Maine’s having a hard time kicking the dirty energy habit.

In fact, a report released this week said we’ve been heading in the opposite direction and using more, not less. But that trend may be about to turn around, according to Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner David Littell.

It’s not simply because we’re unwilling to pay $3.30 for a gallon of gasoline. Apparently, we are.

Littell’s optimism is based more on a deluge of clean energy projects headed this way.

Littell said his agency is bracing for more than a dozen major energy development proposals that together will represent more than $10 billion of new investment into the state. They include wind farms, natural gas terminals and new transmission lines to distribute the cleaner energy around the state and beyond.

“The direction of the markets is all in favor of clean renewables,” he said. And Maine, because of its wind patterns and other advantages, stands to become the clean energy capital of New England, according to Littell.

Along with efforts by the Legislature and state agencies, that should help put Maine on track to reduce fossil fuel use and global warming pollution pretty much as promised, he said.

The report issued Wednesday by environmental groups found that Maine’s emissions increased two percent from 2001 to 2005, despite a pledge to return to 1990 levels by 2010 and cut emissions 10 percent below that by 2020.

It’s hard to imagine reaching those goals at the current pace, said Dylan Voorhees of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, which released the report along with Environment Maine. It’s even harder to imagine cutting emissions by 80 percent by 2050, a goal scientists say is necessary to avoid the most severe effects of a warming climate.

“If we were (on track to meet the short-term goals), then I think we could be more confident that we could handle this thing,” Voorhees said.

Yes, Littell said, the state will probably miss the 2010 goal, although not by much.

And he agreed with the report that Maine, in the long run, won’t be able to do its part to slow global warming until it tackles our greatest addiction – cars and trucks. “We still have a substantial amount of work to get done.”

But, Littell said, Maine is on track to meet its longer term goals.

The governor and Legislature have taken dozens of steps to chip away at global warming emissions. They range from a regional pact to cut power plant pollution to an ongoing effort – now headed to federal court – to mandate cleaner cars and trucks. And lawmakers are considering more, such as a ban on truck idling and creation of the state’s first energy efficiency standards for new homes.

But it’s the marketplace that’s fueling a lot of the state’s confidence right now.

Not all of the clean energy projects in the pipeline are sure things. The economic downturn, as well as controversies over local impacts, will likely weed out some projects.

But big investments, especially in wind power and transmission lines, will shift Maine and the rest of New England to cleaner electricity, according to Littell. Slow but steady.

“We’ll be there in 2020,” he said.

When it comes to reducing global warming pollution, it’s clearly easier said than done.

Now two environmental groups have released a report with details about how far Maine is falling short on its efforts.

Maine and other New England states pledged in 2001 to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, and then reduce them 10 percent by 2020. The Natural Resources Council of Maine and Environment Maine say that we got off to a slow start. In fact, emissions increased by 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from 2001 to 2005, partly because of a 7 percent increase in emissions from cars, trucks and airplanes, the report says.

With the increases after the pledge, Maine must now cut emissions at least 17 percent by 2010 and 26 percent by 2020, according to the report.

Maine’s emissions actually did drop slightly from 2004 to 2005, it says. That is attributed to greater use of hydro and biomass power, a milder winter and shutdowns of industrial mills (clearly not the preferred strategy). Those reductions were great enough to offset the 4 percent increase in gasoline usage.

See the report, Falling Behind: New England Must Act Now to Reduce Global Warming Pollution, here.

Maine does appear to be making more progress within state government. Last summer, Gov. John Baldacci said the state has reduced its emissions 8 percent since 2002, partly by increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy use in state buildings.

Baldacci and other state leaders also have been pushing for measures that could have statewide impacts but have not yet kicked in. Maine is participating in a regional plan to reduce emissions form large power pants starting next year, is pushing for the right to set tougher energy efficiency standards for cars and trucks and is rewriting laws and rules to encourage more wind energy development, among other things.

If you’d like even more sobering information about the challenge of fighting on global warming, the Greater Portland Council of Governments has posted the keynote presentation delivered last Friday at a sustainable energy forum in Portland. Charlie Stephens, an energy expert from Oregon, made a big impression on some attendees and it’s easy to see why. Not a pretty picture.

Gluttons for punishment should also read this Associated Press story about the dramatic meltdown of an Antarctic ice shelf.

Now, have a nice day.

Businesses, residents and city officials in Portland are pledging to turn off the lights from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday.

The action is part of a global event called Earth Hour that began last year in Sydney, Australia. Organizers say cities around the world are participating and will go dark, or at least darker, for an hour to focus attention on global warming and energy conservation.

The Maine chapter of the Sierra Club is organizing the event in Portland, and has lights-off pledges from business and residents in other Maine communities as well. Portland’s City Council passed a proclamation Monday supporting Earth Hour, and Mayor Edward Suslovic said non-essential lights, including those at City Hall, will be turned off.

The Sierra Club also is organizing a candlelight rally to celebrate Earth Hour in Portland’s Monument Square. The rally starts at 7:30 and will feature speakers as well as live music – acoustic, naturally.

The World Wildlife Federation is the prime organizer of Earth Hour and is sponsoring events in more than two dozen U.S. cities, including Phoenix, Atlanta, San Francisco, Chicago and Denver.

To learn more about Earth Hour in Maine, and find a list of fun things to do in the dark, look here.

For most Portlanders, recycling couldn’t get much easier.

Just throw paper, plastic and metal into a single bin and haul it to the curb once a week.

But there are plenty of city residents – those living in large commercial apartment buildings – who want to recycle, and simply can’t.

“It all goes into the garbage,” said Joan Bullock, who lives at Longfellow Commons on State Street. “It’s not easy.”

Where there is a will – and a frustrated, creative person like Bullock – there is a way. And the solution she came up with is getting lots of praise as a way to finally make recycling possible for a sizable segment of the city.

“It’s always that one single-minded individual who can take an idea and bring it to fruition,” said Kym Dakin, who works for the Portland Time Bank. Now, Dakin said, “We’re going to see how many other places can replicate it.”

The Sierra Club has put together a handy list of earth-friendly brews for those who want to celebrate St. Patrick's Day with a green beer – minus the food coloring.

The brewers who made the list use organic ingredients and incorporate renewable energy, efficiency and recycling into their businesses.

No Maine brewers were selected, although Peak Organic Brewing Co. in Portland would be one local green choice.

In other St. Patrick’s Day environmental news, an organization called the Irish American Climate Project is warning that the Emerald Isle may not be so lush and green for long.

Frequent, soft rains are what make Ireland so verdant and its potato farms so productive. But as the earth heats up, they may be replaced by warm, dry periods that turn the landscape brown and periodic heavy rains that cause erosion and “bog bursts,” which are a peat version of mud slides, the group says.

But don’t let that put a damper on your St. Patrick’s Day. Ireland, after all, has gone through plenty of change and hardship, and it still knows how to have a good time.

“We celebrate the fact that Ireland is still green, still lovely beyond compare,” said Kevin Sweeney, director of the Irish American Climate Project.

Look here for the Changing Shades of Green report.

Reports that mood-stabilizers, hormones, antibiotics and other drugs are finding their way into drinking water supplies around the country are no surprise to Dr. Stevan Gressitt, a Bangor psychiatrist.

He’d been waiting for those headlines.

The more immediate issue for Gressitt is: What do we do about it?

Gressitt and others are about to roll out a program that could become a national alternative to simply flushing unused drugs down the toilet. Sometime this spring or summer, Maine will become the first state to test a mail-in drug-disposal program.

It’ll happen just as concerns about the problem are peaking.

The Associated Press reported this week in newspapers across the country, including this one, that medications have been detected in public water supplies for 24 metropolitan areas around the country. While suppliers said the levels are so low that water remains safe to drink, the widespread presence of pharmaceuticals – and America’s fast-growing appetite for drugs – worries a lot of scientists, as well as people who simply like their water chem-free.

“People are not happy about drugs in their water. That’s not a scientific survey, that’s just what I hear,” Gressitt said.

No Maine water supplies have been tested at all for pharmaceuticals, according to state and local officials. The Portland Water District said this week its water is safe and unlikely to have any traces of drugs because of the way it protects Sebago Lake and disinfects the water.

Drugs get into the environment, and ultimately into drinking water, in two primary ways. First, people take medicine and then excrete the non-metabolized portions into the sewers. And second, people flush or throw away pills and ointments that have expired or no longer wanted.

Scientists are studying the metabolism problem. The flushing issue is where we come in.

There is a lot of disagreement around the country about what we should be doing with unwanted drugs. But everyone agrees that flushing them down the toilet is asking for trouble. Officials here also advise against throwing them into the trash.

Mainers are being advised to turn in the drugs to police departments or at periodic collection events. One such collection is coming up in the Bath and Brunswick area June 3, although details have not yet been announced.

The other official option in Maine is to hold onto the drugs in a safe place a little while longer, because help is on the way.

State agencies and the University of Maine Center on Aging plan to launch a pilot mail-in program this spring. Free drug-disposal mailers will be placed in selected drug stores in Cumberland, Aroostook, Kennebec and Penobscot counties. Later this year, the agencies will test the same program statewide.

Mailers will be addressed to the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency, which will make sure the medications are disposed of as hazardous waste.

Gressitt, who has helped lead efforts to find a statewide solution, said the next step will be to make the program permanent.

If we keep flushing, he said, Maine’s water could make news, too. “We’re not immune.”

Staff Writer John Richardson can be contacted at 791-6324 or at:

jrichardson@pressherald.com

Read John’s blog at:

www.pressherald.com

Imagine a powerful coastal storm and tidal surge that not only threatens coastal homes, but also floods the roads that are needed to evacuate residents to higher ground.

Well, we’d better plan on it, according to a report released yesterday by the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The report looked at the potential impacts of climate change on transportation systems and, while not particularly surprising, says as clearly as possible that the time is now for Maine and other coastal states to plan and prepare.

“Potentially, the greatest impact of climate change on North America’s transportation system will be flooding of coastal roads, railways, transit systems, and runways because of a global rise in sea level coupled with storm surge and exacerbated in some locations by land subsidence,” the report says.

Look here for the report and here for the Associated Press story.

In 1989, the Conservation Law Foundation took aim at combined sewer overflows, which are basically pressure valves that allow raw sewage to drain into rivers and bays whenever rainfall floods sewer systems.

The group released a report and joined a federal lawsuit against major sources of the pollution, including the cities of Portland and South Portland. Nearly 20 years later, Maine communities have spent about $300 million, and counting, to reduce the overflows and clean the state’s waters.

Now CLF is taking aim at another source of pollution that it feels has been overlooked for too long: storm water.

The group is pressuring the state and federal environmental agencies to crack down on businesses with big rooftops and parking lots, but no plans for keeping industrial chemicals and other pollutants out of storm runoff and the environment.

It filed a federal petition Friday calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require pollution permits from the businesses in the Maine Mall area, the state’s most prominent collection of impervious surfaces.

Runoff from the roofs and parking lots in the commercial district are polluting Long Creek, which runs into Clark’s Pond and, eventually, Casco Bay.

If successful, the group could help drive new clean water regulation, and a lot of spending, statewide. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Look here for CLF's announcement and petition.

Wolves are well known for their ability to travel hundreds of miles from home.

But getting from eastern Canada to western Massachusetts would be no small feat. An Eastern wolf would have to cross the St. Lawrence River and survive a gantlet of traps and snares north of the U.S. border before passing through Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Or at least that’s one theory.

The confirmation this week that an 85-pound male canid shot last fall on a Massachusetts farm was a wild Eastern gray wolf is seen by some as further proof of an alternative theory. Wolves may already be living and breeding in New England, perhaps in northern Maine.

At the very least, the encounter shows that the animals could resettle here someday soon – if we let them.

The appearance – and demise – of a wild Eastern gray wolf in western Massachusetts is stirring up speculation about whether the charismatic canids might ever repopulate northern New England.

An 85-pound male was shot last fall after a farmer in Shelburne reported that something had mauled more than a dozen lambs. Tests confirming the animal as a wolf were reported today in the Boston Globe.

It’s the first confirmed wolf appearance in Massachusetts in 160 years, although a couple were found in Maine in the 1990s. The last confirmed sighting in New England was a wolf shot by a hunter in Jackman in 1993.

Wolves that appear here are believed to have strayed down from Canada, and some experts say such visits increase the chances of a comeback here.

It’s far from impossible. Maine and northern New England sit squarely in the wolf’s historical range and have plenty of suitable habitat.

And consider that scientists didn’t think Canada lynx were breeding in the state until 8 years ago, and now the cats have been tracked across more than 10,000 square miles of northern Maine.

Look here for more on wolves.

On Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally slapped down efforts by California, Maine and about a dozen other states to set greenhouse gas-emissions standards for cars and trucks.

The decision posted Friday in the Federal Register was expected and is already being challenged in court by Maine, the other states and conservation groups.

Now here’s another viewpoint on the emissions battle you might not have considered. Maybe Maine and the other states should worry more about what we’re eating than what we’re driving.

That’s the argument of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, which recently made its case in a letter to Gov. John Baldacci. Meat production and consumption worldwide, not personal transportation, is the leading cause of global warming, according to PETA.

PETA may not qualify as an expert on global warming, but it’s not the only one saying so.

The group cites a United Nations report that raising animals for food generates almost 50 percent more greenhouse gases than all the cars, SUVs, trucks, and airplanes in the world combined, it says. A
study by the University of Chicago also reported that eating less meat is an effective way to counter global warming.

It’s all well and good that Maine is fighting for tighter pollution limits on cars and trucks, according to PETA. The letter just asks for a little equal time for vegans and calls for the state should launch a vegetarian initiative because “there’s no such thing as a meat-eating environmentalist.”

Baldacci did not immediately swear off meat upon being shown the letter, however. The governor said he’d rather take that kind of advice from his wife, a registered dietician, according to spokesman David Farmer.

“She tells him, ‘Everything in moderation; nothing in excess,’ ” Farmer said.

That apparently goes for meat as well as gasoline.