Saving Seafood

Maine critics throw cold water on Trump administration’s offshore drilling plan

The proposal to open 90 percent of the nation’s coastline – including the North Atlantic – to oil and gas exploration draws widespread opposition at an event held by federal officials in Augusta.

March 8, 2018 — AUGUSTA, Maine — Fishermen, environmentalists and lawmakers from Maine’s coast called on the Trump administration Wednesday to exclude the North Atlantic from a plan to potentially reopen much of the nation’s coastline to oil and gas exploration.

Representatives with the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management were in Augusta for an open house-style event to field questions about President Trump’s controversial offshore energy proposal. The draft plan released in January calls for reopening 90 percent of the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards to oil and gas drilling, a seismic shift from the 6 percent now available to energy companies. The public comment period on the draft plan closes Friday.

Just two of the 47 proposed lease sales would be in the North Atlantic region stretching from Maine to New Jersey. But the mere prospect of oil drilling in the Gulf of Maine or Georges Bank – and the accompanying environmental risks – was enough to draw more than 60 people to a pre-emptive event held before the bureau’s open house.

Kristan Porter, a fisherman from Cutler who is president of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, recalled how one of his predecessors told Congress in 1970 that Maine fishermen were “100 percent against” allowing oil drilling in the Gulf of Maine. Nearly 50 years later, Porter said, nothing has changed.

“Allowing the exploration of oil and gas … could devastate our fisheries, our fishermen and our communities,” Porter said at a news conference. “Maine’s fishing industries are dependent on Maine’s clean water. Even minor spills could irreparably damage the Gulf of Maine.”

Porter was joined at the event by representatives of the Natural Resources Council of Maine and other environmental groups, the aquaculture industry, tourism advocates, and Democratic, Republican and independent politicians. All four members of Maine’s congressional delegation also oppose the plan.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald

 

Activists say proposed EPA cuts threaten Maine

August 16, 2017 — SCARBOROUGH, Maine — Officials and experts spoke out against President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, saying they could hurt beaches, air quality, and tourism, and contribute to sea level rise and damage the health of Maine residents.

The remarks came at a press conference Aug. 10 at Scarborough Beach State Park, hosted by the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

“President Trump’s EPA budget could spoil Maine coastal towns, beaches, water, and air,” Emmie Theberge, federal project director for the NRCM, said. “The Trump Administration and its allies in Congress are endangering our children and communities by pushing to gut environmental protections that are critical to Maine people and our economy.

“These cuts would affect every corner of Maine, but today we are focused on coastal impacts in particular,” Theberge said. “Sea-level rise could cause widespread economic impacts and costly property damage in Maine communities up and down the coast. Maine can’t afford to have EPA turn its back on climate science and the resources needed to help states prepare. These cuts mean more asthma attacks for our kids, more health problems for Maine’s elderly, and more ‘Code Red’ bad air days when vulnerable people must stay indoors.”

During the event it was announced a letter, signed by more than 70 organizations, is being sent to Maine’s U.S. senators and representatives, urging them to do “everything possible” to maintain the EPA’s budget “at no less than current funding levels. The health of our air, water, people, and economy is at stake.”  

Read the full story at The Forecaster

Maine’s climate already changing, with more to come

June 2, 2017 — Though people tend to talk most about climate change during a heat wave or in the wake of a terrible storm, the reality is that it’s a slow, subtle shift that’s scarcely noticeable except over the long haul.

But scientists say that Maine is very much feeling its impact.

From a rise in the number of ticks to the decline in the number of northern shrimp offshore, the state is seeing the consequences of an increase in the average annual temperature by 3 degrees since 1895.

The frequency of extreme weather events, from ice storms to torrential rains, has been increasing and will likely to become even more common as the world heats up further, scientists warn.

The accompanying rise in ocean levels, caused by melting glaciers, means that salt marshes are in trouble, flood zones are growing and agricultural zones shifting.

And some say it will get worse if the country fails to take action on climate change.

“Maine is especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, where our environment and economy are so closely linked,” said Lisa Pohlmann, the Natural Resources Council of Maine’s executive director.

“Rising sea levels will flood our coastal towns, smog from upwind states will harm the lives of those with asthma, fast-warming waters in the Gulf of Maine will put commercial fisheries at risk, and warming weather threatens vital elements of our economy, like skiing, maple syrup production and ocean fisheries,” she said in a written statement.

A 2015 study by the Climate Change Institute and Maine Sea Grant at the University of Maine that updated an earlier state report on the issue lays out a troubling scenario for a state that depends heavily on tourism, recreation, logging, farming and fishing — all of which are likely to feel the pinch if scientific projections of what’s to come prove prescient.

Already, though, historical data shows warming trends.

For instance, information from the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset cited by the University of Maine study shows the state’s warm weather season is two weeks longer now than it was a century ago. It’s 34 weeks now, records indicate, compared to 32 in the two decades leading up to World War I.

Read the full story at the Maine Sun Journal