There is no way to save us from our dependence on oil, we are told, except to drill for more oil wherever it can be found-and some will even tell us it's possible that there's so much oil not yet discovered off the coast that all our problems will be over once we poke a few holes in the ground and git 'er done.
Of course, it's also possible there are monkeys to be found in certain of my body cavities...and I'm hoping most fervently that no one proposes drilling in my ANWAR in an effort to find out.
But what if there was another way?
What if we could afford to convert our gas-powered cars to something else...something that could reduce our national gasoline consumption by 70%?
Something we could put into place just as quickly as offshore wells could be drilled-and maybe even faster.
A "Manhattan Project" of fleet conversion, if you will.
Well, Gentle Reader, I think we can-and today we examine a way it might be done.
Tobacco money. Also money from the energy-related Koch Foundation, the founder of which helped to also fund the Cato Institute, which itself takes money from Altria (Ex-Phillip Morris, which gave money to Tim Walberg, who himself received $2,100 from uber rightwing money dude Richard Mellon Scaife in 2006), big oil, tobacco and Wal-Mart . Also, Cato Institute funder the JM Foundation, which also gives money to the American Enterprise Institute (which itself relies heavily on oil company money, and also shares Scaife money with the Heartland Institute).
There is something else that has the Heartland Institute and John Locke Foundation tangled up besides rightwing think tank money ... Climate Studies Watch, the director for which published an Op-Ed piece in this morning's Detroit News.
I know, I know, not really news. The Esteemed Chair of the Michigan Devos Party pretty much declares his willful ignorance on a daily basis on his digital billboard (aka his "blog"). But this is precious,
GORE “CREATED” THE INTERNET…nine years ago on CNN he made his famous claim…now he’s creating the “global warming” crisis…you know, during this, the coldest spring in years. The Nobel Peace folks need a “lock box” prize.
[Emphasis mine.] We hear that tomorrow Saul Anuzis intends to reveal his belief in global cooling, his membership in the Flat Earth Society, and roll out the MI-GOP's official endorsement of the Rapture Index (currently at 170).
This story is breaking in the Chicago Tribune.... EPA political appointees force removal of well-respected EPA Regional Administrator Mary Gade after pressure from Dow Chemical Company.
And in Michigan, some opposition stems from a philosophical dislike of government mandates. The 52-megawatt farm visited by Granholm exists without an RPS, for instance, and developers already have proposed an additional 3,000 megawatts of wind power in 16 Michigan counties.
Others question the job-creation potential since wind farms don't employ many workers after construction is complete. Patterson agrees more jobs will be created if Michigan taps into the potential of making turbine blades, "but the question is at what cost to the rest of the state?"
The Patterson in question is Canton Republican state Sen. Bruce Patterson, who might have a hair-trigger fuse (actually the only time I've seen the guy in person, he was very nice to a small child) but is generally more reasonable on questions of the environment (broke party ranks last August to vote against wrong-headed CAFO legislation) ... (it's also believed that his ability to capture the MEA endorsement in 2006 is one of the reasons the GOP still controls that chamber, which has caused untold aggravation across the land).
But, this question need not be asked. The answer is, as it so often happens to be, available to anyone who wants to type the phrase "RPS job creation" into the Google machine. You'll get your answer right there, young sir, with no need to posture for newspaper reporters (who also ought to do the same Web search when the question is posed to them). This is one of those times when I could offer a whole host of links, but I won't bother ... here, because I love you, I'm letting you go out into the bright, wide world confident that you'll come back.
Don’t look for state legislative action this week on the Great Lakes water protection agreement.
...
Reports say an agreement could come as early as next week, but maybe without the proposed new hospital tax and the transferring of millions in gasoline tax revenues.
Wisconsin is one of two states where the Compact had run into real opposition. Growing counties straddling the Basin boundaries have sought provisions allowing them to access Great Lakes water without actually being in the Basin. The other state is Ohio, where some nutball Republican has interpreted portions of the Compact as being an attack on property rights.
A few weeks ago at the Griffin Policy Forum on climate change and the state's economy, Jon Allan of Consumers Energy called the moment we live in a "transformational" one. Coming out the back end of it, the way we live will be completely different than how it is today.
I see the Heartland Institute is targeting legislatures now taking up the Great Lakes Compact. The small, shrinking number of people opposed to the Compact have a few friends throughout the region -- notably one guy in Ohio, and a handful of people in Wisconsin. Here in Michigan, the Compact -- at least, the last I heard -- hangs on companion legislation (a huge majority of senators are listed as co-sponsors, so passage is -- unless there's a huge change of heart -- virtually guaranteed). Those few special interests who don't want to see the thing passed are taking the opportunity to perhaps sow some doubt and see it unravelled in a swarm of mistrust, resentment, and finger pointing. I give you The Heartland Institute's April Fool's Day offering.
Joining the Great Lakes Compact will force the state to behave as if it is surrounded by desert instead of abundant water resources. It will limit Michigan farmers' ability to irrigate their crops and will thus undermine this hugely important part of the state's economy.
Sadly, no. The Heartland Institute does accurately report that the Compact, readable here, does require regional review for withdrawal or consumptive uses of over 5 million gallons a day, it (naturally) fails to note some pertinent facts. Like, that agriculture isn't really a consumptive use (some lost, yes; but there's no way to measure it). Also, that no agricultural project in the state of Michigan even comes close to approaching 5 millions of water per day (it all boils down to easy-to-read chart form, which tells us that Montcalm County used 30.63 million gallons of water per day in 2006, but that it was spread over 76 different farms).
The Heartland Institute, for those unfamiliar, is one of those various think tanks circulating around the nation (this one, based in Chicago) that has dedicated itself to finding "free market" solutions to environmental problems, and promoting "reasonable" environmentalism. Mostly what that boils down to is arguing that the problem doesn't exist ... the "there's nothing to see here, so just move along."
Reading up on laws and regulations covering the state's utilities is a lot of like trying to figure out how we finance public education -- the more you read, the more your shoulders shrug and your brow furrows in vain attempt to figure out what the hell is going on. I give you the precursor to RPS.
After more than a year of hearings, a Michigan House panel on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a rewrite of the state's 2000 electricity law despite opposition from groups that have saved money under that law.
The bipartisan legislation would begin limiting the amount of competition that the state's major electric utilities face from alternative power suppliers for business and school customers.
On the one hand, the major utilities have been clamoring for a rewrite of the 2000 law, and have said that doing this is the only way they could properly engage alternative energy sources without causing prices to skyrocket. How much of that is true and how much of it is an attempt to squeeze the turnip for a little extra blood is anyone's guess.
I'm really tempted to say that this is a momumental mistake, because what is really driving the promise of renewables -- and, because we've spent the last 30 years assuming that wind power was only something for hippies, truly developing some of those sources is a still few years off -- is innovation. You can create the demand for renewables by setting an RPS, and then kill the innovation necessary to achieve it in the best possible fashion.
That should mean casting as wide a net as possible, rather than making it something only the utilities can really profit from. In fact, up until now, it's basically been independent generators who've really gotten hot on wind power. There are a few scattered across Michigan, in places like Lowell and Mackinac City. So, my initial reaction is that this is allowing the big utilities to come to the game late, and plow under the real innovators who did all the work.
One question I'd like to ask is whether Democrats who consider environmental issues to be a top issue should be fiscally conservative.
I could see arguments for either.
First, fiscal conservatives would be more likely to oppose pork-barrel spending of the type that leads to significant environmental degradation. For instance, many politicians (of both aisles) use highway dollars to make the claim that they're "bringing home the bacon." The Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" is just one of many highway expansion projects are funded through legislation without a compelling market need. Numerous studies suggest that land developers take their cue from state highway agencies in determining when to build in undeveloped "greenfields." Since congested highways can't fit more commuters, they frequently wait to build in far-out areas until state trasnportation agencies expand the road capacity. Take, for instance, the expansion of I-75 in northwest Oakland County, which the Free Press featured on its front page on November 8, 2007. The highway expansion is necessary for real estate developers to market new homes to prospective buyers who don't want to be stuck in endless traffic. In essence, much of the public money given out for roads, sewer lines, etc. can be viewed as a subsidy to land developers.
Second, fiscal conservatives might also be opposed to war without sound reasoning to back it up. And war has terrible environmental consequences (think Iraqi oil field fires, Agent Orange, depleted uranium). One of the top concerns I hear about the current Iraq situation is the "blood and treasure" being lost there... sounds like a fiscally conservative statement (not to mention humanitarian).
Other reasons for environmentalists to be fiscal conservatives include the subsidies given to oil developers, the public land lent out for grazing, mining, etc., and the tendency for large government expenditures to be necessary to support international trade (for instance, dredging deep-water ports with public $).
On the other hand, I could see enviornmentalists being against fiscal conservatism. Many view public transit as important substitutes for "car culture." Others see research into wind, solar, and advanced biomass energy projects as needing government support to overcome the market power of big energy companies. Still others might want to make sure that the government employees working on wildlife, environmental quality, and agriculture have the funding they need to enforce federal laws on the matter.
Do environmentalists you know tend to lean one way or another? Should they lean one way or another?
My guess is that environmentally-minded people are of mixed minds on the matter. I'd appreciate your thoughts!
lays out the disturbing implications of some recent scientific studies.
The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
With only 80% reductions by 2050 on the policy table so far, it's clear we have yet to countenance the true dimensions of the problem of ameliorating climate change.
Moreover, the problem is not just one of acknowledging the science, but rather, as Stve Gardiner (Philosophy, University of Washington) put it, "is a classic inter-generational debate, where the short-term benefits of emitting carbon accrue mainly to us and where the dangers ... are largely put off until future generations."
The CDC, over the last few years, has built a reputation as the one federal environmental and public health agency that has most successfully withstood politization of its work during the Bush years. Unfortunately, when your boss' credibility is shot, this is the kind of thing you get.
In an attempt to put to rest concerns over a report detailing health issues in the Great Lakes region, officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released two early drafts of the document on Wednesday and promised an independent review of the research.
The report, which examines health issues near 25 "Areas of Concern" in the Great Lakes Basin, was scheduled for release last summer. But federal officials withdrew the report, saying the methodology was suspect.
To most Michigan voters, the office of county drain commissioner sounds like a post related to cleaning storm drains -- perhaps a glorified street sweeper. But the office has many more powers, some of which are abused, others of which are employed to their intended effect. It's time to abolish the office and create in its place clean water managers.
The majority of Michiganders have been to at least one of the Great Lakes, if only once. In fact, a large number of Midwesterners have come to Lake Michigan, Huron, Superior, Erie, or Ontario to swim, boat, fish, or any number of other reasons.
Besides supporting Michigan’s tourism industry, which is the second largest contributor to our state’s economy after manufacturing, the Great Lakes are an important environmental resource, housing any number of freshwater fish and plants. Their freshwater reserves, the largest surface reserves in the entire planet, supply thirsty Michigan and mid-western agriculture (the third largest economic contributor), in addition to many thirsty Michigan citizens, the water necessary to live and grow.
However, what would happen if those lakes weren’t there anymore? What would happen if one or more of the lakes were put off limit to tourists and residents, citing high pollution levels? What if the water was unable to be pumped to the cherry producers in Traverse City or the soybean growers in Monroe, let alone to the pipes of thirsty mid-Michigan residents?
Some would tell you that this will never happen. They have the same false logic as many outside of the state: that Michigan is ‘awash’ in water. The water cycle, they say, ensures that the thousands of thousands of gallons wasted to water lawns and from table-water at restaurants will somehow comeback to the Great Lakes to be consumed again.
Why then are the Lakes at the lowest levels they have ever been? Why do certain areas of Michigan have to enact water moratoriums every summer to control dwindling water supplies amid drought conditions? The answer is: we do not have unlimited water to do with as we please. The wasteful practices that we have been indulging in for decades are combining with the effects of climate change to come back to haunt us. Unless we change our outlook on the Great Lakes and the environment, we will rapidly destroy the state many of us have come to treasure.
Hope is not lost though. Change is slowly beginning to happen. In 2005, Gov. Jennifer Granholm pushed the Great Lakes, Great Michigan! initiative through the Michigan Legislature. Constraints were placed on Dasani and other water-bottling companies, preventing them from sucking our lakes completely dry. In 2006 and 2007, the Legislature began to make progress on regulating aquifer tapping (the process of draining the ground-water that supplies the lakes, streams, rivers, tributaries, and us), another step in fighting low lake levels. Also, the public outcry was amazing when BP wanted to dump vast amounts of ammonia and sludge into Lake Michigan, with Facebook groups, websites, and the whole nine yards of grassroots activism coming into play to protect our most treasured resource.
Despite this progress, there is more that needs to be done. Michigan, while the only state to border 4 of the 5 Great Lakes, is only one of the seven American states that has territorial claims to them. Efforts need to be taken so that, when Michigan prevents a company from draining the lakes, they don’t just relocate to Illinois or Wisconsin to continue their destructive practices. The strongest attempt to do just this is the Great Lakes Compact, an eight-state legislative package that, when fully ratified, will put the power to control water withdrawals into the hands of the people, rather than a few legislators. This compact, though, is falling victim to the water-politics it is seeking to abolish. Two states (Illinois and Minnesota) have already passed it, while the other states and Michigan are considering it. Wisconsin and Ohio are presenting a challenge to this bill, wanting to amend it to allow more areas than just Great Lakes-basin areas to withdraw water. This is problematic as the compact only goes into effect if every state passes the same language. If one state refuses to agree, it acts as a veto, sinking the entire project.
There is no excuse for this. Politicians from both parties need to have the leadership necessary to fight politics-as-usual and make a decision with the interests of the people in mind, rather than their careers. It is at this point we, the people, need to stand up and show our elected officials that we will not support continuing the policies of the past that risk destroying the Great Lakes, the environmental jewel that sustains us and provides us great enjoyment.
I understand that if you go looking for John Cherry next week in Lansing, you won't be able to find him. That's because, as chairman of the Great Lakes Commission, he'll be in Washington promoting the Great Lakes legislative priorities for 2008 around and on Great Lakes Day, which is Wednesday.
Every year is important in building a sound federal policy towards the Great Lakes. I realize that there are lots of folks who don't want the feds involved, but as interstate and international bodies of water, there's no getting around the federal role. And, because the lakes themselves play such an important role in daily life here in Michigan (from commerce to tourism to even influencing the weather), it's important that federal policy be based on protecting and restoring and not regarding them as a resource to be squandered for short-term gain.
The biggest Great Lakes fight this year might be over getting Congress to sign off on the Great Lakes Compact (that is, might, if the various state legislatures get their acts together and present it to Congress before the elections, it could be that both parties see it in their interests to not antagonize the electoral vote heavy Rust Belt and let the thing squeak through).
The actual legislative initiatives are fairly comprehensive and built around a solid understanding of how things that take place even far inland impact the lakes themselves. For instance, the legislative priorities call for money for buffer strips for inland farms (a buffer strip is a strip of vegetation -- usually trees -- between farm fields and streams meant to prevent fertlizer and pesticides from running off fields and into inland waters ... the failure to do so is believe to be a cause of the Dead Zone at the mouth of the Mississippi, and which has seriously damaged Gulf Coast fisheries).
It involves appropriating money for electronic barriers to (hopefully) prevent the spread of Asian carp into the lake system. You might remember this from last year, when Smirky vetoed the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act on the grounds that it spent too much money, when it only authorized Congress to appropriate money for the projects at a later date and spent exactly zero (0) dollars on its own. The veto was overridden.
And, of course, one of the other priorities is federal legislation prohibiting ocean-going freighters from dumping ballast water full of non-native critters into the lakes. Although you can credit the state Legislature for taking a leadership role on this issue last year, movement at the federal level has been stalled, naturally, by the shipping lobby, which doesn't like the idea of being told that it can't dump ballast water laden with non-native species wherever it damn well feels like it.
Detroit Hardball - 22 February 2008 News I can’t even begin to use By Mike Madias
Today I read a bit of irresponsible journalism from the Associated Press about what appears to be irresponsible governance by the Wayne County Road Commission.
It looks as though the road commission is about to spend a lot of money on making road construction companies rich, when I would prefer that they spent it on things that would directly benefit my family. But the AP story telling me about this, is missing so much vital data I don’t know what is going on; much less how to act to protect my own interests. I do know this. The Associated Press and the local news media have failed me, and there is a possibility that the government of Wayne County is about to rob me.
The Associated Press reported that officials of the Detroit Metropolitan Airport are proposing the building of a new runway.
Who proposed building this runway? To whom was it proposed? When was this done? What is the cost of this expansion? Where will the money come from to pay for this runway?
The AP story does not say--and it should say--these are questions of relevance.
The story goes on to say that the runway would be about 2 miles long and require demolition of developed property in Romulus, Michigan. About 3,500 people would be physically displaced in order to make room for the construction. This figure of 3,500 represents 15% of the residential population of the Romulus area. The demolition would also result in the closing of two operating elementary schools; and 50 local businesses.
Where did the AP get these figures? What are the costs of lost tax base; lost population; lost schools; and lost businesses? Who will pay those social and environmental costs?
The AP story does not say--and it should say--these are questions of relevance.
The management of the airport says that the runway is needed to handle a 2.3% annual increase in airport traffic at the airport. Management is working on a 20 year plan. Currently Metro services about 36 million people a year. It is projected that by 2027 the airport will be servicing 60 million passengers a year.
Massive expanded need by 2027? Where did these numbers come from? What are the assumptions made?
Northwest Airlines Corp. is the Metro Airport's dominant carrier. About 74% of all traffic at Metro is from Northwest Airlines. NAL will be the secondary beneficiary of the new runway. But Northwest Airlines is in the process of merger with Delta Airlines of Atlanta Georgia.
What happens to the Metro Airport hub if Delta and Northwest merge? What will be the role that Metro airport will play in the new merged company?
The AP story does not say--and it should say--these are questions of relevance.
The primary beneficiary of the new runway is likely be the road construction companies that build it; and the politicians who might get some kickbacks. Perhaps they will be the only beneficiaries.
The League of Conservation Voters today released their national legislative scorecard, and while Michigan's delegations overall did pretty well, a few things stood out.
The first is that while Joe Knollenberg was named by the League of Conservation Voters to its 2008 Dirty Dozen list, his score isn't actually the lowest of any Michigan Congressman. Knollenberg, who was named to the list because of his lifetime voting score of 7 percent, managed to more than double that last year, coming in at 20 percent. What did he support that got him there: Grasslands preservation, a repeal of oil company subsidies, clean energy, and agricultural subsidies reform. What did he oppose? Fighting global warming, a national renewable portfolio standard, increased fuel efficiency, and a bunch of other stuff. Why? Well, it could be the nearly $650,000 he's taken from polluting interests. (The fuel efficiency bit, folks might remember, prompted him to erect a bunch of billboards about how much Arnold Scwarzenegger hates Michigan.)
But, who did worse than Knollenberg? Oh, some familiar names like Hoekstra, McCotter, Rogers, Walberg, and Camp ... and McCain. (for this, we go below the fold...)
Well, slap me on the fanny, I hope I didn't speak too soon on the Great Lakes Compact. Negotiations broke down yesterday over the companion legislation that would do a bunch of things. From the side of Senate Republicans, it's naturally mostly bad, which would actually weaken water protection in Michigan rather than strengthening it. Among the lowlights:
*--A desire to shorten public comment periods. This was Russ Harding's first proposal for protecting the state's groundwater, back in the Engler days (I guess if you don't know there's a problem, it don't exist!). It's worth noting that it was during the public comment period last year that it was discerned that the public document record was incomplete.
*--Placing wide swaths of rivers and streams open for withdrawal. If you earnestly wish to protect groundwater from diversion, probably the first thing you don't do is this.
*--Both of these translate into water takings with little or no oversight. This means leaving things in the hands of the court system to adjudicate whether harm has been caused to riparian rights of landowners downstream. As we've seen with MCWC v. Nestle, this means landowners trying to prove damages better have both deep pockets and a long time to wrangle things out in the court system.
*--Naturally, none of this would be made possible without a failure to apply the public trust doctrine to groundwater.
The bills are expected to come up today at a meeting of the Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs at 1 p.m.
A competing package of bills is working its way through the House.
A plan to strengthen the ability of governors in the Great Lakes region to protect the area's water is running into snags in some state legislatures. The plan, called the Great Lakes Compact, should be ratified by all of the remaining state lawmaking bodies -- including Michigan's -- that have not done so.
Amen. I'm told that Michigan is expected to ratify the thing this year, and what's really holding things up are companion pieces of legislation in the House and Senate. Environmental groups want the Compact approved while at the same time loopholes closed in Michigan law allowing the diversion of Great Lakes water from the basin as long as it's in little plastic bottles. State law is the first line of defense, they say.
Despite the fact that earlier this year Mike Bishop included the Compact in a list of things he wasn't so interested in pursuing, ratification could come quicker than the spring deadline Birkholz hopes to meet. And, if they can get the companion legislation hammered out, why not? The Compact's co-signers in the Senate include basically the entire body (and shame on the few who haven't).
The problem isn't in Michigan, as it notes in the News editorial. The problem is an out-of-state one. Specificially, Ohio Republicans who see in the Compact a great threat to property rights, and in Wisconsin, where the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha wants to divert Lake Michigan water to its system to feed the city's growth.
The legislator behind Ohio's counteroffensive is state Sen. Tim Grendell (R., Chesterland), who introduced a bill that exempts tributary groundwater and nonnavigable surface water from regional control, while calling for a simple majority rather than unanimous approval from governors when deciding which communities will be allowed to tap into the water.
"We can't pass enough impediments to diversions, but we shouldn't give away private water rights," Mr. Grendell said.
That's right. We can't pass enough impediments to diversions ... mostly because they're getting hung up on worries about non-existant threats to private water rights.
What you're seeing at work is the private property rights at its most extremist ... a basic refusal to give really anything up in the name of the common good. This is the same thing at work behind opposition to the workplace smoking ban: People refuse to give up smoking where it might damage someone else's health on the grounds that the other person -- if they like clean air so bleedin' bad -- should go somewhere else.
Will these folks scuttle this? God, I hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me if they managed to. The Compact only required years to construct, and a lot of spilled ink. Why wouldn't we expect such an important and needed piece of legislation be undone by a vocal, extremist minority?
But, the real test might not be in the states that stand to benefit the most. The real test might come in Congress, which has to ratify the thing after the states. The danger is letting the momentum carrying the Compact through the states dissipate as Congress changes in the new session. It might be the kind of thing that's allowed to rot in committee, since it means putting more blocks between the Great Lakes and other, dryer parts of the country where the kind of development being encouraged can't be sustained by local resources.
There's hope that Congress might sign the thing yet this year, and let's hope that Smirky's poll numbers are so bad that he's compelled, for the purposes of good press, to sign the thing before he rides off into the setting sun, leaving a smoking wreck of a country behind him.
Let's suppose for a moment that a manufacturing firm wants to move into your neighborhood -- within blocks of schools and hospitals -- to make nanotech products.
What's your reaction? Do you say, "Cool! more jobs!" or
"Nano, nano - isn't that the old Mork from Ork line?" or
"Gee, I wonder if there are any permits required for that stuff" or
