JACKMAN, Maine — The town of Jackman has joined a growing number of places and organizations that oppose the proposed Central Maine Power transmission line. But public pressure may not be the biggest problem CMP is facing.
The transmission line, known as the "New England Clean Energy Connect," would carry hydropower generated in Quebec to Massachusetts, through Western Maine. Dylan Voorhees, climate and clean energy director with the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said Jackman's vote against the power line symbolized a larger movement.
"This isn't just about one town, or another town. It's really about impacts on a broad region,” Voorhees said. “This is an unfragmented piece of forestland, all across Somerset County and Franklin counties."
Backers of the project see hydropower as renewable energy, and say it would bring lower electricity bills to Massachusetts, and more jobs and property-tax revenue to Western Maine. The Natural Resources Council of Maine has argued it would affect more than 50 miles of forestland and divert power from one market to another, rather than create more renewable energy.
Even as an increasing number of Mainers question its environmental impact and economic benefits, the next hurdles for the CMP project are at the state level. First, there's the Public Utilities Commission. Voorhees said there have been public hearings, but no vote yet.
"There isn't a specific date for them to vote, but the current schedule has all of the process wrapping up so that they could vote in the first half of March,” he said.
That date, however, has been delayed several times.
Also, Voorhees explained the project has to get state environmental approval.
"The Department of Environmental Protection also needs to decide whether or not to give this project a permit,” Voorhees said. “And there's been a lot of process so far, but much of it has not actually even started yet."
The Department of Environmental Protection has had no public hearings yet, and the Land Use Planning Commission would also have to approve the CMP transmission line. A similar proposal failed to pass in New Hampshire earlier this year.
get more stories like this via email
A new report contends fossil fuel funding has biased Columbia University's climate research. The report, by two Columbia students, shows the university has taken in close to $48 million in donations from the fossil fuel industry since 2005. Around $16 million went to fund Columbia's Center on Global Energy Policy.
Leel Dias, an environmental science major and report co-author, is convinced this funding has slanted the center's research. He cited a 2014 paper about the impacts of the U.S. ending its then-ban on exporting crude oil.
"A CEO of a natural gas company is listed as a contributor on this report. His name is Charif Souki; no disclaimers, no disclosures. All these reports by CGEP, I think the vast majority of them are not peer-reviewed, so there's no check. They're just published on the CGEP website," Dias said.
He added this study was a key factor when Congress ended the country's crude oil export ban in 2015. But Columbia isn't alone in this. Fossil fuel companies sponsor climate research at other schools, from Princeton and Stanford to George Washington University. Other findings show some advisory board members for Columbia research centers are also on the boards of fossil fuel companies. Columbia University officials couldn't be reached for comment.
The research includes memos from fossil fuel companies suggesting Columbia University has been complicit in 'greenwashing' them.
Anika Kathuria, a computer science major and report co-author, said another conclusion is that Jason Bordoff, the Center for Global Energy Policy's founding director, might be swaying the center's research agenda.
"He has basically been talked about by numerous companies as this kind of 'corporate counselor' figure, where they will go to him to decide - to make decisions, decide what research paths they're going to go on. And it doesn't really make sense why the head of a center of research would be counseling corporate interests," Kathuria said.
The authors added that one goal of the report is to aid the newly formed student and faculty committee in examining fossil fuel research funding. The committee is slated to release a final report next fall, with guidelines for the university about this type of research funding.
get more stories like this via email
In Virginia's waters, the decline of a small but critically important fish is causing growing concern among conservation groups and fishermen alike.
Menhaden, often referred to as the "most important fish in the sea," are vital to the diets of predatory species like striped bass and osprey. Now, experts warn the decreasing menhaden population in the Chesapeake Bay could disrupt the ecosystem and threaten the sportfishing industry.
Steve Atkinson, chairman of the Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association, explained the ripple effect of the menhaden shortage on other species.
"The decline of menhaden in the bay is impacting the most important fishery that we have, which is striped bass," Atkinson pointed out. "That fishery has been in decline for over a decade now. Striped bass are overfished but we also believe they are underfed, because they rely heavily on menhaden."
The Chesapeake Bay is a primary spawning ground for menhaden and decades of overfishing have taken a toll on the species. The shortage is not only affecting sportfish. Research at the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William & Mary shows ospreys, which rely on menhaden to feed their chicks, have seen a dramatic reduction in nesting success.
Conservation groups said the problem stems from the current management of menhaden fishing. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has implemented catch limits but some experts believe they do not fully address the localized effects on ecosystems.
Jaclyn Higgins, forage fish program manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said more needs to be done.
"A huge amount of menhaden that are being taken out of arguably the most important estuary in the United States, by the third-largest fishery in the United States, and we have no idea what those impacts are to the greater ecosystem," Higgins emphasized.
Higgins noted about 75% of the Atlantic coastwide quota for menhaden is allocated to Virginia. She believes the management framework is robust but needs to be more region-specific.
Last month, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted to establish a workgroup to consider additional protections from industrial fishing of menhaden in the bay. These could include seasonal closures, to protect important fish and bird species.
Disclosure: The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species and Wildlife, Environment, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A Knoxville-based environmental group is raising awareness about increasing U.S. nuclear weapons spending and supporting this week's global effort to ban nuclear arms.
The event, organized by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, is focused on nine countries, including the U.S., spending more than $90 billion annually on nuclear weapons, the equivalent of more than $173,000 per minute.
Tanvi Kardile, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said the campaign backs the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. She stressed this week's campaign, called "No Money for Nuclear Weapons," is a rallying cry worldwide.
"To talk about how much money is being spent on nuclear weapons and how disproportionate it is compared to other facets of society that maybe we aren't putting as much money into," Kardile contended. "Such as health care, education, combating climate change, etc.; things that could actually benefit us as a society."
Besides the tax implications, Kardile pointed out her group is concerned with the ongoing risks closer to home, tied to enriching uranium and other activities at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge.
Kardile argued addressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons is crucial because in recent years, some global leaders have made threats about using them, amid growing international tensions and discord. She added the production and use of nuclear weapons are environmental hazards.
"I'd say the biggest risk comes from groundwater, and recreational water as well," Kardile emphasized. "Production causes radioactive materials to seep into the waterways, so it's really detrimental to the water we're drinking, the water we're using recreationally."
This month, Gov. Bill Lee announced a nuclear power and renewable energy company based in France is building a uranium enrichment plant in Oak Ridge. The multibillion-dollar centrifuge uranium facility is 750,000 square feet and is expected to employee 300 workers.
Disclosure: The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance contributes to our fund for reporting on Environment, Nuclear Waste, Peace, and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email