In the News
- E.P.A. Seeks Stricter Rules to Curb Smog
- Happy New Year from Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture
- Action Alert for the Public Lands Preservation Act
- Patrick-Murray Administration Announces 43 Grants for Environmental Improvements at Bay State Farms
- Eight Going on Eighteen: Our Daughter and Early Puberty
- The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) has released the FY 2010 Request for Applications (RFA) for the Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP)
- FARMER MICROLOAN INCREASED TO $15,000
- Ch. 61B an Excellent Fit for Many Landowners
- Patrick’s stance will halt NRG Energy’s Somerset plant
- CLF Welcomes the Country’s First Ocean Management Plan
- New England and Mid-Atlantic States to Look at Low Carbon Fuel Standard
- Copenhagen in Perspective
- Memorandum from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator to All EPA Employees
E.P.A. Seeks Stricter Rules to Curb Smog
Nick Ut/Associated Press
Proposed new smog rules would affect not only cities like Los Angeles, but also rural areas.
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: January 7, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed a stricter standard for smog-causing pollutants that would bring substantial health benefits to millions of Americans while imposing large costs on industry and local governments.
The standard would replace one set by the Bush administration in March 2008, which has been challenged in court by state officials and environmental advocates as too weak to adequately protect human health and the environment.
The Obama administration’s proposal sets a primary standard for ground-level ozone of no more than 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million, to be phased in over two decades. Regions with the worst smog pollution, including much of the Northeast, Southern and Central California and the Chicago and Houston areas, would have more time than other areas to come into compliance.
The new rule would replace the standard of 0.075 parts per million imposed by the Bush administration over the objection of an E.P.A. scientific panel, which wanted a tighter limit. The previous standard of 0.084 parts per million was set in 1997 by the Clinton administration.
More
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/science/earth/08smog.html?emc=eta1
return to top
Happy New Year from Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture!
For CISA, the New Year signals the start of the open enrollment period for farms, retailers, restaurants and other food/farm-related enterprises in our Local Hero campaign.
When we launched this fee-for-service program twelve years ago, our goal was to increase awareness of local agriculture in western Massachusetts, to aid area farmers with the marketing of their products, and to create a brand that would be recognizable.
We never imagined that our yellow and green Local Hero logo and ubiquitous bumper sticker would become so widely recognized that 82 percent of local consumers would recall our advertisements and make a conscious effort to purchase local products when given a choice.
In exchange for a small fee, Local Hero members receive a variety of marketing and promotional services including a listing in the 2010 print edition of our highly regarded resource directory Locally Grown: Farm Products Guide, as well as on our online guide, and advertising discounts with local newspapers and radio stations. And of course, all Local Hero members receive access to our Local Hero logo to help with their own business promotions.
Local Hero membership is open to qualified farms, restaurants, retailers, institutions, specialty product producers and landscape/garden centers in Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden counties as well as the western portion of Worcester County.
Since 1999, the Local Hero program has grown from 24 members to more than 280 local farms and related businesses in 2009. With your help, we can surpass 300 members in 2010. If you would like to join or recommend a farm or business for Local Hero membership, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Devon Whitney-Deal
Local Hero Member Services Coordinator
P.S. Not a farm or farm-related business but interested in how you can connect with CISA and support our work? Learn about how to get involved, how to become a business partner or how to otherwise support all aspects of our work .
return to top
Action Alert for the Public Lands Preservation Act
The Public Lands Preservation Act (PLPA) has been reported out by the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture. Thanks to the efforts of many supporters, the Committee took action this week, giving the bill a favorable recommendation.
The Public Lands Preservation Act (H. 3438) or PLPA (aka the Article 97 bill and the No-net-loss bill), would only allow approval of a change in use or disposition of Article 97 land (protected public land), only when there is no feasible alternative and if replacement land of equivalent acreage, market value, and natural resources value is provided – thus no net loss. The replacement land requirement is waived where a disposition is of buildings or leads to no significant permanent physical changes in the land. For more information on the bill see the Protect Mass Environment webpage.
The bill has been given a new number, H. 4422, and has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. Almost all bills go to Ways & Means. The good news is that the PLPA went directly to Ways & Means, without getting sent to House Rules or somewhere else first. However, it will take all our efforts to get the PLPA out of Ways & Means.
If you agree with BEAT and many other organizations that no net loss of our protected state lands is important, please take action!
For those in the Berkshire – please thank Senator Downing and Representative Guyer for their support on this bill, and ask Representative Pignatelli, Speranzo, and Bosley to support the bill.
For those outside the Berkshires, below is the list of co-sponsors to see if your representative(s) and senator(s) are on the list.
If your legislator is not on the list, please let him or her know that you would like them to support the bill.
Rep. Willie Mae Allen
Rep. Cory Atkins
Rep. Ruth B. Balser
Rep. Jennifer M. Callahan
Rep. Linda Dean Campbell
Rep. Christine E. Canavan
Rep. Katherine Clark
Rep. Cheryl A. Coakley-Rivera
Rep. Thomas P. Conroy
Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem
Rep. Steven J. D’Amico
Rep. Stephen L. DiNatale
Rep. Paul J. Donato
Sen. Benjamin B. Downing
Sen. James B. Eldridge
Rep. Christopher G. Fallon
Rep. Mark V. Falzone
Sen. Susan C. Fargo
Rep. Gloria L. Fox
Rep. Sean Garballey
Rep. Anne M. Gobi
Rep. Denis E. Guyer
Rep. Jonathan Hecht
Rep. Kevin G. Honan
Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen
Rep. Louis L. Kafka
Rep. Jay R. Kaufman
Rep. Kay Khan
Rep. Peter v. Kocot
Rep. Paul Kujawski
Rep. Stephen Kulik
Rep. William Lantigua
Rep. David P. Linsky
Rep. Barbara A. L’Italien
Rep. Allen J. McCarthy
Sen. Robert A. O’Leary
Rep. Matthew C. Patrick
Rep. Denise Provost
Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg
Rep. Richard J. Ross
Rep. Michael F. Rush
Rep. John W. Scibak
Rep. Carl M. Sciortino
Rep. Frank I. Smizik
Rep. Robert P. Spellane
Rep. Thomas M. Stanley
Rep. Ellen Story
Rep. Benjamin Swan
Sen. Bruce E. Tarr
Rep. Alice K. Wolf
Patrick-Murray Administration Announces 43 Grants for Environmental Improvements at Bay State Farms
BOSTON – The Patrick-Murray administration today announced 43 grants totaling $662,000 for projects that will help farmers mitigate or prevent negative impacts to natural resources from agricultural practices.
Awarded through the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources’ (DAR) Agricultural Environmental Enhancement Program (AEEP) grants went to farms in the towns of Ashfield, Barnstable, Bernardston, Carlisle, Carver, Conway, Deerfield, Duxbury, East Longmeadow, Egremont, Hadley, Harvard, Harwich, Ipswich, Lakeville, Leominster, Middleboro, Middleborough, Plymouth, Plympton, Rochester, South Carver, Sudbury, Wareham, West Brookfield, West Wareham, Williamsburg, and Worthington. These grants will fund projects such as insulation for winter crop storage, photovoltaic systems, and wastewater treatment systems.
"We are pleased to help farmers make their agricultural practices more sustainable," said Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles. "These awards are another example of the Patrick Administration’s efforts to conserve natural resources throughout the Commonwealth."
"In the past decade, the AEEP program has helped Massachusetts farmers address potential impacts on environmental resources and achieve the goal of energy efficiency," said DAR Commissioner Scott Soares. "I congratulate these recipients who are taking steps toward a more sustainable future."
AEEP funds water quality programs and practices that promote energy efficiency, water conservation, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers selected to participate are reimbursed for the approved costs of materials up to $30,000.
AEEP has funded 288 projects statewide since 1999, providing growers and producers more than $3 million to address environmental concerns on their farms. To be eligible for AEEP funds, growers’ property must consist of at least five contiguous acres of land under the same ownership and be actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use, have at least three acres in bog production, or have at least 5,000 square feet under greenhouse production. Aquaculture operations must possess a current valid shellfish aquaculture license.
Today’s grant awardees:
Jeffrey Erickson
Middleborough
$10,000 for an auto start, remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Indian Line Farm
Egremont
$10,000 for a 6.5 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system.
Carlson Orchards, Inc.
Harvard
$30,000 for a 220 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system.
Estate of G. Dodge
Middleborough
$8,212 for an auto start, remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Porter Bog Company
Rochester
$8,995 for an auto start, remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Piney Wood
Carver
$11,650 for an auto start, remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Gary Randall
Carver
$26,815 for an auto start, remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system, pump house and pump.
Highland Cranberry
Lakeville
$6,335 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system, and dike raising.
Decas Cranberry
Rochester
$10,000 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Robert Leronimo
Middleborough
$12,262 for an auto irrigation system and pump.
Double J Farm
West Brookfield
$16,590 for fencing.
Cotuit Oyster
Barnstable
$13,552 for a photovoltaic outboard and a vegetable barrier.
Great Brook Farm
Carlisle
$30,000 for a manure storage area.
Pioneer Gardens
Deerfield
$30,000 for an ebb and flow bench system.
ADM Cranberry, LLC
Carver
$10,000 for pop-up irrigation sprinklers.
Mayflower Cranberries
Plympton
$7,747 for an automatic irrigation system and pesticide storage.
Cross Roads Farm
Ashfield
$5,773 for a solar hot water unit.
Portside Division
Harwich
$9,056 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Cavicchio Greenhouses
Sudbury
$30,000 to install vents on a solar greenhouse.
Just-a-mere Tree Farm
Worthington
$6,935 for electrical to diaphragm pumps.
Sunbrite Farm
Bernardston
$12,726 for an outdoor wood boiler.
Willows Cranberries
Plymouth
$9,204 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Paul’s Sugarhouse
Williamsburg
$29,825 for equipment to reduce maple sap.
Tilson Bog
South Carver
$5,765 for fuel containment and an engine.
Rodney Fielding
Wareham
$13,367 for an irrigation pump and for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
W.J.M. Cranberries
Middleborough
$14,509 for an irrigation pump and for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Red Eye Cranberry
Duxbury
$25,814 for irrigation lines and an irrigation pump.
D. Fernandes Cranberries
Carver
$8,800 for a pump and fuel storage.
Winter Moon Farm
Hadley
$10,212 for a winter crop storage facility.
Bar Way Farm, Inc.
Deerfield
$18,919 for a vertical tillage system.
Harju Brothers Cranberry Inc
Plympton
$15,675 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system, a pump and sprinkler heads.
Weston Brothers
Carver
$22,189 for irrigation pumps and flumes.
Graziano Brothers
East Longmeadow
$30,000 for condensing gas boilers.
Doyle Cranberry
Middleborough
$8,439 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Ragged Hill Orchard
West Brookfield
$30,000 for a 14.4 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system.
Gove Farm
Leominster
$21,000 for a 7.38 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system.
Cousins Cranberry, LLC
Carver
$8,995 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Chop Chaque
Middleborough
$10,000 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Atwood FIT
Plympton
$10,000 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
E.L. Bartholomew
West Wareham
$8,212 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Maintain Bog
Rochester
$8,212 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Bayside Agricultural
Rochester
$8,212 for a remotely controlled, solar powered computer activated irrigation system.
Appleton Farm
Ipswich
$28,000 for a vegetated treatment area.
The DAR’s mission is to ensure the long-term viability of local agriculture in Massachusetts. Through its four divisions – Agricultural Development, Animal Health, Crop and Pest Services, and Technical Assistance – the DAR strives to support, regulate, and enhance the Commonwealth’s agricultural community, working to promote economically and environmentally sound food safety and animal health measures, and fulfill agriculture’s role in energy conservation and production.
return to top
Eight Going on Eighteen: Our Daughter and Early Puberty
Posted on January 8, 2010 —
By Elizabeth Arndorfer
A few years ago, I noticed that my beautiful, vivacious seven-year-old daughter had breasts. Wasn’t this a little young? She was into Harry Potter, rainbow sherbet and puppies — not bras and pads.
In short order I became an expert on puberty. I talked to our pediatrician. I talked to other parents, neighbors and colleagues. I combed the Internet. And what I found out didn’t make me happy.
The causes of early puberty are varied – obesity, premature birth and low birth weight, television viewing, family dysfunction, and formula feeding.
But one contributing factor in particular caught my eye: exposure to everyday chemicals in our environment; specifically, endocrine disrupting chemicals. Endocrine disruptors are a class of chemicals that can mimic or block hormones in our bodies that regulate a variety of systems, including our reproductive health system.
Endocrine disruptors and other harmful chemicals can be found in lots of everyday products – baby bottles, cleaning products, children’s toys, pesticides, and the list goes on. I was particularly distraught to find out that the water bottle my daughter took to school every day contained bisphenol A, an endocrine disrupting chemical that may contribute to early puberty.
My husband tried to reassure me. So she starts to develop a little early, that’s not so bad, is it? At first, I thought he had a point. But as I continued researching, my concerns only grew.
A report commissioned by the Breast Cancer Fund revealed that girls get their first periods today, on average, a few months earlier than they did 40 years ago. More shocking, they get their breasts one to two years earlier. In 30 years, onset of puberty has fallen to just under 10 years for U.S. white girls and just under nine years for black girls.
Early puberty is a known risk factor for breast cancer later in life. It has also been linked to a variety of other conditions, including infertility, irregular periods, eating disorders and depression. Kids that start puberty early are also statistically more likely to engage in high-risk adolescent behavior, like unprotected sex and drug abuse, and achieve lower levels of academic performance.
As a result of my research, I made significant changes in our life. I changed our personal care products, our kitchen utensils, our water bottles, our bedding, our hand soap, shampoos and sun lotions. I got rid of most of our plastic. I learned the names of complex chemicals and acronyms such as BPA, phthalates, dioxin and PBDEs. I took several lists to the store each time I shopped.
I shouldn’t need a degree in chemistry in order to shop for my children. All of the changes we made in our family life are important – but they are not enough. And that makes me mad. So now I am an advocate for chemical policy reform.
Under current law, the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Environmental Protection Agency has only required testing on approximately 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals that have been on the market since the law passed in 1976. Clearly, TSCA is not keeping our families safe.
In the next few months, a bill to reform TSCA will be introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Passage of the bill would give us back control of our health and put common sense limits on toxic chemicals. As individuals, we cannot adequately protect our children from toxic chemicals – but together we can.
Elizabeth Arndorfer is an attorney and parent living in Palo Alto, California.
return to top
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) has released the FY 2010 Request for Applications (RFA) for the Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP). The primary goal of the PMAP program is to provide support for the development and implementation of integrated pest management practices, tactics, and systems for specific pest problems while reducing human and environmental risks. Approximately $1.4 million will be available, with awards up to $200,000. Link to full information and the RFA at http://nifa.usda.gov/fo/pestmanagementalternatives.cfm?pg=4
ELIGIBILITY: Applications may be submitted by state agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and universities, other research institutions and organizations, federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and individuals. See RFA for details.
DEADLINE: Applications must be received through Grants.gov by Tuesday, March 3, 2010.
QUESTIONS:
If you have questions about the RFA, please contact Dr. Monte Johnson at mpjohnson@nifa.usda.gov
If you have questions about the application packet, contact the NIFA Help Desk: (202) 401-5048; electronic@nifa.usda.gov
If you have questions related to Grants.gov content, contact 1-800-518-4726; support@grants.gov
return to top
The Carrot Project and Strolling of the Heifers are pleased to announce the next application deadline and an increase of the maximum loan amount to $15,000.
If you know of any farmers that might be interested, please pass this information to them, post on your website, place in an e-newsletter, etc.
FARMER MICROLOAN INCREASED TO $15,000
We are pleased to announce that the Strolling of the Heifers Microloan Fund for New England Farmers will be accepting prequalified applications through February 26th, 2010 for loans of $15,000 or less. Applicants must live in one of the four counties of Western Massachusetts or in Vermont, and must prequalify.
For more information, please go to www.thecarrotproject.org/farm_financing or contact Dorothy Suput at 617-666-9637 or at dsuput@thecarrotproject.org.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Dorothy Suput
Dorothy M. Suput
The Carrot Project
2 Belmont Terrace
Somerville, MA 02143
617-666-9637(p)
dsuput@thecarrotproject.org
www.thecarrotproject.org
Sign-up for The Carrot Project’s periodic e-newsletter by sending a message to subscribe@thecarrotproject.org
return to top
Ch. 61B an Excellent Fit for Many Landowners
Ch. 61B offers a great opportunity for landowners to reduce their property taxes while meeting their landowner objectives and keeping future management options open.
UMass and The Trustees Of Reservations are pleased to offer a new publication about 61B.
Read more…
A lot more information about saving our forested landscape in Massachusetts is available on the Mass Woods and Mass Acorn websites – including lots of helpful advise if you are trying to decide what to do with your land, ways to lower taxes and make money so you can keep your land in your family.
return to top
Group: Patrick’s stance will halt NRG Energy’s Somerset plant
By Marc Munroe Dion
Herald News Staff Reporter
Posted Dec 18, 2009 @ 07:23 PM
Somerset —
The Conservation Law Foundation believes a recent announcement by the Deval Patrick administration will stall NRG Energy’s plans to retrofit the smaller of the town’s two power plants, converting the 1925 plant from a coal-fired generator to one that creates electricity through coal “gasification,” the burning of renewable biomass and, some opponents say, potentially toxic construction debris.
According to the CLF, Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles said the state intends to maintain the incinerator moratorium established in 1990 and suspend projects that propose to combust construction and demolition debris pending full environmental review.
Gasification works by applying extreme heat, above 8,000 degrees, to coal and other materials, breaking them down into their component molecules to form a synthetic natural gas. That gas is then burned to power the plant, with 10 percent of the electricity produced powering the gasification process.
Several years ago, when it was facing strict limits on the emission of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants under Massachusetts’ “Filthy Five” power plant rules, NRG had agreed to shut down or clean up the 80-year-old Somerset Station power plant by 2010. But in 2007, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection granted NRG permission to retrofit the plant with experimental coal gasification technology without requiring the plant to undergo an environmental review.
Last month, the company announced it will deactivate the plant on Jan. 2, idling the plant’s last 40 employees. At that time, NRG said it would continue with the conversion to coal gasification.
“This should force NRG to reevaluate,” said Shanna Cleveland, an attorney with CLF.
“In terms of NRG’s existing permits, this will cause the state Department of Environmental Protection to put a hold on any permits requesting permission to burn biomass and construction debris,” Cleveland said.
“This decision is critical for ensuring that the risks posed by the Somerset Station project are addressed,” she said. “There is a clear need to take a long, hard look at these projects and ensure they do not move forward if they will endanger public health and the environment.”
Cleveland said that, while the announcement would not put a stop to the plans to gasify coal at the plant, it would make it more difficult for NRG to get renewable energy certificates for the coal gasification process if biomass and construction debris are used.
Renewable energy certificates are issued by states, like Massachusetts, having a renewable energy program. The certificates are proof that 1 megawatt hour of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource. The certificates can be sold or traded to other entities exceeding their limit of pollutants and is used by that entity to balance the amount of energy produced by the use of non-renewable resources.
David Gaier, NRG spokesman, said NRG doesn’t think the Patrick administration’s stance is fair to the company.
“In 2006, NRG applied for permits to refuel the Somerset plant using renewable biomass as fuel in advanced, clean plasma gasification technology," Gaier said. “Three years later, having received initial permits, we’re surprised that the Department of Energy Resources seems to have changed course with its Dec. 3 suspension on biomass.
“This sends a conflicting and confusing message about the importance of developing and implementing solutions that produce needed energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Gaier said.
“While we agree with the need to protect forests, we don’t see an issue here," Gaier said. “We propose to use 65 percent construction and demolition biomass and only 35 percent greenwood as fuel for clean gasification — easily sustainable under any reasonable definition of sustainability. Using C&D for clean gasification provides added benefits by actually helping solve two environmental problems: landfills reaching capacity, and the methane gas they emit.”
E-mail Marc Munroe Dion at mdion@heraldnews.com.
return to top
CLF Welcomes the Country’s First Ocean Management Plan
from Conservation Law Foundation’s e-newsletter, Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Massachusetts made history on the first business day of the New Year with the release of its comprehensive Ocean Management Plan, the first of its kind in the country. As a member of the Governor-appointed Ocean Science Advisory Council, CLF was instrumental in the development of the Plan and applauded the final outcome as a giant step toward achieving enduring stewardship of the state’s ocean waters.
CLF has long advocated for comprehensive ocean management planning as the way to balance protection of vulnerable marine wildlife and habitat with responsible ocean uses, such as wind energy development. The Massachusetts Plan represents a critical first building block for the Obama Administration’s effort to develop a National Ocean Policy built around regional ocean management plans.
Dr. Priscilla Brooks, Director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Ocean Conservation Program, called the plan a milestone for Massachusetts and the country:
“Our state’s ocean waters are a critical source of jobs, food, recreation, transportation and energy development, and are under increasing pressure from competing economic interests, not to mention the patchwork of agencies and laws that govern these strategic resources. With the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008 and now this sweeping plan to implement it, the Commonwealth has shown the way forward to other ocean and Great Lakes states and the need to act affirmatively and aggressively to protect and manage their marine resources.”
Dr. Brooks was quoted in news stories from coast to coast commenting on the Plan. Check out this local coverage from the Cape Cod Times.
return to top
New England and Mid-Atlantic States to Look at Low Carbon Fuel Standard
from Conservation Law Foundation’s e-newsletter, Tuesday, January 12, 2010
On December 30, eleven Northeast and mid-Atlantic states took another step toward reducing the region’s dangerous dependence on oil and fostering the growth of clean fuel alternatives when their governors signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to develop a mandatory, multi-state Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).
The LCFS is a market-based, technology-neutral policy requiring gradual reductions in the carbon content of fuel. An LCFS will promote a regional market for cleaner alternative fuels, delivering greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, local economic development, and technological innovation. California was the first state to adopt an LCFS in April 2009, requiring all distributors of transportation fuels to achieve 10% lower carbon intensity by 2020.
CLF and other environmental advocacy organizations have joined other stakeholders in urging the governors to move with greater urgency, developing a program framework by the end of 2010 and committing to a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of fuels. While the MOU stops short of laying out a program framework with specific targets, the groups see the MOU as a step forward, reaffirming and elevating the states’ commitment to implement a regional LCFS.
“Clean alternative fuels have the potential to be an economic engine in the Northeast while addressing the threat of climate change,” said CLF Senior Attorney Sue Reid in a press release. “We need to adopt policies such as the LCFS that discourage high carbon fuels like tar sands and build markets for new, cleaner fuels, with meaningful choices for consumers. We are encouraged by the governors’ commitment to move forward,” Reid added.
return to top
Copenhagen in Perspective
from CLF Scoop: Insider News, Advocacy & Information from Conservation Law Foundation
December 23rd, 2009 by Seth Kaplan
As the dust settles after the turbulent outcome of the COP-15 climate summit in Copenhagen a few things are clear:
No one is completely happy with the outcome. Even President Obama described what he hammered out as being a “first step” and “not enough” to avoid disaster describing the Accord he worked out as the beginning of a process.
The climate change denier community (and people playing that role in the US, Europe, Israel, etc… should be very nervous about the fact they are in close alliance with Saudia Arabia) must be upset at the reaffirmation that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced in order to avoid dangerous global warming – a conclusion that relies upon the mountain of science showing that global warming is very real and very dangerous.
Some leading voices like Joe Romm and commentators share the “glass 2/3’s full” interpretation of the Copenhagen Accord presented by the President and applaud the fact that Accord was worked out by the U.S. and China (with Brazil, India and South Africa) and then embraced by others – seeing it as a good thing for international climate discussions and negotiations to be headed down a new path of bi-lateral discussions between large emitters and among smaller groups of nations and away from the UN structure that has been in place since the 1992 Rio Summit. Robert Stavins at Harvard University and David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council argue that the UN process can and will continue augmented by these new side negotiations. (Update 1/7/2010 – Robert Stavins has developed this argument even farther.)
Other important voices like Bill McKibben see this change in the process and nature of climate negotiations as a disaster – part of a complete collapse of political and moral will by a President and Administration that should know better. A related perspective is the view that the Copenhagen outcome shows that the “the elites are not up to the job of saving the world.” Follow the links in that last piece if you want to see some really terrifying analysis of the world that we are headed to if only current pledges and agreements for emissions reductions are met.
To hear these two different interpretations collide check out McKibben and Doniger on the “On Point” public radio show on December 22, 2009.
And what Andrew Revkin calls the “Copenhagen blame game” is now a full scale global enterprise. With British Columnist George Monbiot blaming the US (and President Obama) personally, Chinese and British officials savagely attacking each other in the press on the question of China’s role at Copenhagen and officials of the European Union laying blame on the developing nations and the US.
So what do we know and what should we (those of us not playing in the titanic global climate game) do?
The answer for CLF is clear. We need to continue with our work to make New England, the region in which we work, a replicable model of real and affirmative change for the better. We need to purge our electricity system of old, high emissions coal fired power plants, we need to fight to make highly efficient use of energy in homes and buildings, we need to ensure that our forests are healthy and do their many jobs, including capturing carbon out of the air, and we need to foster clean effective transit and massive deployment of renewable energy. Our goals are right out there for all to see as is the way in which you can support our work.
Clearly there is a powerful need for global and national action to protect our climate. And while those epic struggles play out, and we do what we can to shape the outcome, we must not waver in our resolve to advance a climate protection agenda here in our region, our states and in our communities. We can argue about how far we have come – but it is very clear that we have far to go.
return to top
Memorandum from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator to All EPA Employees
Release date: 01/12/2010
Contact Information: Adora Andy, press@epa.gov, 202-564-6794
Colleagues:
Almost one year ago, I began my work as Administrator. It has been a deeply fulfilling 12 months and a wonderful homecoming for me. As our first year together draws to a close, we must now look to the tasks ahead.
In my First Day Memo, I outlined five priorities for my time as Administrator. We have made enormous strides on all five, and our achievements reflect your hard work and dedication. By working with our senior policy team, listening to your input and learning from the experiences of the last 12 months, we have strengthened our focus and expanded the list of priorities. Listed below are seven key themes to focus the work of our agency.
MORE
return to top