Northeast, California move forward with marine reserves

It's time to call in the marine reserves (think fish, not guns). The Conservation Law Foundation and the Canadian branch of the World Wildlife Fund issued a report yesterday recommending that a network of ocean areas off the eastern coast of Canada and the U.S. be protected from fishing and other human activity. After six years of mapping 24,000 square miles in need of protection, the groups will now encourage pertinent legislation -- sure to be a long and controversial process. Meanwhile, California is a few steps ahead: 200 square miles of briny deep off the central coast will get protection beginning in early 2007. Fisherfolk are largely disgruntled -- "We're being regulated out of business," says one -- but greens argue that in the long term, reserves lead to bigger fish and greater biodiversity, ultimately benefiting fisheries. Says Warner Chabot of the Ocean Conservancy, "It's the beginning of a historic shift in how we restore, protect, and manage our oceans."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

California will join Northeast greenhouse-gas reduction program

California will participate in the carbon cap-and-trade program being established in seven Northeast states, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) announced today. Linking in with the so-called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative -- which we suppose won't be so regional anymore -- will help California's industries comply with an impending mandatory cap on greenhouse-gas emissions. "Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to build a large, robust carbon trading market that will dramatically reduce emissions. The more robust the market, the more effective we will be," says a Schwarzenegger spokesflack, who obviously disdains girlie markets. While large corporate emitters of GHGs still aren't happy about the new California law capping emissions, a spokesflack for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association grudgingly agreed that "implementing a cap-and-trade and allowing manufacturers to offset some of the substantial costs will help manufacturers deal with the greenhouse-gas mandate." He added, "hmph."

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Northeast U.S. may feel like South if climate continues changing, says study

The days of mild summers in the Northeastern U.S. may be numbered, says a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. If global greenhouse-gas emissions were reduced by 3 percent each year, the average temperature in the nine Northeast states would still likely rise between 3.5 and 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century; but if emissions and resultant climate change are left unchecked, the average temp could rise by up to 12.5 degrees, causing the region's weather to begin to resemble the South's, with longer, hotter summers and milder winters. The change could strain agriculture, tourism, the power grid, and the whole economy. "This has enormous implications for human health. It puts a lot of stress on the energy system. It could lead to blackouts," says Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the two-year study. "The very notion of the Northeast as we know it is at stake," says coauthor Cameron Wake.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Seven Northeastern states sign greenhouse-gas pact

Thumbing their noses -- or whatever states have where noses should be -- at the Bush administration, seven Northeastern states have committed to cut their planet-toasting carbon dioxide emissions 10 percent by the end of 2018. New York Gov. George Pataki (R) dreamed up the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and has been working since 2003 to get neighboring states on board. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont answered the call, while Massachusetts and Rhode Island dropped out of negotiations. A key tool for achieving reductions will be a cap-and-trade system for large fossil-fueled power plants. Supporters of the initiative laud its environmental benefits and hope it will push the feds to implement similar policies nationwide. Detractors claim it will raise electricity costs and make only a negligible difference in the fight against global warming -- and hey, if you can only take baby steps, why step at all?

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Northeast greenhouse-gas pact delayed

The long-negotiated and much-anticipated -- by us climate geeks anyway -- cap-and-trade climate pact among nine Northeast states, originally set to be announced this week, has been delayed. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has extended negotiations, saying that with recent spikes in energy prices, the plan would raise the cost of electricity too much for end users. Romney wants price caps set on what power-plant operators would have to pay to exceed their pollution allowances under the agreement. New York and New Jersey argue that customers would be fine without price caps, and that such controls would undercut incentives to move to cleaner energy. If it ever gets off the ground, the pact would be the first such regional cooperative action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions -- and a major challenge to the Bush administration's "What, me worry?" stance on climate change.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Major new study says severe weather is likely on the way

Winter as we know it in the northeast U.S. will vanish. Summers across the country will be hotter, particularly in the parched Southwest. Rain will be less frequent but more torrential when it happens. Loss of property will be "catastrophic," exotic diseases will spread, species will die off. Skippee doo! These apocalyptic scenarios are predicted for the end of the century by a major new study from researchers at Purdue University. The study, which assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will roughly double over the next 100 years, lines up with a similar study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Said Purdue climate scientist Noah S. Diffenbaugh, "I would be thrilled to be wrong." You aren't the only one, dude.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

NE states face choice between nuclear power and greenhouse-gas emissions

New Jersey and Vermont -- two of nine Northeast states negotiating a pact to cap greenhouse-gas emissions -- rely heavily on nuclear-generated energy. Now, with the 40-year-long licenses of New Jersey's Oyster Creek nuclear plant and the Vermont Yankee plant nearing expiration, the states could face dramatic spikes in their emissions if the facilities are shut down and fossil-fuel plants are called on to pick up the slack. Though the environmental community backs efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, many activists also want to shut down the nuke plants; they argue that conservation and renewable energy sources could fill the gap. But some utility experts contend that's unrealistic, noting, for instance, that most electric grids can only handle a limited amount of wind power because it's intermittent and unpredictable. "I think the environmental community is confused right now in terms of where they want to go," said Richard A. Valentinetti, director of Vermont's air quality program.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Biofuel catching on in the home-heating arena

Using biofuel -- a mix of vegetable oil and diesel -- to power vehicles is already popular in certain highly vocal circles, but using biofuel to heat homes is just starting to catch on. A recent surge has taken place largely in the U.S. Northeast, where there remains a large concentration of houses that use heating oil. Proponents tout the fact that biofuel produces far less soot and thus requires less furnace cleaning, which we're told is a nasty business. They are also motivated by a desire to support energy independence and the domestic economy. "About 20 out of every 100 gallons of bioheat goes to American farmers and producers instead of unstable foreign countries," says biofuel user Charles Kleekamp. Though it currently costs roughly 10 to 20 cents more per gallon than regular heating fuel, mainly because of the paucity of manufacturing facilities (Northeast biofuel is transported all the way from Florida), enthusiasts hope that rising demand will drive down prices. Already a biodiesel production facility is in the works for Providence, R.I., for next year.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Northeast Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Thwarted by Feds

Efforts by U.S. states in the northeast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are falling short, in part due to unsympathetic federal policies. While they see plenty of room for more aggressive efforts, even the region's most vocal environmental critics acknowledge that northeastern states have taken unprecedented steps to reduce emissions. The biggest initiative has been establishing carbon-dioxide trading programs, which has turned out to be a torturously complex process. All of the region's efforts, however, are hampered by a federal government that refuses to raise fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles or set strict limits on CO2 emissions from power plants. Currently, the region is falling short of its goal to reduce emissions 12 percent by 2010; in fact, emissions are rising. Still, officials and enviros hope that the region's efforts can be a model that inspires broader change. "Showing a region this large can make reductions sends a critically important message out to the country and the world," said Cindy Luppi of Clean Water Action.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Growing up green: Breathing for two

The Mercury Mutiny is gaining force on the state level, galvanizing some unlikely rebels. Eastern states including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York were the first to jump into the fray, launching local efforts to reduce mercury pollution in response to the Bush administration's widely criticized plan for dealing with mercury. Then last week, a new regional effort was announced by a coalition of state legislators from six Midwestern states -- Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin -- many of which have economies reliant on King Coal, a major culprit in mercury emissions.

Coal it like you see it.

Photo: Los Alamos National Lab.

"You might expect this kind of action from Northeastern states, but now even Midwestern states are mobilizing," said Jane Krentz, a former state senator from Minnesota and the Midwest coordinator of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, the group that organized this regional initiative. "We can't ignore the science any longer. The federal government's rollback on mercury is very disturbing -- it will set us back decades -- so we've got no choice but to take things into our own hands." The state senators and representatives plan to introduce bills in their legislatures that would curb mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Adam Schafer, program director for NCEL, admitted that it will be difficult to get the legislation passed considering the power of the coal industry in the Midwest, "but we hope that working together as a coalition, we'll have more leverage to fight that battle," he said. "More importantly, we're sending a message to Washington, letting the EPA know that we can see the writing on the wall: Mercury threatens the brains of babies. If Washington isn't going to act to protect our constituencies, we won't sit back and let that risk escalate."

Indeed, the writing on the wall got even bolder a couple of weeks ago when the EPA's top mercury scientist, Kathryn Mahaffey, released new findings indicating that 630,000 babies born in the U.S. each year, one in six, are at risk of mercury-related developmental problems contracted in the womb -- a number nearly twice as high as the EPA's current official estimate. Mahaffey's new calculations are based on the finding that mercury concentrates at higher levels in the umbilical cords of pregnant women than in their bloodstreams, indicating that fetuses could be getting higher doses of mercury than previously thought.

Mahaffey's findings are unlikely to sway the administration from its current controversial cap-and-trade program for mercury pollution, which has been derided as too weak by environmentalists and public-health advocates. And hers is not the only mercury-related science that the Bush administration doesn't seem to want to consider.

In late January, Inside EPA reporter Liz Heron obtained EPA documents through the Freedom of Information Act revealing that the agency failed to comply with two executive orders requiring it to study how the administration's mercury plan would affect children, minorities, and low-income populations.

"What they said to me was that they were trying to protect the entire population, so it wasn't necessary to look at the effects on specific population subsets," said Heron. "Their logic is that if their end goal will benefit everybody, it will help susceptible populations as well."

But environmentalists argue that such studies of potential effects on vulnerable populations are particularly important in the case of mercury pollution, which, as Mahaffey made clear, has disproportionate impacts on children, and is widely thought to create toxic "hot spots" in the mostly low-income communities immediately surrounding power plants. Bush's cap-and-trade program -- which would let utilities buy and sell the right to emit mercury -- could exacerbate the hot-spot problem in particular. "The larger point here," said Heron, "is that the Bush administration is shifting away from the emphasis on environmental justice that was prevalent in the '90s."

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

The greatest threat to the bald eagle is no longer pesticides, but development and suburban sprawl, say environmental scientists. The bald eagle has starred in one of the most successful species-restoration stories in U.S. history; thanks to the banning of DDT in 1972 and the careful efforts of environmental advocates, the eagle has soared back from the brink of extinction. Still, bald eagle populations have generally risen fastest in states with the lowest rates of population growth. The growth in numbers of vacation and second homes has put pressure on the birds throughout the Northeast. "Loss of habitat is the biggest threat facing eagles right now," said Karen Steenhof, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an eagle-survey coordinator.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Supreme Court to Review Two Important Environmental Cases

In what court-watchers are calling an unusually in-depth review of environmental issues, the Supreme Court is set to hear two cases today with potentially nationwide implications for clean air and water regulations. The first is an appeal by oil companies and diesel manufacturers (supported by the Bush administration) who are challenging a Los Angeles-area requirement that diesel-fueled buses, trash trucks, and airport shuttles be replaced with cleaner-burning models. The second is a suit brought by the Florida Everglades-based Miccosukee tribe against a water-pumping station that for years has been piping polluted runoff from lawns and golf courses into the Everglades. At issue is this question: Is the pump a source of pollution, and thus subject to the restrictions of the Clean Water Act, or merely a neutral conveyor of pollution from one waterway to another? The tribe is supported by a network of Eastern states interested in strict water quality; the water district is supported by the Bush administration and a number of Western states interested in moving large amounts of water around cheaply.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

States, Enviros Move to Sue Over Clean Air Act Changes

Within hours after the Bush administration relaxed the federal clean-air rules governing the nation's power plants, refineries, and other facilities yesterday, environmental organizations and state attorneys general were preparing challenges to the rule change. The Northeast, in particular, was a flurry of legal activity, as the states most affected by emissions drifting eastward from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest began to get their ducks in a row: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania said they would go to court to block the rule change. "A large portion of the pollution impairing New Jersey's air quality comes from out-of-state pollution sources," said that state's governor, James McGreevey (D). " We will not allow the federal government to walk away from its responsibility to safeguard the quality of our air and protect the health of our residents."

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra on anti-idling campaigns

The courts weigh in: states win critical round in fight to slow global warming

With federal action against climate change stagnating, some state leaders are taking matters into their own hands. Ten Northeastern states agreed yesterday to begin discussing the creation of the nation's first market-based plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Under the plan, plants would be able to buy or sell CO2 credits in order to reach emissions targets set by the participating states, which tentatively include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Environmentalists said the plan showed great promise but lacked details; some expressed disappointment in the slow timeline, which does not call for a final agreement until 2005.

Related Links:

Failing grades issued for air quality in Seattle, other major cities

Sweden’s ozone layer thickest in decades: institute

Umbra on aerosols

The massive storm that dumped feet of snow on the Northeast over the weekend was lovely to look at, fun to play in -- and bad news for some river species. In an effort to unbury themselves, many cities in the region dumped plowed snow directly into nearby rivers, a practice some scientists warn could harm stone flies, a delicate insect species near the bottom of the food chain. The flies, which help break down organic matter and are eaten by trout and other large fish, are just beginning to emerge at this time of year and are highly sensitive to water quality. As a result, stone fly populations could be devastated by the increased salinity resulting from the dumped snow, which contains substantial quantities of the salt used as a melting agent on roadways. Pennsylvania and West Virginia have no rules against dumping plowed snow in waterways; New Jersey and Massachusetts do, but both state suspended their rules in the aftermath of the storm.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Rally at Penn State: Students Taking Lead on Clean Energy

Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]

The parent company of a power plant in eastern Ohio has become the first of 36 energy utilities to be tried for causing smog and health problems in the Northeast. In a lawsuit that began yesterday, the U.S. Justice Department accused FirstEnergy Corporation of significantly upgrading its W.H. Sammis plant without installing new pollution controls, as required by the New Source Review rules of the federal Clean Air Act. FirstEnergy and the other utilities that stand accused by the feds say they only conducted routine maintenance on their plants, not major improvements, and therefore were not required to update pollution-control equipment.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Following in the footsteps of nine other northeastern states, Pennsylvania went to court yesterday to block new, less stringent federal air-pollution regulations from taking effect. The Pennsylvania case is separate from one filed by the other states, but the issue is the same: the New Source Review rules of the Clean Air Act, which once required industries to install state-of-the-art pollution-control equipment when upgrading their facilities but were replaced by more lenient Bush administration regulations on Dec. 31. Katie McGinty, Pennsylvania's acting secretary of environmental protection, said the regulatory changes could harm the state's environment by increasing unhealthful emissions. McGinty (who headed former President Clinton's Council on Environmental Quality) added that the shift would damage the state's economy by forcing industry to pay for cleaning up pollution drifting in from other states. So far, the U.S. EPA has declined to comment on Pennsylvania's lawsuit.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Fishers in the Northeast grudgingly celebrated a victory yesterday when federal regulators and environmental groups agreed to put a nine-month freeze on new regulations that will dramatically limit fishing when enacted. The National Marine Fisheries Service has been hearing it from all sides -- fishers have argued that any tougher rules will devastate their industry, while environmentalists have said that fishing limits up till now have not helped replenish depleted stocks. Fishers gained some ammunition when the NMFS admitted recently that some of its research gear had been faulty in the last two years. Last week, however, the agency said that the gear problems should not cause doubt on its conclusion that fish populations were plummeting. Enviros hope the nine-month cool-off period will give the two sides adequate time to agree on the science, but fishers had been pushing for a two-year delay in the regulations.

Related Links:

‘The Cove’ pulls no punches in documenting Japanese dolphin hunt

The Fishery That’s Too Big to Fail

Groups sue Navy over underwater explosions

In what will be one of the largest nonprofit land purchases in New England history, the federal and New Hampshire governments, the Trust for Public Land, and the Nature Conservancy are poised to buy 171,500 acres of land along the New Hampshire-Canada border from the International Paper Company. The estimated $44 million purchase will protect important habitat for coyotes, moose, loons, and bears. The sale represents the latest sally in an ongoing battle between conservationists and developers to determine the fate of the 26 million-acre Great North Woods, the last significant stretch of wilderness in the Northeast. Not all environmentalists are happy about the terms of the deal; only 25,000 acres will be set aside as untouchable wilderness, and some logging and herbicide use will be allowed in other areas.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…

Toward a medically defensible energy policy