The State Senate just passed its version of a solar energy mandate, and the assistant minority leader had an interesting, well, “argument” seems a little generous. Let’s call it an attitude in the form of an argument.
 

While much of the criticism on the Senate floor focused on costs to businesses and residential customers, Assistant Minority Leader Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, questioned whether Minnesotans should even try to address climate change.

 

“I have never, quite frankly, fallen for this global warming thing … and this huge, terrible amount of scare that has been going on in this country about how much pollution and how much acid rain and so on and so forth,” Ingebrigtsen said.

Let’s try to follow the logic: I don’t believe global warming because I don’t believe it; global warming is a pollution issue; therefore all pollution is fake. OK, got it. I suppose it’s possible Ingebrigtsen doesn’t know what global warming, acid rain, and “so on and so forth” are, so he truly doesn’t know they’re different things, but I’m not sure that actually makes him look any better.

For the conservatives who come looking through this site once in a while, I’ll completely concede that you could argue that there are costs that exceed gains — assuming you’re not dismissing the gains because you think global warming is a hoax. You could argue the 1% standard is too high to be achieved, or that costs will be borne by people who can’t bear them or who didn’t cause the problem. That would be fine. Dispute all you want to how to cope with global warming, but acknowledge that those aren’t the arguments your legislative leader is making. He’s in full-blown denialism, not merely refusing to accept overwhelming evidence, but lumping all problems together and dismissing all of them.

Come on, conservatives … acid rain denial now, really?
 

Minnesota’s Legacy funding bill is about deciding what to do with the hefty chunk of money ($538 million, this time around) for outdoors and other cultural projects, provided for by an increase in the state sales tax that Minnesotans themselves approved some years ago, to the flabbergasted horror of anti-tax conservatives, many of whom will just never get it. Though it hasn’t been getting a lot of attention, there is in fact a good deal of controversy going down.
 

There’s been serious disagreement throughout the process over whether Kahn has listened well enough to recommendations from the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, particularly about her funding of metro-area parks and land on the Fond Du Lac reservation.
 
Kahn’s proposal also moved the council from an annual budget to a biennial budget, which caused a serious stir.
 
(MinnPost)

Below the fold, I’m presenting two takes on the issue. My intent is not to take a side.
 

Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis) has the reins. Critics are many, as are their beefs. There’s no way to summarize quickly, yet comprehensively, without going on at what I regard as undue length. If you’re interested, the linked articles are straightforward.
 

Much can be said here, not least that in Kahn, DFL House Speaker Paul Thissen of Minneapolis has appointed a rogue chair of an important committee. Exactly for what purposes others on that panel elect to dance in her legislative conga line is unclear. But there’s likely a pony in it somewhere for some of them, if only the approximately $6 million in metro parks projects Kahn seeks to fund — the same projects some Lessard-Sams council members characterized collectively, albeit privately, as unworthy even of serious consideration; a joke…
 
And nothing riles (Minnesotans) more than when politicians disregard not only the will of the people who want their money spent as intended but disregard as well, as Rep. Phyllis Kahn’s Legacy Committee did Thursday and Friday, expert conservation recommendations developed according to a thoughtful, long-term plan to restore key parts of the state’s natural heritage — thereby contributing to a healthy and enjoyable future for all Minnesotans, their children and grandchildren.
 
(Dennis Anderson/StarTribune)

The following is from Kahn herself, in response to someone who expressed pretty much the same opinions as the above.
 

In my opinion there is an anti-metro bias by this Council, and Orrick simply feeds this prejudice and others he has. Consider this fact: In its entire history, the Council has provided only 10 percent of all funds to the entire metro area despite the fact that the metro area provides 64 percent of the taxes that fund the Legacy money. This cuts out a significant portion of the Mississippi Flyway, one of the most significant natural resource areas in the state, the country and the continent.
 
(Pioneer Press)

Casting this just as metro vs. outstate, as one might think is the case at first glance, is too simplistic. It’s more about differing opinions as to how much of a role legislators should play, in both the short and long term.
 
Obviously, something’s going to get passed. My guess, not to be confused with any intended expression of certainty, is that Kahn and her allies will get a little of what they want, and proponents of the other approach will get quite a bit more of what they want. I don’t see a lot of legislators, or Governor Dayton, looking for a big, high-profile fight over this.

Democratic Visions previews a new documentary about the social, economic and environmental impact of the open pit mining of industrial silica sand in Minnesota and Wisconsin.  The hour-long film is directed by Minneapolis videographer Jim Tittle whose mother lives near a planned sand mining operation on the outskirts of Red Wing.

The film smartly limits itself to the effects of silica minining operations on rural and small town communities rather than the whole buffet of envirnomental and economic woes that the frac oil and naturual gas extraction industry can cause.  A larger-scoped project would demand a mini series.

Mr. Tittle’s photography is top drawer and the folks who have lived through, been harmed and benefitted from silica sand mining are compelling and advisory.   “The Price of Sand” premiers on April 22nd at the Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Film Festival and encores at the Riverview Theater on May 1.

The documentary has a home on the internet here > http://www.thepriceofsand.com

The disturbing truth about silica sand mining (frac sand mining) is that environmentally essential and agriculturally productive swaths of our country are being scraped and killed so that fossil fuels can be extracted elsewhere enabling our avoidance infected nation to cough out even more greenhouse gases into our impaired atmosphere.

About Democratic Visions

Minnesota’s best looking and sounding issues TV program is produced by volunteers from eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Minneapolis through DFL Senate District 48 Eden Prairie/Minnetonka.

More than 150 segments of Democratic Visions are available on line at -

http://www.youtube.com/user/DemocraticVisions

CableCast Times and Channels

Comcast Channel 15 Sundays at 9 p.m. and Wednesdays at 5:30 p.m.  Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Edina, Richfield and Hopkins.

Bloomington Cable Access Television (BCAT) Channel 16 on Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. & 10:00 p.m., Fridays at 9:30 p.m. , Saturdays at 7:30 a.m., 2:30 p.m.

Minneapolis MTN Channel 16 – Sundays at 8:30 p.m.  Thursdays 2 a.m., 8 a.m., 1 p.m.

These sorts of votes are basically political stunts, in this case sucking up to Big Filthy Fossil Fuels. This one is nonetheless butt-ugly.

The vote was non-binding but all too telling. On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted 62 to 37 in favor of building the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, with 17 Democrats joining all of the Republicans. It was just an amendment to a budget plan that won’t even be going to the president’s desk, but it shows that the political class in D.C. views the pipeline very favorably — and believes voters view it very favorably too…

 

The Keystone decision still ultimately rests with President Obama, who appears to be dithering — and procrastinating like mad.

 

(Grist)

Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken both righteously voted “nay.”

I had been unaware that polls show strong public support for this wretched travesty. Of course corporate media hasn’t been highlighting how the pipeline will raise gas prices in the Midwest, on purpose. Or that it will in fact produce only a miniscule quantity of permanent jobs in the U.S. Or anything else that doesn’t carry Big Dirty Energy’s stamp of approval.

President Obama is proposing funding $2 billion for green energy research out of fees for drilling oil and gas on public land. There should be something for both climate hawks and science deniers to like. One gets increased drilling on public land, the other gets money for replacing fossil fuels. More fossil fuel extraction, but more funding for green energy. This set me to thinking about the Keystone XL pipeline.

The pipeline is a lousy idea for multiple reasons, like refining the oil in Texas instead of near where it’s extracted in Alberta, or even in the nearer states, is a pretty dead giveaway the oil is going overseas — if you’re clinging to the notion it will increase US supplies, get that out of your head. In fact, that might reduce gasoline supplies in the Midwest where we get oil from Canada now. There are all sorts of local pollution risks along the pipeline’s route, even if Nebraska is mollified about its most vulnerable aquifers. Above all of course, the production of oil from tar sands produces a lot more carbon dioxide than conventional oil. Yet for all that, Obama is clearly serious about “all of the above”, meaning he has made serious progress on green energy, but he believes in increased fossil fuel production too. No wonder he’s susceptible to the pressure he’s receiving to approve the pipeline.

But maybe there’s a compromise suggested by the proposal to fund green energy with oil and gas leasing — a pipeline tax. Maybe not all pipelines, but at least those pipelines carrying tar sands oil.  The tax shouldn’t just cover the public costs of leaks, but the revenue should be dedicated to green energy research and subsidies. Maybe the tax would be so much per mile per year. How much is so much? I don’t know, though if the science deniers, oil companies, Transcanada, and the prime minister* who is turning Canada into a petrostate aren’t screaming in pain, then it’s not high enough.

So they would get their pipeline and get their oil shipped overseas, but at the cost of funding oil’s obsolescence.

*The prime minister of Canada is Stephen Harper, whom I refer to affectionately as “George Bush’s Mini-Me”.
 

There hasn’t been much, during the 2013 legislative session, about the controversial plans to potentially allow large-scale mining operations to be developed in environmentally sensitive areas in Northern Minnesota. Presumably because they’ve essentially been given the government green light, and many politicians would just as soon see the hot-button aspects of the issue go away. It may be time to reassess that.

Opponents of copper mining in Minnesota might be winning over more state residents, according to a new poll that shows more people oppose the new kind of mining here than support it.

 

The poll, paid for by the Minnesota Environmental Partnership and released Wednesday, found that 48 percent of state residents polled opposed copper mining while 39 percent favor the projects.

 

It’s the first time in five years the poll has been taken that more people opposed than supported copper mining. The coalition of 75 environmental groups conducts the survey annually to gauge public opinion on several key conservation issues.

 

The results show support for mining slipping from a high of 66 percent in 2009 to 62 percent in 2010, 52 percent in 2012 and 39 percent this year.

 

(Duluth News Tribune)

You can go to the Minnesota Environmental Partnership website to access the poll report. I didn’t just link it directly here because for some reason they have it formatted in PowerPoint, which may not be ideal for some viewers.

Also, if you like, check out the website for Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, among other things the new home of renowned erstwhile blogger Aaron Klemz.

Along with a couple of other energy/environmental items.

That increased oil production will bring down gas prices is one of the most reliable Republican canards when it comes to energy, so what gives?

 

As (the Washington Post’s Brad) Plumer points out, “The big thing to remember is that oil prices are a function of both supply and demand. If world demand for oil rises faster than producers can pump the stuff out, prices will go up”…

 

We have to keep increasing drilling just to keep production steady, and the faster you drill in a particular area the faster production peaks and drops off. That future is an economy pouring ever greater amounts of energy and money into efforts “to extract the last drop of profit through faster depletion of a resource that’s guaranteed to run out.” So the structural economics of continuing to pursue oil are shaky, even if further industry profit is possible.

 

(Think Progress)

I know, seeing conservatives proved wrong is what you’d call a really startling, unexpected occurrence. But once you’ve pulled yourself together, in the wake of that:

As Michael Liebrich, the head of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, suggested. “The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country (Australia) with some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head,” he said.

 

Consider the situation in Australia. The utilities and the energy market operator have told us that no new baseload is needed until 2020. Now we know that when new capacity is required, technologies such as large scale solar PV, solar thermal with storage (dubbed as better than baseload) will likely be cheaper, along with wind.

 

Coal-fired power stations will not get built, for reputational and economic reasons, and gas – the much touted transition fuel – may also not get a look in. “Costs are just falling so quickly and the cost of fossil fuel are so much higher than public perception,” said Kobad Bhavnagri, head of clean energy research for BNEF in Australia. ”We could leapfrog gas as transition fuel.”

 

Bhavnagri said that by 2020 the “world could look quite different”. The market operator and system will be more experienced and adept at handling intermittency. “The case for gas is not as strong as people assumed a few years ago.”

 

The upshot of that analysis is that the plants we will be building in the 2020s will be – because they are the cheapest options – large scale solar with storage and other dispatchable renewables. The economic case for existing fossil fuel generators will be further undermined.

 

(Renew Economy)

No, I most certainly do not Love The Bomb. But I’ve read about the Manhattan Project, and what that sort of focused intellectual collaboration can accomplish.

Which is why we as a nation need to throw everything we have at making renewable energies our primary way of powering America into the 21st century.

 

Think of it as a new Manhattan Project. We need green energy, local energy, and a 21st century smart grid to handle it all.

 

Over time, the marketplace will do this for us. But with just about every developed country in the world ahead of us, and our dependence on oil making us more and more tightly bound to Middle Eastern dictators and radicals, to wait and hope big transnational corporations will help birth a new America is both naïve and stupid. Instead of depending on them, we should be recovering from them the cost of those externalities – a carbon tax – that can be used to build a new energy infrastructure in America.

 

Let’s take a lesson from Australia and the Eurozone, which have both set up carbon taxes to make 19th century energy barons pay for at least some of the damage they’ve done. And then use that revenue for a green energy revolution here in America.

 

(Truthout)

This explains a whole lot. And we are really owed some straight answers, though that unfortunately has never been President Obama’s strong suit, when he’s looking to cut deals.

The State Department’s “don’t worry” environmental impact statement for the proposed Keystone XL tarsands pipeline, released late Friday afternoon, was written not by government officials but by a private company in the pay of the pipeline’s owner. The
“sustainability consultancy” Environmental Resources Management (ERM) was paid an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada to write the statement, which is now an official government document. The statement estimates, and then dismisses, the pipeline’s massive carbon footprint and other environmental impacts, because, it asserts, the mining and burning of the tar sands is unstoppable…

 

Because the impact statement was written by a TransCanada contractor, not by State Department officials, it should come as no surprise that it presents a worldview of a global economy inevitably dependent on dirty fossil fuels that is entirely at odds with the expressed views of Secretary of State John Kerry.

 

(Grist)

Here’s another recent, relevant item.

James Hansen’s eye-opening article, “Game Over for the Climate,” brought widespread attention to the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada as a source of carbon which, if tapped, would lead to irreversible global warming. There is another climate bomb in the United States, shale gas hydraulic fracking, which emits methane, more dangerous than CO2. While many rhetorically call natural gas a bridge to the clean energy future, new information is showing the opposite; natural gas will hasten climate change, poisons the air, land and water, and carries unacceptable risks to our health…

 

Industry is going to great lengths to hide the impact of these extreme methods and to promote them as safe and necessary energy sources, even falsely calling them “clean.” The American Petroleum Institute created multimedia public relations campaigns with innocuous names such as Energy Tomorrow and Energy Citizens to provide a green-washed image of the industry as one that is concerned about the environment and health and that is creating jobs and energy security.

 

(Truthout)

MPR reprinted an AP article on last night’s State of the Union speech. The writer, Nedra Pickler, included this weird sentence (bolding mine), “And he continued to push in support of left-leaning social issues including gun control, immigration reform, climate change and advancing equal rights for gays.”

I won’t speculate on whether the writer innocently meant to lump together what she saw as non-economic issues, or really thinks climate change is just some lefty special interest thing. I would like to point out to her that social issues are about people, and climate change is about nature, which I would think any cub reporter could tell apart. Social issues are normally about expanding or restricting rights. Climate change is about whether the drought becomes the new normal inland while the coasts get flooded.

Equality and public safety are obviously important too, but a significant danger to the entire planet just got lumped in with other issues, suggesting the writer dismissed their individual importance. She could have just said the president included non-economic issues if a characterization was needed.

One thing the writer missed entirely was voting rights. The president introduced a 102-year-old woman who waited several hours in line to vote, like hundreds of thousands of her fellow Floridians. That makes voting rights more than just a throw-away line, as does his mention of a specific bill. That would seem to indicate the president thinks this is an issue up there with the others important enough to warrant their own section of the speech.

One tangent, how could the Republicans sit and refuse to applaud this woman’s determination to vote? Oh right, elderly black ladies voting in swing states is bad. Since the long waits aren’t enough, that proves we need a strict photo ID law.

Good deal.

(On January 30), Minnesota Power announced plans to retire coal-burning units at two northern Minnesota coal plants. As Minnesota’s second-largest power company, the utility draws close to 85 percent of its power from coal-fired power plants. By 2015, Minnesota Power will stop burning coal in one unit at its Taconite Harbor plant, and convert units at the Syl Laskin coal plant to burn natural gas. Rather than phasing out coal at its Boswell plant, the utility announced plans to invest more than $350 million to retrofit a unit at the plant to comply with modern pollution standards…

The decision to retire the coal-burning units comes after the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission supported a motion to protect customers by ordering Minnesota Power to address the viability of Syl Laskin and Taconite Harbor and consider investments in cleaner energy due to cost, reliability, and pricing.

Let’s not kid ourselves; this is about the bottom line, and regulators, not epiphanies on the part of execs from Big Filthy Fossil Fuels. But we’ll take it. And the effect of public pressure on said regulators shouldn’t be undervalued.