Maine Today
John Richardson
July 12, 2007
AUGUSTA — Native birds and fish could disappear from Maine's
mountains and coastal waters.
Farmers could have longer growing seasons, and more
droughts.
Storms like the Patriot's Day nor'easter could become more
common.
And the western Maine mountains could be the last place in the
Northeastern United States to support a viable downhill ski
industry.
Those are some of the impacts that global warming could have
in Maine, according to a report issued Wednesday by the Union
of Concerned Scientists.
While the changes may dramatically affect the ecology and
economy of the states, according to the report, the most severe
and costly impacts also can be avoided if global emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can be reduced.
"The future is in our hands," said Thomas Tietenberg, an
economics professor at Colby College and one of more than 60
scientists nationwide to contribute to the report. "The
economically prudent decision is to take action now."
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in
Cambridge, Mass., issued the 125-page report on climate
change in the Northeast as a follow-up to more general findings
issued last fall. It includes the most specific projections yet
about how climate change could affect Maine.
Teams of scientists used computer models to project changes
and applied the changes to sectors such as forests, oceans and
recreation. The projections are limited by unpredictable events
and by uncertainty about how complex natural systems such as
the ocean will react to climate changes.
But scientists involved in the work said the research clearly
shows dramatic changes lie ahead if emissions are not reduced.
"Our emissions choices are essentially shaping the climate
future," said Erika Spanger, project manager for the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
Maine's commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Protection, David Littell, said the findings are consistent with the
state's own research into how global warming may affect the
state. "We see a real, dramatic threat to our forests, our coasts
and our fisheries," Littell said.
Maine is expected to see a shift away from its valuable spruce
and fir forests, according to Tietenberg.
And the state's coastal waters are expected to shift in ways not
yet entirely understood, said Lewis Incze, a University of
Southern Maine marine scientist and another co-author of the
report.
Climate can affect the ocean's salinity, chemistry and currents.
But even the simple warming of the ocean is expected to have
important effects.
Cod, which is at the southern end of its range, could be driven
away from Georges Bank and out of the Gulf of Maine, the report
says.
Lobsters, on the other hand, could increase in number in some
parts of the Gulf. Those lobsters, however, could also become
more vulnerable to shell disease and other threats.
Scientists are beginning to study and understand the effects of
climate change on the ocean and on regional resources, Incze
said.
"A report like this sets a benchmark for future research," he said.
"Up until this point, people haven't had a platform to stand on."
Staff Writer John Richardson can be contacted at 791-6324 or
at:
jrichardson@pressherald.com
Friday, July 13, 2007
Wind power project backers boast organizational support
Kennebec Journal
Alan Crowell
July 11, 2007
PORTLAND -- Backers of the Black Nubble wind power project pointed to a diverse array of groups supporting the plan as evidence it deserves to be approved.
At a press conference Tuesday, the Natural Resources Council of Maine released a list of over 20 organizations, including faith-based groups and those that advocate for health issues, that support the Black Nubble wind power project.
The project calls for 18 wind turbines on Black Nubble Mountain in western Maine.
"I think this is a very significant day in the development of wind power in Maine," Pete Didisheim, advocacy director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said Tuesday. Didisheim said the varied group of supporters indicates the project strikes the right balance between preserving special places and increasing renewable energy.
The list includes the Conservation Law Foundation, Maine Center for Economic Policy, American Lung Association of Maine, Maine Council of Churches and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce.
Supporters say that underscores the growing acceptance of wind power as a source of clean energy that can lessen reliance on fossil fuels. Several of the groups cited the threat of climate change as part of their rationale for supporting the project.
Not everybody supports the project, however.
Maine Audubon, one of the state's largest environmental groups, said Tuesday it would oppose the project at Land Use Regulation Commission hearings to be held in September.
Jody Jones, a wildlife ecologist for Maine Audubon, said that while her organization supports wind power on mountains, Black Nubble is simply the wrong site.
"We should not throw up 18 turbines as a symbol toward battling global warming," said Jones.
Maine Audubon was one of many environmental groups that last year opposed the Redington wind power project, which called for erecting 12 turbines on Redington Pond Range and 18 turbines on Black Nubble Mountain.
The Land Use Regulation Commission rejected the Redington project in January by a 6-1 vote.
The environmental impact on sensitive habitat on Redington Pond Range and the scenic impact -- the closest turbine on Redington would have been only a mile from the Appalachian Trail -- were among the most controversial aspects of that project.
Last month, however, the commission agreed to consider an amended project that featured only the 18-turbine Black Nubble project.
The developer, Maine Mountain Power, said that because Black Nubble is less ecologically sensitive and further from the Appalachian Trail, the amended 54-megawatt project would offer most of the benefits of the previous plan while lessening potential environmental effects.
If the Black Nubble project is approved, Maine Mountain Power says it will forever protect the top of Redington from future wind power development.
Pete Didisheim, of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said the proposed $110 million project strikes the right balance.
Redington Pond Range, the last unprotected, undeveloped mountain in the state, would be protected under the plan, he said. Black Nubble, at about 3,500 feet, offers less valuable habitat, he said.
"Black Nubble is no Redington. It is a lower elevation. It is further from the Appalachian Trail and much, much more harvested," said Didisheim. He said most of the proposed turbine locations on Black Nubble have been harvested in the past ten years.
Didisheim said support for the project reflects grassroots support for wind power.
"I believe that Maine people ... understand that global warming is a real threat and our current forms of power generation, including from oil and coal, are causing too much harm," said Didisheim.
Jones, of Maine Audubon, said, however, that the Black Nubble project is not a good plan.
"There is a divide in the environmental community," said Jones.
Jones said that while there is a general desire to site wind power projects in Maine and while her own organization supports wind power -- Maine Audubon endorsed the proposed TransCanada wind power project on Kibby Mountain in Franklin County -- Black Nubble is simply not a good site.
Black Nubble is part of one of Maine's premier mountain regions and features habitat for rare and declining plant and animal communities as well as scenic values, said Jones.
To truck the wind turbines up the mountain and anchor them to the ridge, Maine Mountain Power will essentially have to blast the top off the mountain, forever changing its character and values, she said.
"I think Maine and New England have many better options ... (Black Nubble) is too rare and too special to destroy with a badly sited wind power project," said Jones.
Organizations outside the environmental community focused largely on wind power positives.
Edward Miller, chief executive officer of the American Lung Association of Maine, said concern about the health impacts of burning fossil fuels is behind the group's support of Black Nubble.
"We are looking at the whole fight for healthy air as really the third major campaign in our 100-year history," said Miller. Combating tuberculosis and tobacco use were the first two.
Miller said his organization was one of the few groups, and perhaps the only public health organization, to go on record supporting the Redington wind power project.
Science is finding out more and more about the negative health effects of even low levels of pollution, he said.
"The challenge for us going forward is: How do we develop energy systems and transportation systems that benefit our health?" said Miller.
Andy Burt, director of the environmental justice program of the Maine Council of Churches, said her organization supports Black Nubble because of concerns about climate change.
The council represents mainstream Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Diocese, said Burt.
She said her organization considers climate change one of the greatest moral issues in the world today.
"It really is a moral choice to change how we decide to generate and to use electricity," she said. "I think it is very much in keeping with teachings which are really at the heart of every faith tradition."
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Burt said, the first commandment that was given to Adam and Eve was to take care of the garden.
"We actually are destroying the very systems that sustain life," she said.
Alan Crowell -- 474-9534, Ext. 342
acrowell@centralmaine.com
Alan Crowell
July 11, 2007
PORTLAND -- Backers of the Black Nubble wind power project pointed to a diverse array of groups supporting the plan as evidence it deserves to be approved.
At a press conference Tuesday, the Natural Resources Council of Maine released a list of over 20 organizations, including faith-based groups and those that advocate for health issues, that support the Black Nubble wind power project.
The project calls for 18 wind turbines on Black Nubble Mountain in western Maine.
"I think this is a very significant day in the development of wind power in Maine," Pete Didisheim, advocacy director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said Tuesday. Didisheim said the varied group of supporters indicates the project strikes the right balance between preserving special places and increasing renewable energy.
The list includes the Conservation Law Foundation, Maine Center for Economic Policy, American Lung Association of Maine, Maine Council of Churches and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce.
Supporters say that underscores the growing acceptance of wind power as a source of clean energy that can lessen reliance on fossil fuels. Several of the groups cited the threat of climate change as part of their rationale for supporting the project.
Not everybody supports the project, however.
Maine Audubon, one of the state's largest environmental groups, said Tuesday it would oppose the project at Land Use Regulation Commission hearings to be held in September.
Jody Jones, a wildlife ecologist for Maine Audubon, said that while her organization supports wind power on mountains, Black Nubble is simply the wrong site.
"We should not throw up 18 turbines as a symbol toward battling global warming," said Jones.
Maine Audubon was one of many environmental groups that last year opposed the Redington wind power project, which called for erecting 12 turbines on Redington Pond Range and 18 turbines on Black Nubble Mountain.
The Land Use Regulation Commission rejected the Redington project in January by a 6-1 vote.
The environmental impact on sensitive habitat on Redington Pond Range and the scenic impact -- the closest turbine on Redington would have been only a mile from the Appalachian Trail -- were among the most controversial aspects of that project.
Last month, however, the commission agreed to consider an amended project that featured only the 18-turbine Black Nubble project.
The developer, Maine Mountain Power, said that because Black Nubble is less ecologically sensitive and further from the Appalachian Trail, the amended 54-megawatt project would offer most of the benefits of the previous plan while lessening potential environmental effects.
If the Black Nubble project is approved, Maine Mountain Power says it will forever protect the top of Redington from future wind power development.
Pete Didisheim, of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said the proposed $110 million project strikes the right balance.
Redington Pond Range, the last unprotected, undeveloped mountain in the state, would be protected under the plan, he said. Black Nubble, at about 3,500 feet, offers less valuable habitat, he said.
"Black Nubble is no Redington. It is a lower elevation. It is further from the Appalachian Trail and much, much more harvested," said Didisheim. He said most of the proposed turbine locations on Black Nubble have been harvested in the past ten years.
Didisheim said support for the project reflects grassroots support for wind power.
"I believe that Maine people ... understand that global warming is a real threat and our current forms of power generation, including from oil and coal, are causing too much harm," said Didisheim.
Jones, of Maine Audubon, said, however, that the Black Nubble project is not a good plan.
"There is a divide in the environmental community," said Jones.
Jones said that while there is a general desire to site wind power projects in Maine and while her own organization supports wind power -- Maine Audubon endorsed the proposed TransCanada wind power project on Kibby Mountain in Franklin County -- Black Nubble is simply not a good site.
Black Nubble is part of one of Maine's premier mountain regions and features habitat for rare and declining plant and animal communities as well as scenic values, said Jones.
To truck the wind turbines up the mountain and anchor them to the ridge, Maine Mountain Power will essentially have to blast the top off the mountain, forever changing its character and values, she said.
"I think Maine and New England have many better options ... (Black Nubble) is too rare and too special to destroy with a badly sited wind power project," said Jones.
Organizations outside the environmental community focused largely on wind power positives.
Edward Miller, chief executive officer of the American Lung Association of Maine, said concern about the health impacts of burning fossil fuels is behind the group's support of Black Nubble.
"We are looking at the whole fight for healthy air as really the third major campaign in our 100-year history," said Miller. Combating tuberculosis and tobacco use were the first two.
Miller said his organization was one of the few groups, and perhaps the only public health organization, to go on record supporting the Redington wind power project.
Science is finding out more and more about the negative health effects of even low levels of pollution, he said.
"The challenge for us going forward is: How do we develop energy systems and transportation systems that benefit our health?" said Miller.
Andy Burt, director of the environmental justice program of the Maine Council of Churches, said her organization supports Black Nubble because of concerns about climate change.
The council represents mainstream Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Diocese, said Burt.
She said her organization considers climate change one of the greatest moral issues in the world today.
"It really is a moral choice to change how we decide to generate and to use electricity," she said. "I think it is very much in keeping with teachings which are really at the heart of every faith tradition."
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Burt said, the first commandment that was given to Adam and Eve was to take care of the garden.
"We actually are destroying the very systems that sustain life," she said.
Alan Crowell -- 474-9534, Ext. 342
acrowell@centralmaine.com
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Company revises wind farm proposal
Maine Today
The Associated Press July 11, 2007
A scaled-down version of a proposed wind farm in western
Maine has been filed with the Land Use Regulation Commission
and public hearings are scheduled for September, project
developers said Tuesday.
The latest plan by Maine Mountain Power LLC comes five months
after LURC rejected its earlier proposal to erect a total of 30 wind
turbines on Black Nubble Mountain and Redington Pond Range
near the Sugarloaf USA ski resort.
In the revision, developers removed all 12 turbines from
Redington Pond Range while leaving the 18 turbines on Black
Nubble. The project would generate 54 megawatts of electricity,
enough to power 20,000 homes a year.
Public hearings are tentatively scheduled to be held Sept. 19 to
21, said Jeffrey Thaler, a Portland attorney for Maine Mountain
Power.
LURC could vote on the proposal by the end of the year, Thaler
said. If the project is approved then, construction could begin
next spring and the project could be operational in 2009, he
said.
At a press conference Tuesday, representatives of about 20
conservation, health and other organizations expressed their
support for the project. They said it protects Redington Pond
Range from development while providing clean energy and
reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.
"The revised Nubble Mountain project strikes the right balance,"
said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Not all conservation groups favor the project, however.
Jody Jones of Maine Audubon said her organization agrees that
wind power should be pursued, but that Black Nubble Mountain
is an inappropriate site because of its rare plant and animal
species and scenic vistas.
She said other opponents include the Maine Appalachian Trail
Club, the Appalachian Mountain Club and the National Park
Service.
"If we build it, we will be very sorry," Jones said. "It's a mistake."
The Associated Press July 11, 2007
A scaled-down version of a proposed wind farm in western
Maine has been filed with the Land Use Regulation Commission
and public hearings are scheduled for September, project
developers said Tuesday.
The latest plan by Maine Mountain Power LLC comes five months
after LURC rejected its earlier proposal to erect a total of 30 wind
turbines on Black Nubble Mountain and Redington Pond Range
near the Sugarloaf USA ski resort.
In the revision, developers removed all 12 turbines from
Redington Pond Range while leaving the 18 turbines on Black
Nubble. The project would generate 54 megawatts of electricity,
enough to power 20,000 homes a year.
Public hearings are tentatively scheduled to be held Sept. 19 to
21, said Jeffrey Thaler, a Portland attorney for Maine Mountain
Power.
LURC could vote on the proposal by the end of the year, Thaler
said. If the project is approved then, construction could begin
next spring and the project could be operational in 2009, he
said.
At a press conference Tuesday, representatives of about 20
conservation, health and other organizations expressed their
support for the project. They said it protects Redington Pond
Range from development while providing clean energy and
reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.
"The revised Nubble Mountain project strikes the right balance,"
said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Not all conservation groups favor the project, however.
Jody Jones of Maine Audubon said her organization agrees that
wind power should be pursued, but that Black Nubble Mountain
is an inappropriate site because of its rare plant and animal
species and scenic vistas.
She said other opponents include the Maine Appalachian Trail
Club, the Appalachian Mountain Club and the National Park
Service.
"If we build it, we will be very sorry," Jones said. "It's a mistake."
Friedman: Live Bad, Go Green
NY Times Op-Ed
July 8, 2007
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Over dinner with friends in London the other night, the conversation drifted to global warming and whether anything was really being done to reverse it. One guest, Sameh El-Shahat, a furniture designer, heaped particular scorn on programs that enable people to offset their excessive carbon emissions by funding green projects elsewhere. “Who really checks that it’s being done?” he asked. And how much difference does it really make?
But then he hit on an ingenious idea: If people really want to generate money to plant trees or finance green power, why not have them offset their real sins, not just their carbon excesses? We started to play with his idea: Imagine if you could offset the whole Ten Commandments.
No, really, think about it. Imagine if there were a Web site — I’d call it GreenSinai.com — where every time you thought you had violated one of the Ten Commandments, or you wanted to violate one of them but did not want to feel guilty about it, you could buy carbon credits to offset your sins.
The motto of Britain’s Conservative Party today is “Vote Blue, Go Green.” GreenSinai’s motto could be: “Live Bad, Go Green.” That would generate some income.
Here’s how it would work: One day, you’re out in the backyard mowing the lawn and suddenly you covet your neighbor’s wife. Hey, it happens — that’s why “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” is one of the Ten Commandments. No problem. You just go to GreenSinai.com and buy 100 trees in the Amazon or fund a project to capture methane from cow dung in India — and, presto, you’re free and clear.
Obviously there would be a sliding scale. Taking God’s name in vain or erecting an idol might cost you only a few solar water heaters for a Chinese village, whereas bearing false witness or stealing would set you back a pilot sugar ethanol plant in Louisiana.
As for adultery, well, I think that’s where the big money could be made. My guess is that we could achieve a carbon-neutral world by 2020 if we just set up a system for people to offset their adultery by reversing deforestation of tropical rain forests or funding mega wind and solar power systems in China and India.
O.K., O.K., more seriously, I raise this issue of carbon offsets because they’re symptomatic of the larger problem we face in confronting climate change: everyone wants it to happen, but without pain or sacrifice. On balance, I think carbon-offsetting is a good thing — my family has purchased offsets — if for no other reason than it directs resources toward clean technologies that might not have been funded and, therefore, moves us down the innovation curve faster.
But the danger, argues Michael Sandel, Harvard’s noted political philosopher, “is that carbon offsets will become, at least for some, a painless mechanism to buy our way out of the more fundamental changes in habits, attitudes and way of life that are actually required to address the climate problem.”
“If someone drives a Hummer and buys carbon offsets to salve his conscience, that is better than driving the Hummer and doing nothing,” added Mr. Sandel, author of “The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering.” “But it would be even better to trade in the Hummer for a hybrid. The risk is that carbon offsets will make Hummers seem respectable rather than irresponsible, and distract us, as a nation, from harder, bigger changes in our energy policy.”
People often refer to the current climate buzz as “a green revolution,” but the very term revolution suggests a fundamental break with past habits, attitudes and public policies. Yet, when you suggest a carbon tax or a higher gasoline tax — initiatives that would redirect resources and change habits at the scale actually needed to impact global warming — what is the first thing you hear in Congress? “Impossible — you can’t use the T-word.”
A revolution without sacrifice where everyone is a winner? There’s no such thing.
Katherine Ellison wrote a wonderful piece on this topic for Salon.com in which she quoted Stephen Schneider, the Stanford University climatologist, as saying: “Volunteerism doesn’t work. It’s about as effective as voluntary speed limits. No cops, no judges: road carnage. No rules, no fines: greenhouse gases. We’re going to triple or quadruple the CO2 in the atmosphere with no policy. I don’t believe offsets are just a distraction. But we’ll have failed if that’s all we do.”
There’s a saying at the Pentagon that “a vision without resources is a hallucination.” For my money, the green revolution today is still a hallucination.
July 8, 2007
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Over dinner with friends in London the other night, the conversation drifted to global warming and whether anything was really being done to reverse it. One guest, Sameh El-Shahat, a furniture designer, heaped particular scorn on programs that enable people to offset their excessive carbon emissions by funding green projects elsewhere. “Who really checks that it’s being done?” he asked. And how much difference does it really make?
But then he hit on an ingenious idea: If people really want to generate money to plant trees or finance green power, why not have them offset their real sins, not just their carbon excesses? We started to play with his idea: Imagine if you could offset the whole Ten Commandments.
No, really, think about it. Imagine if there were a Web site — I’d call it GreenSinai.com — where every time you thought you had violated one of the Ten Commandments, or you wanted to violate one of them but did not want to feel guilty about it, you could buy carbon credits to offset your sins.
The motto of Britain’s Conservative Party today is “Vote Blue, Go Green.” GreenSinai’s motto could be: “Live Bad, Go Green.” That would generate some income.
Here’s how it would work: One day, you’re out in the backyard mowing the lawn and suddenly you covet your neighbor’s wife. Hey, it happens — that’s why “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” is one of the Ten Commandments. No problem. You just go to GreenSinai.com and buy 100 trees in the Amazon or fund a project to capture methane from cow dung in India — and, presto, you’re free and clear.
Obviously there would be a sliding scale. Taking God’s name in vain or erecting an idol might cost you only a few solar water heaters for a Chinese village, whereas bearing false witness or stealing would set you back a pilot sugar ethanol plant in Louisiana.
As for adultery, well, I think that’s where the big money could be made. My guess is that we could achieve a carbon-neutral world by 2020 if we just set up a system for people to offset their adultery by reversing deforestation of tropical rain forests or funding mega wind and solar power systems in China and India.
O.K., O.K., more seriously, I raise this issue of carbon offsets because they’re symptomatic of the larger problem we face in confronting climate change: everyone wants it to happen, but without pain or sacrifice. On balance, I think carbon-offsetting is a good thing — my family has purchased offsets — if for no other reason than it directs resources toward clean technologies that might not have been funded and, therefore, moves us down the innovation curve faster.
But the danger, argues Michael Sandel, Harvard’s noted political philosopher, “is that carbon offsets will become, at least for some, a painless mechanism to buy our way out of the more fundamental changes in habits, attitudes and way of life that are actually required to address the climate problem.”
“If someone drives a Hummer and buys carbon offsets to salve his conscience, that is better than driving the Hummer and doing nothing,” added Mr. Sandel, author of “The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering.” “But it would be even better to trade in the Hummer for a hybrid. The risk is that carbon offsets will make Hummers seem respectable rather than irresponsible, and distract us, as a nation, from harder, bigger changes in our energy policy.”
People often refer to the current climate buzz as “a green revolution,” but the very term revolution suggests a fundamental break with past habits, attitudes and public policies. Yet, when you suggest a carbon tax or a higher gasoline tax — initiatives that would redirect resources and change habits at the scale actually needed to impact global warming — what is the first thing you hear in Congress? “Impossible — you can’t use the T-word.”
A revolution without sacrifice where everyone is a winner? There’s no such thing.
Katherine Ellison wrote a wonderful piece on this topic for Salon.com in which she quoted Stephen Schneider, the Stanford University climatologist, as saying: “Volunteerism doesn’t work. It’s about as effective as voluntary speed limits. No cops, no judges: road carnage. No rules, no fines: greenhouse gases. We’re going to triple or quadruple the CO2 in the atmosphere with no policy. I don’t believe offsets are just a distraction. But we’ll have failed if that’s all we do.”
There’s a saying at the Pentagon that “a vision without resources is a hallucination.” For my money, the green revolution today is still a hallucination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
