The assessment found that Maryland could expect warmer winters, summerlong heat waves, out-of-state migration of 34 bird species and the loss of several tree species, according to a preview reported in The (Baltimore) Sun this week.
The commission also found that dead zones where low levels of dissolved oxygen make it impossible for aquatic plants and animals to thrive could be expected to grow as rising shorelines lead to increased erosion and pollution runoff.
A major tool that the state counted on to combat such pollution was funding included in a new Chesapeake Bay Watershed program that was part of the 2008 federal farm bill. Last week, President Bush proposed eliminating the first year of funding — $23 million — for the five-year, $188 million program.
"It absolutely puts more pressure on us," said Kim Coble, Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "The whole cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay has been primarily a federal and state partnership."
Maryland lawmakers are attempting to hold up their end of the partnership with $25 million for Bay cleanup in the state's fiscal 2009 budget. During the November special session, lawmakers passed legislation that called for $50 million a year for the Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund.
"When the state decided on $50 million, it was with the understanding that Congress would be doing its part as well," Coble said.
Tight budgets led to the $50 million being halved this year. Lawmakers do not expect that number to increase in the next budget, given lower-than-projected revenue estimates.
Maryland's congressional delegation this week condemned the proposed cuts to the federal budget for fiscal 2009, which begins Oct. 1.
"President Bush's proposal to kill the new Chesapeake Bay farm bill funding belongs in the Bay's dead zone," U.S. Benjamin L. Cardin (D) said in a statement. "He is wrong on the science, wrong on our farmers' needs and wrong if he thinks the Congress will go along with this proposal."
The 87,000 farms in the Chesapeake Bay watershed account for about 25 percent of the land, but contribute 39 percent of the nitrogen and 42 percent of the phosphorus entering the Bay, according to Cardin's office. Agriculture is the Bay's single largest source of contaminants.
"The president does not seem to understand that reducing pollution from farms is the least expensive way to control the excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that pollute the Chesapeake Bay," Cardin said.
Bush's decision also shows a lack of understanding about how important the Bay is, U.S. Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-Dist. 4) of Fort Washington said in a statement.
"Critical segments of Maryland's economy, including the crabbing, fishing, and tourism industries, rely on a healthy Chesapeake Bay," she said.
For farmers looking to stem the nutrient runoff that contributes to the Bay's dead zones, the federal aid is critical. And the demand is high.
Farmers contracted for $8.9 million in federal aid this year through the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which helps farmers plant grass waterways to guide runoff and build sheds to store manure that is used as fertilizer, among other things.
There is $2.5 million in additional demand beyond the federal funding, said Royden N. Powell III, assistant secretary in the state Department of Agriculture's Office of Resource Conservation.
Maryland is using its BayStat program to study which areas of the Bay — and which farms — are in greatest need of state money for conservation efforts.
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed an agreement in 2000 that set a goal of reducing nitrogen pollution in the Bay by 15 million pounds by 2010. Environmentalists say Maryland will not meet that goal.
"For the president to cut the money frankly is irresponsible when it comes to protecting the Chesapeake Bay and clean water," the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Coble said.
Governments cannot set cleanup goals, then expect farmers to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to help meet them, she said.
"Trying to reduce nutrients coming from agriculture into the Chesapeake Bay is one of the more difficult challenges in restoring the Bay," said David A. Nemazie, a marine scientist with the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science in Cambridge. The center's president, Donald F. Boesch, edited the state commission's climate change report.
An interim report by the commission, released in January, provided the framework for the failed Global Warming Solutions Act, which set a target of reducing greenhouse emissions by 90 percent by 2050.
While the science included in the soon-to-be-released report will provide a stark look at the future Maryland could face without emissions reductions, it might not be enough to push global warming legislation to passage.
It wasn't enough during this year's legislative session, where the bill was scaled back and ultimately killed in the House Economic Matters Committee in the session's final hours.
"The question is, did it fail because there wasn't enough scientific data, or did it fail because of political issues?" said Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, who sponsored the bill in the Senate. "And I would say it was political."
The bill was hung up by conflicting amendments and concerns of organized labor, including steelworkers who feared the bill would jeopardize the sale of the Sparrows Point steel plant in Baltimore. The plant was sold in May.
Pinsky said he expects that the bill will be back in 2009, if not sponsored by him, then by the O'Malley administration.
"Nothing's changed in terms of the numbers of reductions we have to make," said Pinsky (D-Dist. 22) of University Park. "The hope is [that] in one framework or another, we're going to get a commitment from the state to make those reductions."
Legislators said they expect energy and environmental issues to evolve.
Gov. Martin O'Malley, who last month received an A- from the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said Tuesday that he would make a "major policy announcement" regarding energy at his annual address to the Maryland Association of Counties summer conference in Ocean City on Aug. 16.
O'Malley (D) made the comments while announcing that the state would add ethanol pumps across Maryland to make its vehicle fleet cleaner and more fuel-efficient.
State and federal governments need to continue looking at alternative energy sources, House Environmental Matters Chairwoman Maggie L. McIntosh said.
That includes solar, wind and nuclear energy.
"I think there is a changing attitude on nuclear power nationally," said McIntosh (D-Dist. 43) of Baltimore.
The United States should look to France, where 80 percent of the power demand is met by nuclear energy, and other countries for ways to set safeguards against the dangers posed by the controversial energy source, she said.
The rising cost of energy has caused some people to rethink nuclear power. The Public Service Commission began hearings this week on a proposal to add a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Southern Maryland. A majority of people testifying said they support a new reactor. Others offered long-held arguments against the dangers of nuclear power.
Maryland's role in the renewed debate over nuclear power is just one way the state can take the lead in the future of energy in this country, McIntosh said.
The Bush administration's decision on the Bay cleanup and recent forays into setting emissions standards — including the state's 2007 Clean Cars Act, which has landed Maryland and other states in a federal court battle with the EPA — shows that it is up to the states to affect change, McIntosh said.
"It should be the federal government that is setting the course for energy independence and taking the lead in our globe to curb global warming," she said. "We're doing what we can in Maryland. We're doing more than sending the message."
