the whistle on the failed Enbridge Energy oil spill “cleanup” in Michigan, cautioned that we should not believe TransCanada’s assurances of safety, pointing out the nation’s dismal record on pipeline spills.  (Enbridge, by the way, is proposing to construct the Trailbreaker pipeline that would bring tar sands oil from Alberta to Portland, Maine via Montreal.)

Farmers in the region where Keystone is proposed to be constructed called on us to help them protect their land and the Ogallala Aquifer through which the pipeline will run, placing this precious water source at great risk of irreversible contamination.  Cherri Foytlin of the Gulf Coast spoke movingly about just how wrongly things can go—she reported that dead wildlife, including fish, dolphins, and birds, continue to wash ashore there on a daily basis, coated with oil from the BP spill, and that fresh, wet oil is washed in on the waves, while people continue to get sick from exposure to the oil and chemicals used to control it.  “Our divers who dove into the spill, “she said, “are on their deathbeds.”  Representatives of the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and NRDC founder John Adams, each spoke about Keystone’s impact on the environment, and the potential for climate change to bring about the next, and sixth greatest, extinction event in the planet’s history.

The scale of the climate emergency is paralyzing for many.  Now, we can actually see what climate change looks like, in the form of record-breaking Spring floods in 2010 throughout New England, a tornado that killed four people this spring in Western Massachusetts, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Irene (especially in Connecticut, Vermont, and Western Massachusetts), and just days ago, a record breaking late October snowstorm that left millions without power (again) as heavy wet snow snapped tree trunks and limbs, many still bearing green leaves.  These weather patterns, as msnbc recently reported, are consistent with the predicted trends for our region as the climate warms, and extreme weather is already costing us billions in response costs.  Everywhere people are talking about these unprecedented weather events, yet many still do not understand or acknowledge that climate change is the cause.  For those who do, the realization is accompanied by a bewildering sense of both the urgency and enormity of the problem, for every aspect of our modern, energy-dependent lifestyles contributes to planet-warming pollution.

But like most very difficult problems, we will solve this one step at a time, and killing Keystone is a very good step, since it will make it that much harder for TransCanada to tap and sell one of the largest remaining oil reserves in the world.  Keystone XL is the poster child for what we should not be doing.  Transportation sector emissions, for example, constitute about a third of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and in New England, that sector is the fastest growing source of GHG.  We need to be moving away from high carbon fuels, like tar sands, to low carbon fuels.  Because it is such a dirty fuel source, according to NRDC, replacing three million barrels per day of conventional oil with tar sands oil would be equivalent to adding more than 22 million passenger cars to our roads. The environmental impact statement for Keystone (which did not adequately account for lifecycle GHG pollution) estimated that the project would emit in the range of 12-23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually—on par with the emissions from two to four coal fired power plants, according to TarSandsAction.org. Quite simply, that is obscene.

The Keystone movement is a model of what we will need to do if we are to succeed in the fight to take back our environment and restore the climate.  We will need to work together, across political lines, across the borders real or imagined that often separate us, finding and holding that common thread that weaves us together:  our knowledge that we are in the fight of our lives and our commitment to win it, whatever it takes.  Climate change is not in the national interest.

The average American spends 2 ½ hours a day in the car. That’s about 73,000 hours in a lifetime—and tons of havoc wreaked on the environment. The transportation sector is the fastest growing single source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the country, which pollute the air and contribute to global warming.

Tackling this challenge means both reducing the amount of driving by smarter development and building transit and reducing the pollution pouring out of each car. Four out of five of the New England states did the next best thing—reduced the amount that cars would be allowed to pollute in the first place.

Yesterday, the Obama Administration adopted those regulations nationwide, unveiling the first-ever federal clean cars standard that will limit the maximum level of GHGs that can be emitted by new cars and trucks. The new laws are expected to cut GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent between models made in 2009 and those made in 2016—a change equivalent to taking 21.4 million of today’s cars off the road.

This decision is a major victory for CLF. When it comes to clean cars, we’ve been here since the beginning. For two decades CLF has fought for stronger limits on tailpipe emissions from cars.

Early national tailpipe emissions and fuel efficiency standards adopted in the 1960s and 70s improved the fuel economy of the average American vehicle from 13 miles per gallon in 1975 to 22.6 mpg in 1987 and began the process of reducing pollution from cars. Over the course of the 1980’s and 1990’s CLF worked in New England to ensure that our states in partnership with California would lead the nation in a journey towards lower emissions cars.

That journey took a new and interesting path in 2002 when the state of California adopted the Pavley standards, also known as the California Clean Car Standards, which set stringent emission standards for global warming pollutants  from cars.

CLF participated in the California process, urging that the standards be written in a manner that would allow them to be implemented in our states.  Once the standards were in place CLF then, working with allies in many states, launched a largely successful effort to get the standards adopted in the New England states.

It wasn’t easy. The automakers fought back by suing in both California and in New England. CLF served as “local counsel” to a coalition of environmental groups as we all worked with the states to achieved victory in two landmark cases in Vermont and Rhode Island in 2008, forcing automakers to comply with state emissions regulations and in effect implementing the “clean cars program” in every New England state except New Hampshire.

The momentum from the legal victories in Vermont and Rhode Island, as well as the parallel victory our allies achieved in court in California, provided key fuel for the effort that led to the adoption of those state standards on the national level.

But the work’s not done. Today, CLF is focused on pushing hard for the adoption and implementation of a Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to gradually lower the carbon content of fuel. In 2008, CLF successfully worked with the governors of 11 northeast and mid-Atlantic states as they formulated and signed an agreement in which they pledged to develop an LCFS in the future.

CLF also continues to aggressively protect the right of the states to develop a statewide LCFS, and deter opponents who could threaten the longevity of those standards. CLF served as a third party legal counsel on behalf of the state of California in federal litigation challenging the state’s precedent-setting LCFS. Lastly, CLF is forcefully engaging with congressional staff, senators and representatives to fend off federal legislation that would thwart the ability of the states to continue to lead the LCFS effort and the next generation of car standards.

President Obama’s adoption of the California standards nationwide, ending a longtime battle between states and automakers, demonstrated to us at CLF that what happens here in New England really can serve as a model for other states, and that states have the power to create momentum for sweeping change that can influence policy on the federal level. CLF is proud that New England continues to lead the nation in taking action to identify and solve environmental problems and will continue to fight to ensure the states have, and use, the tools to provide a powerful model for national action.

CLF in the News:

New Federal Car Emissions Standards Hailed in Maine, Anne Mostue, MPBN
White House Follows Vermont’s Lead on Clean Cars, Paul Burns, vtdigger.org

Since 1977, CLF has led efforts to block offshore drilling in the North Atlantic, particularly in the area of Georges Bank. CLF’s efforts were instrumental in winning drilling moratoria in Georges Bank through 2012.

This morning, President Obama announced new plans for offshore drilling. Here’s what Priscilla Brooks, Ph.D., CLF’s Ocean Conservation Program director, had to say.

“The Gulf of Maine is a national treasure and Georges Bank an economic engine for many of New England’s coastal communities.  While we are pleased that the Administration chose to spare those and other important national marine resources in the Pacific and Alaska from this new wave of offshore prospecting, we are dismayed that the Obama administration feels it politically expedient to continue the prior administration’s pursuit of the destructive and risky business of oil and gas drilling off our shores,” Brooks said. ”Not only does that pursuit threaten unique underwater habitats, fisheries and marine wildlife, but it is the wrong solution to the twin challenges of achieving energy independence and addressing climate change.  We can’t drill our way to a solution for either challenge. If we are to break our country’s addiction to fossil fuels, we need to go boldly down the path of clean energy like greater efficiency and renewable power from wind, waves and sun and not be diverted by these distractions. We reject the notion that continuing to pursue extraction and burning of fossil fuels over a long time horizon is a necessary component of a comprehensive energy and climate solution.”

If you would like to speak with Priscilla or CLF vice president Peter Shelley, please contact CLF communications director Karen Wood at (617) 850-1722, or you may contact them directly at the numbers below:

Priscilla Brooks, CLF, (617) 850-1737
Peter Shelley, CLF, (617) 850-1754

Is the ship of state ready to set the right course?

New England’s ocean and coastal waters have long suffered from management that only allows a single-sector approach. One agency is in charge of energy, one agency in charge of commercial fishing and another is in charge of water quality. This leads to a situation in both state and fedaral waters where no one is watching out for the overall health of the ocean ecosystem. Both the Pew Oceans Commission and the US Ocean Commission, hundreds of scientists and regional leaders from several coastal states have called for protection of ocean and coastal habitat and an ecosystem-based approach to management.

In Massachusetts we have the Massachusetts Ocean Plan, the first-ever-in-the-nation attempt at comprehensive ocean planning. There is a draft plan out now and a final due to be implemented by the end of 2009. The Commonwealth is having several public hearings over the course of September and all the info is right here.

On the federal level we have pretty well fallen behind due to a past administration that largely saw ocean management as another way to favor their friends in the oil business. Except for some truly exceptional Marine National Monuments - for which President Bush deserves sincere credit - the past administration left the recommendations of the Pew and US Ocean Commission on the shelf while they rammed through oil and gas drilling, held up or removed protections for marine mammals and seriously dragged their heels on clean, renewable energy.

That’s all set to change. On June 12 President Obama created a federal interagency task force with the charge to propose a singular national ocean policy and a framework for “marine spatial planning.” Just a mention sends a thrill down the spine doesn’t it? Well, if you are an ocean user or care about ocean wildlife it should. The problem is that our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes are managed through a jumble of 20 different agencies and about 140 not-always-coordinated laws. This management scheme creates confusion and discord among well-meaning agencies that want to cooperate with one another and fosters absolute mayhem among those agencies already inclined towards turf battles and internal politics. Even inside a single agency there may be conflicting directives that cause a stalemate between resource conservation and resource extraction. (Take a look at our own Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary where an abundance of fishing and fishing gear has altered undersea habitat, reduced overall fish and wildlife populations and still threatens the North Atlantic right whale, one of the rarest animals on the planet, but the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries still sits on its hands.)

So, the President wants an ocean policy and he will get a proposal from his task force on Sept. 10. After the 10th, the task force tackles the issue of marine spatial planning, which is really a term that means “planning various uses of a particular area.” (We’ve been doing it on land in New England for a few hundred years.) There is something else that happens after the 10th — the President’s Ocean Task Force comes to New England. They are planning a series of regional “listening sessions” for each area of the country and the east coast gets to represent on Sept. 24th in Providence at the Rhode Island Convention Center. CLF and our partners are working to highlight the necessary components of a national ocean policy, starting with a mandate to protect, maintain and restore our ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems. Without a strong environmental sustainability tenet a national ocean policy won’t be worth using. We’ll be fortunate to have the draft policy to respond to by then. The Council on Environmental Quality is heading up the ocean task force and you can read the presidential memo that started it all here. Keep a sharp eye on the CLF marine program page for alerts and news.