Victory Party!

Come party with BostonCAN and the Green Justice Coalition on Wednesday, June 19, from 6 to 9pm at Nate Smith House, 115 Lamartine St., Jamaica Plain (Stony Brook station).

Councillor Matt O’Malley will be stopping by to celebrate our victory on BERDO, our Green Justice allies will tell the story of our successful campaign to improve Mass Save, and we’ll raise a toast to Loie’s tenure as Coordinator as she moves from staff to volunteer status. We’ll also be calling on party participants to share their visions of what the next Mayor of Boston might accomplish.

BostonCAN recently rallied support from neighborhood activists for successful passage of the Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO). Designed to reduce climate change impacts while improving affordability and comfort for those living and working in the City’s largest buildings, BERDO requires large property owners to publicly disclose their buildings’ energy usage, letting the market incentivize owners to adopt energy-saving measures.

BostonCAN also played strategic roles in recent Green Justice Coalition energy efficiency equity victories, which will improve access to weatherization services for moderate-income ratepayers, who have historically been underserved by the Commonwealth’s Mass Save program.

With these victories secured, BostonCAN’s Board is turning its immediate attention to setting its goals for this year’s Mayoral campaign and the first year of the new administration.

Please RSVP if possible by calling 857-544-6846, emailing BostonClimateAction<at>gmail.com or on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/events/170194519822427/. Thanks!

Boston 500: Challenge to Save Energy

Tomorrow, June 1, is a big day in Boston. In the midst of a heat advisory with temperatures expected in the 90s, a broad coalition of 40 community organizations and businesses are joining Mayor Menino in the Boston 500: Challenge to Save Energy, a citywide day of action to save energy, save money, and save the planet. Volunteers and organizers at more than 25 events in 12 Boston neighborhoods will aim to sign up 500 Boston residents for no-cost Renew Boston home energy assessments and weatherization.

The first Boston 500 event kicked off at 8am this morning at the administrative offices of the Boston Public Schools. The staff charged with supporting our youngest Bostonians were introduced to energy conservation strategies and became the first Renew Boston sign ups of the Challenge.

At 9am Saturday the Challenge begins with farmers, growers, and neighborhood organizations in Adams Park, who will celebrate the grand opening of the summer’s first Roslindale Farmers Market. GreeningRozzie will be giving out free trees with energy assessment signups and Boston Building Resources will display energy saving and green products for the home.

At 10:30 Boston’s Chief of Energy and Environment, Brian Swett will kick off a press conference outside the Jamaica Plain home of Laura Sylvan. Swett will announce exciting new energy efficiency incentives for Boston duplexes and triple deckers. Sylvan, the owner of a triple-decker, is hosting an “Energy Open House” from 10-12pm to invite neighbors to kick the tires on her new  Total Climate Control heating and cooling system and insulation installed by Renew Boston provider Next Step Living. Her’s is one of four “Energy Open House” events hosted by past Renew Boston customers on the day.

Volunteers and Renew Boston partners will fan out to a 5K “Let’s Get Movin” walk/run in East Boston, a Family Fun Day in Southie, a Family Rowing Day in Brighton, a haircuts and energy savings event at Biz Barbershop in Mattapan, and scores of diverse activities from Hyde Park to Chinatown. BostonCAN volunteers will gather sign-ups at Egleston Farmer’s Market, at Daisy Field, and at JP Licks. Drummers from 350MA will join us at JP Licks from 2 to 4pm.

Throughout the day volunteers at each event will tally up their Renew Boston sign ups, hold up a Boston 500 checkered flag with their number on it, and snap a photo. A speedometer will be updated hour by hour onRenewBoston.org/Boston500 as the coalition drives toward 500.

Next Step Living estimates that, with a typical rate of conversion from sign up to energy assessment and weatherization, reaching 500 Renew Boston sign ups could eliminate the carbon pollution equivalent to taking 46 cars off the road for a full year and save residents over $50,000 on annual energy bill in addition to reducing noxious emissions that cause respiratory diseases and creating new green jobs.

~Guest blog by Josh Lynch

We support the Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure Ordinance!

Boston’s City Councilors will have a rare opportunity to support climate action policy on Wednesday, May 8. The proposed Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO) would require owners of large buildings (over 25,000 square feet) to collect and publicly report their buildings’ total energy and water usage each year. Those with the most inefficient buildings would be required to get an energy audit or to undertake energy efficiency upgrades. This would provide key information to owners, residents, prospective buyers and tenants, and spur energy efficiency work. Increasing energy efficiency in existing buildings is the single most important component of the City’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By passing this Ordinance, Boston would join the ranks of New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Seattle, San Francisco, and other major U.S. cities that have enacted similar ordinances.

Please contact your City Councilors before noon on May 8, and urge them to support the proposed ordinance. The following letter to the editor summarizes our argument.

To the Editor:

Boston Climate Action Network strongly supports the proposed City ordinance to make public the energy efficiency rating of large buildings (BERDO) as a key tool for a more financially and environmentally sustainable Boston. For residential properties the required audits are free, and even for nonresidential buildings, this benchmarking process is projected to add only two-tenths of one percent to the cost per square foot, according to Laurie Kerr, former NYC Deputy Director for Energy Efficiency, who led that city’s benchmarking program. And the audits can easily pay for themselves in energy savings that actually reduce costs.

BostonCAN is part of a working group composed of BERDO proponents and opponents working to address concerns raised by both sides. We strongly support such equity goals as protecting low-income tenants from noncompliance fines, as well as measures to protect tenant privacy. What we will not compromise on is BERDO’s goals for reducing pollution and mitigating climate change.

We wonder if some real estate owners oppose BERDO because it offers prospective tenants access to energy ratings. Building energy efficiency benchmarks, just like miles-per-gallon stickers on new cars, allow the public to vote with their dollars for the most environmentally and financially sustainable property they can find. Benchmarking allows tenants and buyers to budget effectively based on independently verified energy cost projections.

BERDO can be good for those building owners who do not realize that their buildings have fallen behind the market average in energy efficiency. Many owners and managers of large properties are already saving through benchmarking, and City officials are working with the utility companies to completely automate the process of gathering data so that it becomes virtually effortless for tenants and owners.

According to Mark Sylvia, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, the Commonwealth’s energy efficiency program is “projected to generate $6 billion in benefits over the lifetime of the energy efficiency improvements installed in homes and businesses, from planned spending of $2.1 billion. The plans are also expected to create or retain nearly 4,000 jobs in Massachusetts.” In addition to these skilled, export-proof jobs, lower energy bills also mean that fewer dollars will leave the region to line the pockets of petro-profiteers, and more capital will remain here, available for workforce expansion and other community investments.

In addition to these economic benefits, this ordinance is essential in this era of increasing climate instability. As we saw by our near-miss with Superstorm Sandy, great swaths of Boston are vulnerable to more intense storm surges. Flooding, heat waves, blizzards—all these are expected to increase due to the warming that we can no longer prevent.  Energy conservation today directly lessens the degree of climate change risk that we face. This degree is the difference between conditions Boston can adapt to, and conditions that might overwhelm our ability to leave our children a Boston that looks anything like what we live in today.

A Report on the Report: Keystone XL Is NOT in the National Interest

by Beth Newhall

On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. The final EIS is one of the pieces the president will consider in determining whether the pipeline is in the national interest. To quote the executive summary of the statement, the national interest determination “involves consideration of many factors, including energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations.” (page 6).

Fortunately, the EIS is not the only thing that the president will consider in making the determination. Until April 22, the State Department is accepting public comments on the pipeline, and you can submit yours through 350MA and 350.org. The State Department’s draft EIS discounts the degree to which Keystone XL would contribute to further development of the Alberta tar sands. In addition, it largely dismisses the effects of the greenhouse gas emissions produced through the burning of tar sands. Yet despite these inadequacies, a closer reading of the EIS reveals compelling evidence that the pipeline is not in our national interest.

Energy Security

Proponents of the pipeline like to argue that because tar sands oil comes from our friendly Canadian neighbors, it will furnish the United States with a stable source of fossil fuel. This is a gross distortion—the United States would assume all the risk of having the tar sands oil course through the heart of our country, with little guaranteed security at the other end. Keystone XL would carry tar sands oil to refineries in the Texas Gulf Coast region. But as the EIS notes, from the refineries, the oil would be subject to the vagaries of the world market. TransCanada executives will make sure it’s sold to the highest bidder, and according to the EIS, that is less and less likely to be the United States: “While the increase in U.S. production of crude oil and the reduced U.S. demand for transportation fuels will likely reduce the demand for total U.S. crude oil imports, it is unlikely to reduce demand for heavy sour crude at Gulf Coast refineries” (section 1.4, page 1). This means that as demand for fuel from the United States decreases, demand from other countries is keeping the refineries busy.

Section 1.4 of the EIS also notes that although it is unlikely that tar sands oil would be shipped from the Gulf Coast for refining outside of the United States, the only thing preventing that possibility is the lower cost of refining in the Gulf Coast region. Should market conditions change, TransCanada would be free to ship the unrefined tar sands oil overseas, making the United States nothing more than a bridge from one point to another—a bridge bearing all the risks of pipeline leaks and spills.

Environmental Impacts

One of the most flagrant flaws in the State Department’s EIS is the report’s refusal to consider the impacts of the greenhouse gases that would be generated during the operation of the pipeline and from the burning of the tar sands as refined fossil fuels. Well, that’s not quite accurate. The EIS notes that operating the pipeline would generate approximately 3.19 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, mostly from running the electrical pumping stations along the pipeline route: “The annual CO2e emissions from [operating] the proposed Project is equivalent to CO2e emissions from approximately 626,000 passenger vehicles operating for one year or 398,000 homes using electricity for one year” (executive summary, page 17). To mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the operation of the pipeline, the EIS suggests that operators “Consider the purchase of green electricity from the grid” (section 4.12, page 20). Apparently, the EIS authors are oblivious to the irony of suggesting that we use green electricity to support the further development of fossil fuels.

The executive summary notes that the oils from tar sands “are more [greenhouse gas]-intensive than the other heavy crudes they would replace or displace in U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17 percent more [greenhouse gases] on a life-cycle basis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in the United States in 2005” (page 17). Scientist and climate activist James Hansen is more explicit in his evaluation of the development of the tar sands—he has said that development of the tar sands is “essentially game over” for the climate. The EIS dismisses such concerns because it concludes that tar sands will be developed regardless of whether Keystone XL is approved. But as the actions of climate activists around the world and here in the United States have shown, opposition to our continued dependence on fossil fuels is growing. If we can stop the Keystone XL pipeline, who’s to say we can’t stop (or delay or limit) the development of Canada’s tar sands?

Cultural Impacts

When it comes to iconic American images, few are etched on our national memory as profoundly as the sweep of prairie and ranchers moving their herds across the land. But the pipeline will cut through the heart of cattle country in Nebraska and Montana, and many ranchers are fearful of the consequences.

In an article on the site of Drovers Cattle Network, cattle buyer Randy Thompson, founder of the group Stand with Randy, gives voice to such concerns:

I am a Nebraska cattleman and landowner. I am fighting against the [Keystone XL] pipeline for two very basic reasons.   First of all, I feel very strongly that this pipeline represents an assault on the individual property rights of American citizens. There is something inherently wrong about the idea of American landowners being forced to subsidize the private enterprise of a foreign corporation with land that their families have earned through generations of hard work and determination. Secondly, I feel that the [Keystone XL pipeline] presents a real threat to some of our nation’s most valuable natural resources, especially our rivers, streams and underground aquifers. These are priceless American assets that no amount of oil money, foreign or otherwise, could ever replace.

And ranchers are not the only ones whose land could be seized for the construction of the pipeline. Native American peoples, gathered largely under the banner of Canadian-American coalition Idle No More, are likewise protesting Keystone XL—for its encroachment on their lands as well as the broader environmental consequences of moving forward with the pipeline.

Economic Impacts

Pipeline developers would like to convince Americans that Keystone XL holds the key to jobs and prosperity, but the truth is that the money will flow in only one direction—to the executives at TransCanada.

According to pages 15 and 16 of the executive summary, construction of the pipeline will generate approximately 42,100 annual jobs for one to two years (3900 jobs directly related to construction). This employment would result in approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. States that levy sales and use taxes could collect about $65 million each during construction. After that point, the operation of the pipeline would generate 35 permanent jobs and 15 temporary jobs.

Although $2.05 billion might seem promising, consider that in 2011, oil companies made a profit of $80 billion. In addition, fossil fuel companies manage to net billions of dollars in tax subsidies each year. And consider that the state of Nebraska had approximately $4.2 billion in tax revenue in 2012. That $65 million suddenly seems pretty paltry.

But of course, the worst exaggeration relates to the jobs. After the pipeline is complete, 50 jobs (15 of them still considered “temporary”) will remain. One could argue that long-term indirect employment from the pipeline would be greater—refineries, for example, might have to hire more workers to increase capacity—but those numbers will surely not be enough to nudge down the country’s overall unemployment rate. March was a slow month for job growth, and the U.S. economy still managed to add 88,000 jobs. TransCanada and pipeline supporters argue that Keystone XL holds the promise of jobs and revenue, but it is a false promise, belied by the details of the State Department’s own report.

Foreign Policy Impacts

In addition to misrepresenting Keystone XL as the key to a stable and secure source of energy for the United States, TransCanada and the Canadian government have presented the development of the tar sands as an unmitigated boon to the economy of Canada, and one that has the widespread support of Canadian citizens. But in reality, many Canadians share the same worries and doubts about tar sands developments as we do.

According to Thomas Homer-Dixon’s New York Times opinion piece, “A poll by Nanos Research in February 2012 found that nearly 42 percent of Canadians were opposed [to tar sands development].” In Alberta, Canadians are seeing their forests destroyed and replaced by tailing ponds that contain the toxic water that is a by-product of tar sands production. Canadians are also witnessing the corrosive mix of politics and fossil fuel interests. Homer-Dixon argues that many of the decisions relating to tar sands development are being made by those who most directly stand to benefit from them, even though they have nothing like a mandate from Canadian citizens: “The current Conservative government holds a large majority of seats in Parliament but was elected in 2011 with only 40 percent of the vote, because three other parties split the center and left vote. The Conservative base is Alberta, the province from which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and many of his allies hail. As a result, Alberta has extraordinary clout in federal politics, and tar sands influence reaches deep into the federal cabinet.”

Proponents of Keystone XL want Americans to believe that rejection of the pipeline would jeopardize our relationship with Canada. But again, closer inspection of the facts shows that Canadians themselves are questioning the wisdom of tar sands developments. The only friendly relationship we’d be sure to preserve by going ahead with Keystone XL is our relationship with TransCanada.

Compliance with Federal Regulation

The EIS itself fulfills the requirements for evaluation put forth by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, as first reported in Mother Jones, several scientists working for Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the contractor commissioned to draft much of the EIS, have previous ties to TransCanada and other oil companies. When federal regulations allow for such conflicts of interest—conflicts that did not have to be revealed on ERM’s conflicts of interest disclosure—the relevance and effectiveness of regulations such as NEPA seems questionable.

Furthermore, as incidents with existing pipelines have shown, federal regulations are largely ineffective when it comes to preventing leaks and spills or lessening their effects. Spills in Arkansas and Utah are only the most recent. Scientific American asserts that there are hundreds of small leaks in oil pipelines each year. And even new pipelines can leak. Keystone I, a piece of the Keystone Pipeline System that is already built and in use, has suffered 14 leaks since 2010. As thousands of gallons of crude oil ooze down suburban streets, it’s difficult to imagine that federal regulations, or fines for failures after the fact, could ever be adequate to the task of protecting our aquifers, rivers, lakes, land, and property.

 

Until April 22, 2013, the State Department will be accepting public comments on the draft EIS and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Please take a few minutes to submit your comments through 350MA or  350.org. You can also email the State Department directly at keystonecomments@state.gov or call Genevieve Walker at 202-647-9798. Tell the State Department and the President that there is no way Keystone XL is in our national interest. If we let tar sands oil come to market through the United States, we have everything to lose—and only TransCanada gains.

Spring is Here: Raise Your Voice!

What’s better than writing a letter to your congressman about climate change? Writing your letter with friends and sending a whole bunch of letters in conjunction with people all over the nation! That’s what Greening Rozzy (GR) board member Karen Kirchoff did on a snowy February afternoon when she held a letter writing party at the Select Cafe in Roslindale Square. Karen gathered members of GR, BostonCAN, and Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and, after a quick briefing on Carbon Tax bills, nine of us got down to writing three letters each. In two hours time we had 27 hand-written letters to Elizabeth Warren, Barak Obama, and various House members.

To put on your own letter writing party all you need is stationery supplies, around ten people, and a place conducive to writing — like a cafe or someone’s house. It could even be an excuse for a picnic in the Arboretum. Citizens Climate Lobby has sponsored hundreds of letter writing parties around the country as part of their “Million Letter March” campaign to generate a million citizen letters calling for meaningful climate legislation. If you want to put on your own letter writing party, BostonCAN will publicize it through their mailing lists and CCL-Boston will send a speaker, educational materials, and the latest information on climate legislation — just to get folks in the letter-writing mood. Letter writing parties are a quick and fun way to participate in climate politics and original, hand-written letters have much greater impact than a larger number of internet-generated emails. Getting a few hundred letters is a concrete way to show our elected officials that their constituents want them to take real action to stop climate change.

To have CCL-Boston and BostonCAN co-sponsor your letter writing party, email Gary Rucizinsky  and cc: BostonCAN.

– Jack Thorndike

Putting Teeth into the President’s Promise

“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.”

—President Barack Obama, January 21, 2013

Gina McCarthy

Throughout the presidential campaign, many of us waited anxiously to hear about climate change from either major candidate. Many of us joined actions urging them to speak out, but the silence was deafening. Then came Superstorm Sandy—a storm that amplified our protests with the voices of the raging wind and tumultuous sea. And whether as a result of Sandy or from a new sense of power and obligation, President Obama finally was moved to speak about climate change during the inauguration and the State of the Union. Surprised and encouraged by his words, climate safety activists are looking forward to what Obama’s second term will bring.

We will soon see an early indication of the President’s commitment when he announces his replacements for outgoing Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Lisa Jackson. The rumor that Bostonian Gina McCarthy is a potential nominee for the EPA is exciting to all who have heard her speak or worked with her on the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and other climate-positive policies. Many take heart in the appointments of John Kerry to the State Department and Sally Jewell to Interior.

February 13 Tar Sands civil disobedience participants including
BC professor Juliet Schor (right).

The President’s decision on whether or not to permit the Keystone the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be another early indicator of the chances for significant action on climate this term.  Boston College professor Juliet Schor joined 47 other national leaders in a sit-in at the White House on Feb. 13 designed to build momentum for the President to reject the pipeline’s permit application. About her actions, Schor says, “I was willing to risk arrest because decades of scientific evidence, argument, and information have failed to move U.S. elites to protect the planet and the future of humanity. It is clear that we need to take on the fossil-fuel industry, which is acting in a stunningly dangerous and amoral way. History shows us that major social change often requires civil disobedience. I consider this a generational obligation.” Many more Boston area activists will travel to Washington, DC, for the Forward on Climate demonstration on February 17. Organizers are hoping that upwards of 20,000 people will gather at the Washington Monument to call for rejection of the pipeline permit.

Communities hit by Superstorm Sandy are likewise feeling the urgency of climate change. Boston dodged the climate bullet on October 29 when Sandy’s storm surge hit at low tide rather than high tide. A new study at Boston Harbor Association finds that had the storm hit five hours earlier, it is likely that seven percent of the city would have been flooded. By the end of this century, almost a third of the city will be vulnerable to flooding due to higher sea levels resulting from global climate change.

People in city government and in Boston’s real-estate community are getting serious about the rising seas and about the need to adapt to a warmer climate more generally. State government as well is planning new ways to protect the Commonwealth from climate threats. One pragmatic action that’s currently being debated at the State House is a major change in funding for transportation projects, including improvements to mass transit that would greatly reduce greenhouse gas production related to vehicle travel. Success at the State House is now much more likely given Governor Patrick’s high-profile advocacy and a strategic alliance between metro Boston residents who depend on the MBTA and other Massachusetts residents who depend on regional transit authorities. Public Transit — Public Good, a campaign by the Green Justice Coalition, aims to expand funding for public transit throughout the state.

Unfortunately, sea-level rise is just one climate impact already hitting Boston. Extreme heat, and the poor air quality that comes with hotter days, is already the number one climate impact in our region. Expanded funding for mass transit is essential to cleaner air and cooler summers. Boston residents also need expanded access to state energy-efficiency programs to cope with more high-heat days. The Department of Public Utilities recently approved plans for the Commonwealth’s energy-efficiency program, MassSave, for the next three years. The plans include some exciting new initiatives, such as “Efficient Neighborhoods +.” The details are still being outlined, but in essence, this initiative is likely to improve access for low-to-moderate income families who have been paying into MassSave for years but have not yet been able to afford the 25 percent co-pay for the insulation and other services that the program subsidizes.

Whether you decide to head to Washington, DC, to take action on a national level or seek to participate in regional climate action closer to home, there are many ways you can get involved. President Obama’s words were stirring. We, the people, have an obligation to make good on their promise.

Link up with other BostonCAN volunteers at the Local Environmental Action conference on Sunday, March 10^th.

Protestors Brave Cold to Rally against Tars Sands Pipeline in New England

Even in winter, Portland, Maine, bustles with tourists and residents enjoying the city’s artsy shops and eclectic restaurants. But on Saturday, January 26th, the streets of Portland were full for a different reason. Between 1400 and 1500 people, myself included, marched through downtown to the Maine State Pier to protest a pipeline that would bring tar sands from Canada through New England.

The pipeline already exists and currently carries conventional crude oil from Portland to Montreal. According to the Natural Resource Council of Maine, the Sierra Club of Maine, and EcoWatch, plans are in the works to reverse the flow, sending unrefined tar sands (aka, oil sands and diluted bitumen) from Canada through Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine for export.

Media coverage of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline has raised awareness about the dangers of tar sands, so the environmental risks are familiar to many. The Natural Resources Defense Council has reported that tar sands are highly corrosive and that existing tar sands pipelines are extremely prone to leaks. The process of extracting tar sands is destructive and creates huge amounts of toxic waste. A recent study indicates that carcinogens have increased in lakes near the sites of tar sands extraction. Perhaps most significantly, use of oil from tar sands perpetuates dependence on fossil fuels that release carbon into the atmosphere, worsening global warming.

But those of us marching, chanting, and carrying signs and banners were not in Portland just to raise awareness of the dangers of tar sands. We were there to shine a spotlight on plans that have, until now, gone largely unnoticed. The companies operating the existing pipeline seem to have local roots, but they are backed by the power players of the fossil fuel industry. ExxonMobil has major interests in Portland Pipe Line Corp., which operates the stretch of pipeline in the United States, and Montreal Pipe Line Limited, which owns the Canadian stretch. Enbridge Incorporated in Canada owns other pipelines that would connect Canadian tars sands from the west to the northeast pipeline. And although the companies associated with the pipelines claim that they have no plans to reverse the Portland-Montreal pipeline, actions such as Enbridge’s application for a permit to reverse the flow of a pipeline in Ontario (so that it would flow west to east) undermine the denials.

Speakers at the rally, including Portland mayor Michael Brennan and Democratic US representative Chellie Pingree, talked about the need for heightened awareness of the oil companies’ maneuvering. Representative Pingree stated her intention of making a presidential review a necessary part of any proposed reversal of the current pipeline. Graduate student Ben Thompson, one of the “Westborough 8” recently arrested during a peaceful protest at a TransCanada office in Massachusetts, delivered a moving call to action linking climate change to food shortages and the struggles future generations will face on a warmer planet. As singers and dancers from the Native American environmental group Idle No More closed the rally by bringing protesters together in a circle dance, a ferry departed the Casco Bay terminal, displaying a banner that read “No tar sands in Casco Bay.”

At this point, it’s impossible to know whether the protest has had any impact on plans for pipeline reversal. But the marchers and speakers from across Maine and New England can rest assured that we succeeded in bringing attention to the issue. The protest was covered by the Associated Press, and the story ran on the sites of national news outlets, including the Huffington Post and San Francisco Chronicle. And as for the passersby who happened to be out and about enjoying Portland’s amenities? They smiled and took photos. The windows of one downtown hotel were lined with people waving and cheering us on.

The fight against the fossil fuel companies has only begun. The major corporations that have vested interests in coal, oil, and natural gas will make every argument and spend every dollar required to prevent a transition to renewable, sustainable energy. But if the United States’ proud tradition of activism has taught us anything, it’s that if enough of us march, chant, and carry signs, we can meet the challenge.

If you would like to learn more about the proposed pipeline reversal or get involved in making sure that tar sands stay out of New England, visit the website of Tar Sands Free Northeast or 350 Massachusetts. If you are ready to take action to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline, consider being part of Forward on Climate, potentially the largest climate change rally in history, in Washington, DC, on Sunday, February 17th. You can get more information at http://350ma.org/ or at http://act.350.org/signup/presidentsday.

by Beth Newhall

More photos on 350MA’s photo stream