Late last week, a number of members contacted me about the candidates for Selectmen and their positions on energy efficiency in town.  I came up with a list of questions and emailed Jon Speers, Mary Andrews and Ray McMahon.  (Ron Nowell doesn’t have an email address apparently).

Jon Speers was the only . . . → Read More: Selectmen candidate’s positions on energy efficiency]]> Greetings Everyone,

Late last week, a number of members contacted me about the candidates for Selectmen and their positions on energy efficiency in town.  I came up with a list of questions and emailed Jon Speers, Mary Andrews and Ray McMahon.  (Ron Nowell doesn’t have an email address apparently).

Jon Speers was the only candidate who responded.  To be fair, the others didn’t have much time – and perhaps would have responded had I posed the questions earlier.

Regardless, Jon’s answers are below.  While we typically don’t officially endorse candidates, I can say that based on his answers, Jon seems to have a good grasp on the importance of energy efficiency.

Also, don’t forget to vote “yes” on item #43 on Saturday!!!

Best,
Eric

1.  Do you support the continued investment of town resources in improving the energy efficiency of town buildings?

Yes.  Every dollar we invest in energy-efficiency improvements will save energy costs and tax dollars down the road.

2.  In particular the $100,000 spending item on this year’s referendum?

Absolutely.  Article 43 speaks to spending up to $100,000 in the coming year to implement alternative energy solutions, based upon an audit of Town buildings regarding proposed energy savings.  My understanding was that the money was to be invested in improvements in: Town Hall, York Village Fire Station, York Beach Fire Station, the Grant House, and the Police Station/Senior Center.

3. In what way do you think smart energy policy could affect the town in a positive way?

First of all, our tax dollars are precious and making energy-smart investments will save all taxpayers from wasting money later on expenses that could have been avoided.  Secondly, it will hopefully cause every taxpayer to consider options pertinent to their own lives – be it buying energy-efficient cars, winterizing their homes, installing solar hot water tubes, photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, etc.

4.  How do you see the future role of the town Energy Efficiency Steering Committee?

I see the Committee serving an educational role, as well as continuing to recommend energy-saving measures for Town buildings.  I’d like to see the school buildings added to the list.

5.  Are there any ways you believe the town should prudently plan for the effects of climate change?

As a coastal community, we should consider zoning ordinance amendments that further restrict construction within the Shoreland Zone.  For that matter, the definition of the Shoreland Zone and property included within it is likely to change as sea levels rise over the decades – something I consider highly likely, though it will take a long time to occur.  Related to that issue is the ever-present economic trade-off of expanding our sewage treatment facilities and getting more of the population off septic tanks, especially with regard to properties close to waster bodies.  This will be difficult because the infrastructure expansion will be very expensive and there will be resistance from property owners who will balk at the cost of connecting with the Sewer District.  I also worry about the effects of sea level rise and coastal erosion on the property owners along Long Sands Beach and whether our building codes should be amended for structures in that zone.

6.  Would you consider supporting the implementation of renewable energy on school buildings?

Assuming you’re talking about the installation of photovoltaic panels, the question will probably become much easier to answer as time passes.  I say this because the cost of these panels will continue to drop as more factories are built to produce them and more consumers purchase the product.  The issue now is primarily about the “payback period” – how many years it will take to simply cover the costs of product installation?  If it takes 20 years just to recoup the cost of installation, the concept is more difficult to rationalize.  If costs drop so that the payback is more like 7-10 years, the investment is much more easily justified.

Hansen explains how if we exploited the vast carbon stores contained in the tar sands and other deposits, “Sea levels would . . . → Read More: Game Over for the Climate?]]> James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and author of Storms of My Grandchildren, makes an empassioned plea to say “No” to the Keystone XL pipeline and the Canadian tar sands.

Hansen explains how if we exploited the vast carbon stores contained in the tar sands and other deposits, “Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.”

But even in the much shorter term, Hansen sees unacceptable risks.

Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

The science behind predictions of climate change is well-established, as are its causes.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

But Hansen offers a strategy that could help us avoid the worst of what global warming would bring.

We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price.

But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world’s governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, longwall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling.

Hansen calls for real leadership from our politicians.

The science of the situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and business. Every major national science academy in the world has reported that global warming is real, caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The cost of acting goes far higher the longer we wait — we can’t wait any longer to avoid the worst and be judged immoral by coming generations.

Read the rest of the article.

Among the projects that would benefit from the LMF bond is a conservation initiative known as “Mount A2Sea,” short for Mount Agamenticus to the Sea. The aim of the program is to protect a network of connected natural resources within a 48,000 acre area . . . → Read More: Mount Agamenticus to the Sea initiative would benefit from LMF bond]]> From a MPBN.net news story broadcast on May 14, 2012:

Among the projects that would benefit from the LMF bond is a conservation initiative known as “Mount A2Sea,” short for Mount Agamenticus to the Sea. The aim of the program is to protect a network of connected natural resources within a 48,000 acre area of York county in southern Maine. The ‘MountA2C’ initiative currently controls 13,000 acres of the focus area. The aim is to have a further 6,000 acres under protection by 2032. State bond money is a crucial element of the initiative, and supporters say that without it, landowners who take part in the initiative will be under increasing pressure to sell to developers.

Doreen MacGillis is executive director of the York Land Trust – one of the partners in the coalition that runs the ‘Mount Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Intiative: known as “MtA2C.” She said the iniative was started in 2002 when ten partner organizations came together to define what she calls the ‘important conservation values’ within this 48,000 acre area.

“Our goal is really to protect a mosaic of connected conservation lands,” MacGillis said.

An area, said MacGillis that incudes important wildlife habitat, scenic views, drinking water supplies and recreational trails. It’s also greatest area of unfragmented coastal forest between Acadia national park and the New Jersey pine barrens.

Read the rest of the story or listen to a recording of the broadcast.

Learn more at the MtA2C page on the York Land Trust site.

Do you suspect that your home would be more economical and comfortable if you spent some money on weatherization improvements or more efficient . . . → Read More: Free Home Energy Efficiency Workshop in York on Tuesday, May 15]]> On Tuesday, May 15, an informational workshop sponsored by York Adult Ed and the York Energy Efficiency Committee will be held at York High School. Here is the course description:

Do you suspect that your home would be more economical and comfortable if you spent some money on weatherization improvements or more efficient electrical and heating equipment? In this workshop, you will learn about: What a home energy audit consists of and how it might save you money in the long run; What types of energy improvements will give you the most bang for the buck; What energy-specific loan programs, such as PACE and SEI, are available and how you can qualify. The two-hour session will cover these and related topics in an interactive format. Present to answer your questions will be a variety of experts, including Participating Energy Advisors (auditors), registered Maine contractors, and loan program administrators.

There is no charge for this workshop. However, you are asked to bring an item of non-perishable food or a monetary donation for the York Food Pantry.

The course is scheduled to run from 7:00 to 9:00  pm.

Please register online at http://york.maineadulted.org/courses/course/home_energy_efficiency_workshop, where you can find more information including a phone number and directions to the school.

Below are some photos from the day. Click on an . . . → Read More: Connect the Dots on Climate Impact Day at York]]> A concerned group of York residents gathered on May 5, 2012 to call attention to the plight of the environment and to Connect the Dots between climate change and extreme weather. They were part of a worldwide movement organized by the folks behind 350.org.

Below are some photos from the day. Click on an image to view a larger version.

. . . a . . . → Read More: Support for global warming action is strong]]> Some people want to remove the issue of tackling climate change from political discussion, “claiming that the public is tired of the debate and no longer has an appetite for combating global warming.” However, a recent poll shows considerable support for addressing perhaps the most important crisis that humankind faces.

. . . a just-released poll from the Yale and George Mason climate change communication programs reveals the lie in this claim. 63 percent of respondents said the United States should move forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do, compared to 3 percent who said we should await action by industrialized countries, 8 percent who said we should wait for both industrialized and developing countries to move, and 5 percent who said we shouldn’t bother reducing emissions.

In the same poll, the public supported — by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent — requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if that would cost the average household an extra $100 per year.

Read the rest of the article.

Neighbors, friends & family in York – (please pass along the word to anyone interested in attending) join us in a one day worldwide event