NRCM Blog

Inside Interior Secretary Salazar's National Park Meeting

Posted by Cathy Johnson, NRCM's North Woods Project Director

Last Thursday was a big day for the future of Maine’s North Woods. 

In the afternoon, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Salazar addressed a crowd of about 300 at the high school auditorium in Millinocket. The topic was Roxanne Quimby’s proposal for a national park on the 70,000 acres she owns along the East Branch of the Penobscot River.  

Out in the parking lot, before the meeting, the park opponents were holding signs and passing out stickers.  They put on a real show of force.

In the auditorium, after Sec. Salazar arrived, the Millinocket Town officials, a local county commissioner and the local state senator continued the anti-park assault, with loud aggressive comments, including challenging Salazar with “Who invited you here?”  (I later heard someone refer to them as “the rude boys.”)

Sec. Salazar took it all in stride.  “I invited myself,” he said and proceeded to run a civilized discussion about the possibility of a feasibility study and a national park.  Alternating supporting and opposing speakers, he ensured that both perspectives were well represented.  After hearing from a number of folks supporting the feasibility study because they wanted more information about the impacts of the proposed park, he challenged the “rude boys” back:  “What is it about getting more information that you don’t like?”  

And to find out what the “silent majority” was thinking, at the end he called on three people who had not raised their hands to speak.

 The Katahdin Region Chamber of Commerce and the Millinocket Downtown Revitalization Committee have both supported a feasibility study.  Local business supporters had filled the first three rows with friendly faces, although only one business supporter spoke. 

 Coming out of that meeting, I thought, it was, perhaps, a draw between supporters and opponents, although the supporters definitely got the edge for civility.

 But the evening was only beginning. 

 The Medway Selectmen, who had already endorsed a feasibility study, had scheduled a town meeting and referendum vote on the issue by all the town residents for 7:00 pm.  Roxanne Quimby was present and the Moderator let both local residents and out-of-towners speak and ask questions.

The opponents to the park were again out in force; the local senator strode to the lectern to denounce the park idea and any feasibility study.

But many residents asked real questions and were apparently satisfied with the answers because when the question was called, supporters trounced the opponents 46 – 6.  There was a palpable sense of deflation from the opponents, who quickly packed up their stickers, signs and clipboards and slunk out the door.  Meanwhile, the supporters were pleased but trying to figure out what the next step is.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the Medway vote.  This is the first time residents in a northern Maine community have voted to support a feasibility study for a national park.  After decades during which the debate about a national park has been dominated and stifled by opponents, the supporters have finally made space for a reasoned discussion of the issue. 

A vote for a feasibility study is not an endorsement of a national park.  But it signals that, finally, the debate will take place based on facts, rather than fears and ideology.  Stay tuned. The conversation is just beginning!

Court tells EPA to move forward with rules to cut climate changing pollution

Here is some much needed good news this month related to global warming. Earlier this month, a U.S. Court of Appeals agreed that new Clean Air Act regulations on climate changing pollution from cars, trucks, power plants and factories can go forward as planned in January of 2011. Many industry groups, including the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, and others representing utilities, refiners, biomass fuel companies, and manufacturers, have filed a lawsuit to block these rules. Their initial effort was to attempt to “stay” (temporarily halt) the rules pending the outcome the full lawsuit.

But we beat them in this first round. While the full lawsuits will continue to play out, this ruling lets EPA do its job under the Clean Air Act to move forward to limit climate changing pollution that threatens our families, economy and environment. The ruling tells polluters who want to stall progress towards getting real climate change pollution reductions that EPA’s authority is real and that EPA is moving forward. NRCM (along with other groups) is represented in this case by Clean Air Task Force senior attorney, Ann Weeks. Many state agencies and other environmental groups have also joined in the defense of these rules.

The quick background: Because EPA found in 2009 that global warming pollutants endanger public health and welfare, EPA set emissions limits and fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks, to into effect on January 2, 2011. EPA also established rules to require permits for climate changing pollution from large power plants and factories – including those that burn biomass as fuel, to take effect at the same time. 

The big picture: Despite the best efforts of the oil and gas lobbies, which continue to pour money into fighting progress on clean energy and clean air, the Court’s decision means the implementation of these rules will not be delayed. Opponents continue to exaggerate the cost of cleaner, safer technologies (something that car makers and polluters are very good at), while ignoring the huge benefits to the air we breathe. But their stories of woe just didn’t stand up in court.

-Dylan Voorhees, NRCM Clean Energy Project Director

Arctic Report Card Shows Big Climate Change Impacts

This important new video from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that climate change is having a dramatic impact on the Arctic, with record temperatures across the Canadian Arctic and Greenland, reduced summer sea ice, and record snow cover decreases. Every aspect of the Arctic environment is being impacted. “The Arctic is continuing to move into a new and different climate state,” according to this assessment of the scientific data. Glacial melting in Greenland this past summer was the greatest since data collection began in 1873. 

The Arctic Report Card was created by a team of 69 scientists and based on 176 published scientific references. The planet is warming and we will face major impacts unless society accelerates the transition toward energy systems that do not produce climate changing carbon pollution.  

-Pete Didisheim, NRCM advocacy director

A Clear Case for Climate Legislation

We are at a critical juncture when we need bold, bipartisan support to help ensure passage of a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year.

This article in Grist by Dave Roberts makes the case clearly. It should give our bloggers the incentive to turn on the political heat that Roberts calls for. Pick up the phone and call Senator Snowe and Senator Collins (in-district office numbers) this week to ask them to be our climate champions and work towards a bill that will pass the Senate. They could make the difference for the planet. The time for hand-wringing is over. We need this sea change towards a clean energy future for Maine's economy and environment and for our children's future. 

Read here:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-17-leaning-forward-why-the-american-power-act-is-worth-fighting-for/PALL/print.

Lisa Pohlmann, NRCM Deputy Director

National climate blogger calls Mainers to action

The U.S. must get its act together and pass federal climate legislation if we hope to avert a climate disaster. This was the message from climate scientist and clean energy expert Dr. Joe Romm at an August 18th NRCM event at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. Romm edits the nation's most read climate blog (www.climateprogress.org) and served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy. To hear more from Joe Romme, visit the "NRCM Insider."

The fossil fuel industry has launched a massive disinformation campaign and is bankrolling fraudulent lobbying tactics to block passage of climate and clean energy legislation, according to Romm. He explained that the climate bill passed in the House of Representatives this summer will create a huge number of clean energy jobs, especially through massive funding of energy efficiency programs through revenues from a cap and trade program. Establishing a cap on carbon emissions and investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy will be absolutely critical for reducing carbon emissions.

"Anyone who is paying attention to what we are doing to the climate knows that we'd better do something." Romm encouraged Maine people to contact Senator Olympia Snowe (207) 874-8883 and Senator Susan Collins (207) 780-3575 to urge their support and leadership in passing strong climate and clean energy legislation this year. NRCM is encouraging members and activist to get involved in the nation’s most significant environmental legislation in a generation.

Whether or not you’ve attended an event like this one with Joe Romm, we’d like to hear from you here on our blog about your efforts to take action. Did you make a call to one of the Senators? Or write a letter? What motivated you? Did you get a response?

Dylan Voorhees, NRCM Clean Energy Project Director

NY Times editorial - Judicial Rebukes on Clean Air

Judicial Rebukes on Clean Air - 2/18/2008 New York Times editorial

The federal courts have been a bulwark against the Bush administration’s relentless efforts to weaken 40 years’ worth of environmental law, including statutes protecting the nation’s forests, wetlands and endangered species. The courts have been especially important in resisting the administration’s assault on the 1970 Clean Air Act, which began with Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy report and continues to this day.

In 2006 and 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to follow the law and require utilities to install pollution controls when upgrading power plants. Another Supreme Court decision last year held that the Clean Air Act required the E.P.A. to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, an obligation the agency continues to duck.

This month, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the E.P.A. had once again ignored the law by failing to require deep and timely reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Like most clean air cases, this one was mind-numbingly complex. The gist of it was that the E.P.A. — seeking as usual to please industry — had approved a weak set of regulations that would let many plants off the hook for emissions reductions that would be required under any honest reading of the law.

The D.C. Circuit, by no means a radical group of judges, has become so exasperated that it has taken to quoting Lewis Carroll. In 2006, in a reference to “Through the Looking Glass,” the court said that the E.P.A.’s reading of the law would make sense “only in a Humpty Dumpty world.” This month, invoking “Alice in Wonderland,” the court said the agency’s reasoning recalled “the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting the E.P.A.’s desires for the plain text” of the law.

Desire still burns bright at the E.P.A., which reportedly intends to make one last-ditch effort to weaken the rules requiring new pollution controls on upgraded plants. Our advice to the agency would be to take a dispassionate look at its losing streak in the federal courts and, for once, leave the law alone.