MN Progressive Project - Environment

The Tyranny of Oil and the battle for Energy Independence:

Dan Powers — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:58:17 GMT

Our economy is in crisis because of the house of cards we built on cheap energy, cheap oil to be specific. All of the flaws in our economy were revealed when oil prices spiked at just under $100 per barrel and Gasoline prices reached more than $4 per gallon in some parts of the country. Too much of our economy is based on oil.

The effects on the country were not subtle, raising the costs of everything, putting a bigger and bigger squeeze on consumers. Given the choice between paying the rent or mortgage on time or having food and gas, most would chose food and gas. When the situation continued and consumer debt began to rise many people found they could no longer keep up the house payments and then the defaults started.

On another side increased costs of construction made new homes too expensive, which meant less houses sold. Fewer houses sold meant less work for those building these houses. More unemployment meant less goods purchased. Less goods purchased meant lower production, which meant more unemployment. This viscous cycle continued even when gas and oil prices started to come down. In the past one part of a recovery would have been the wonderful production capacity of the USA. But over the last few decades we have slowly shipped our production to other parts of the world. Reducing those jobs in the US and making the situation less stable. Adding to the instability was the ever increasing costs of Health Care. The Job market, our very economy is teetering on the edge.
Are we secure as a nation when we depend on others for our basic energy needs? How much do we spend every year to maintain our access to oil from the Middle East? Why do we continue to make a mess of our foreign policy always supporting one dictator after another just to keep the oil flowing? When can we began to make the correct move and grow up as a Nation and quit wasting time, money, lives and resources? How much of our economy is tied to oil and the problems associated with oil? How much of our environment are we going to let be destroyed either through willful neglect or accident? The Gulf disaster and many others have shown us what can happen when problems occur. More than just the cost of the oil, all of the lives affected show us we must do more. How long until the coast lines or fisheries recover? How much pollution is too much?

Oil companies, even US oil companies are not about what is best for the US. They are about what is best for the company. If they weren't they would not be in business long. Sometimes what is best for one company or industry is also what is best for the US, but not always. Those same companies should be a part of the solution and in the process they could make even larger profits but in a different way.

We have over 250 million gas consuming cars and trucks in the US. Even at a modest production rate of 10 million cars a year, double the amount of cars built in the US in 2007, it would take us 25 years to replace all of these cars. Even with the entire world production of 55million it would still take 5 years just to replace the cars currently in the US. And that is if we stop right now and just built all electric or Hybrid cars. The problem is too important to be passive and wait for the market forces to push us along. This is the type of investment and guidance that must come from the federal government.

While we can't do much about the costs of oil in Saudi Arabia we can invest in clean renewable energy here at home. Rather than just depending on oil and coal we must greatly increase our investment in solar, wind, hydrothermal, biomass, and other renewable energy sources. We must also invest in new and existing infrastructure to get these energy sources to market. All of these options and more give us the Independence we must have and the choices that will give our economy the lower cost and stability we need to grow.

To make our transition from oil, especially foreign oil, we must forget about finding one solution to solve all of our problems. Since President Nixon was in office every President has talked about reducing or eliminating our reliance on oil with little effect. Often time's one grand solution (silver bullet) was proposed, but the long term commitment and investment was missing. Too many groups trying to get money and nobody interested in solving the problem. Now we must pay for the mistakes and miss-starts of the last 40 years. Solar alone is not the answer nor is wind or nuclear. We will need to continue domestic oil production as well as a host of other energy production methods as we transition to other less polluting or zero polluting energy sources. The goal is a Clean Energy Independent future and how we get there is up to us. With stable, clean, abundant, renewable energy coming from multiple sources our economy and our Nation will be strong. But we must start now.

Minneapolis gets a second plug-in hybrid car

Joe Bodell — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:14:25 GMT

I try not to dump press releases into posts whole-cloth, nor am I completely innocent of having done so in the past. In any case, this is just too great not to note -- the City of Minneapolis now has a second plug-in hybrid car for official use.

Critics bemoan the fact that these vehicles, which plug into any standard outlet, increase energy consumption in the home or office. That's not necessarily untrue, but the fact remains that the energy they consume when charging their batteries can be produced cleanly through solar, wind, and hydro power a LOT more easily than onboard the vehicle.

Mayor Rybak is also using the right framing here on the economic benefits of having this operation going on right here in Minnesota. Read on.

August 19, 2010 (MINNEAPOLIS) - Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak today picked up the second hybrid vehicle owned by the City of Minneapolis that has been converted to a plug-in. The vehicle, which the mayor will use for his official travel, was converted to a plug-in by a new, Minneapolis-based start-up company, ReGo Electric Conversions.
The vehicle that Mayor Rybak picked up today is the second hybrid that the City has had converted to a plug-in. In 2007, the City converted the first of its hybrid vehicles to a plug-in using a Canadian technology that was not then available in Minnesota . At the time, the cost of the conversion was approximately $11,000. Mayor Rybak used that car as his official vehicle for three years, and has now returned it to the City fleet.
The cost of converting the hybrid that the mayor picked up today, however, was $4,995, or around half of the cost of converting the first hybrid three years ago.
Mayor Rybak said, "ReGo is creating good jobs, adding to the capacity of our region's growing green-manufacturing economy, enhancing our city's overall sustainability and creating good jobs - right here on Nicollet Avenue . I'm very pleased that the City is able to improve our sustainability and support a Minneapolis start-up at the same time."
ReGo's conversion process instantly increases gas mileage up to 85 miles per gallon. It expands the battery pack of existing hybrids while not sacrificing any trunk space, and the new battery pack can be plugged in to any standard outlet. In addition, ReGo conversion kits offer a unique weatherizing package that cuts down on the battery drain traditionally associated with cold Minnesota winters. All packs come with an insulation and battery warming system that helps minimize power loss during the winter.
ReGo's operations are also solar-powered. ReGo is based at Mulroy's Body Shop in south Minneapolis, which recently installed 176 solar panels, making it the largest solar array on a private business in Minnesota . Mulroy's is one of the few green auto-body shops in the United States .
"It's very exciting that this technology is now available right here in Minneapolis ," Mayor Rybak continued. "Taking this step is one simple way that the City - or anyone - can reduce our emissions and help support green jobs, and if we can do it by using a benign power source like solar, so much the better."

More Nails in the Coffins of the Climate Change Deniers

Lowell Feld NRDC Action Fund — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:34:58 GMT

As if we needed any more evidence demonstrating that anthropogenic climate change is real, that it is occurring right now, and that it poses a major threat to the planet's environment, we now have it -- in spades. Let's begin with the assessment by a Penn State University investigation, which completely exonerated climate scientist Michael Mann from any wrongdoing in the ridiculous, trumped-up, never-any-truth-to-it, pseudo-"scandal" known as "climate-gate." In reaction to this report, former House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) -- full disclosure, Boehlert's on the NRDC Action Fund board -- issued a statement which read:

This exoneration should close the book on the absurd episode in which climate scientists were unjustly attacked when in fact they have been providing a great public service. The attacks on scientists were a manufactured distraction, and today's report is a welcome return to common sense. While scientists can now focus on their work, policy makers need to address the very real problem of climate change.

Well said, Congressman, and keep up the great work, Professor Mann!

Next, just to pound the final nails into the coffins of the climate change deniers, a major, independent review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency was released on July 5. The report's main conclusions were crystal clear:

*"no errors that would undermine the main conclusions in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on possible future regional impacts of climate change"

*"the summary conclusions are considered well founded, none have been found to contain any significant errors"

*"ample observational evidence of regional climate change impacts, which have been projected to pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, under increasing temperatures"

In fairness, the Dutch report leveled several criticisms of the IPCC report: 1) even the few, minor errors shouldn't have been allowed to slip by; 2) the report's summary statement should have been written to provide a higher amount of transparency regarding its sources and methods; and 3) the report tended to focus solely on the adverse consequences of climate change, not on potentially positive impacts. These are non-trivial issues that need to be addressed. Having said that, as Joe Romm points out, "the overwhelming majority of research since the IPCC has found that the IPCC has consistently underestimated many key current and future impacts, particularly sea level rise (and carbon-cycle feedbacks)."

In the end, the bottom line from these reports is clear: the science behind human-induced climate change has emerged from this entire, ridiculous, episode overwhelmingly intact -- if not strengthened. The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it?

Are you sure environmentalists didn't blow up Deepwater Horizon?

ericf — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:48:42 GMT

The quick answer to that question is "yes". The point though is I was pretty sure when I first heard the accusation, and didn't know what caused the blowout. The nascent conspiracy theory seemed to make no sense, as did the other theories conservatives have put out to avoid believing offshore oil drilling could be as dangerous as environmentalists claimed. Besides the theory of environmentalist sabotage, conservative pundits or politicians claimed foreign submarines attacked the rig, that Obama deliberately let the blowout gush without stopping it, and just last week, a Republican congressional candidate suggested BP and the government conspired to blow the well on purpose.

Sure, it's easy now to see the blowout was an accident. Well, at least most of us can see it. There's the aforementioned candidate who I guess can't be called "GOBP", and just last month, when we already knew it was an accident, 10% of Americans still believed it was environmentalist sabotage. However, what I'm looking at is how we could see this nonsense was nonsensical before we had the evidence of an accident.

And yes, I realize the sources for these theories are, well, I'm pretty sure I heard the submarine claim from Michael Savage, and the rest are similarly credible. Suspicion of such sources turned out to be correct, but let's pretend we didn't know if the sources were credible, and we only have the theories themselves. Even though we're looking at debunking conservative paranoid fantasies that seem crazy on their face, we can think through other lies/myths/talking points the same way.

And if you think you're too smart to fall for what the right is dishing out, I have two words for you: ACORN videos.
So even before there was evidence to show these theories false, there was a lack of evidence to support them. We can also look at what would be required for the accused parties to have done what they were accused of, if the ascribed motives actually make sense, and if this was the likely way for the accused parties to achieve their goals assuming the assumptions of their motives are accurate.

Environmentalist saboteurs

Let's start with what seems the post popular theory, that environmentalists did it. The evidence seems to be that some environmental groups have committed vandalism or sabotage. However, these were people putting nails in trees to deter loggers from taking them, or animal rights groups breaking in to laboratories or slaughterhouses to show what goes on, there's a pattern of the illegal act being intended to prevent what they want to prevent. This charge assumes they'd cause the disaster they were warning about. It's as if they'd cut down a forest to prove the effects of deforestation were wrong. It sounds like the story of Greenpeace skinning seal pups alive to get film of this awful practice, a story which damaged Greenpeace's reputation for years and probably still does.*

Now think about what these sabotaging environmentalists would need to pull this off. They would need a submarine capable of going a mile deep, of which there are very few, and it seems likely the owners would notice they were missing. Blowing up the well would seem extraordinarily dangerous. So supposedly, these "enviros" stole a sub without detection, got it to the drilling site however far away that was, blew it up without damaging the sub, and put the sub back without detection or noticeable damage.

Why would they do it? To create a disaster to prove offshore drilling could cause a disaster. However, we've already noticed the pattern of those who commit sabotage damaging what they think is causing the problem. They don't cause the problem. There have been plenty of other spills and blowouts to make the point about the danger. It is true none of these received enough attention to stop new drilling, but that's cause only for suspicion, not proof. Of course, one of the marks of the scare quotes type of "conspiracy theory" is that suspicion of a motive is taken as proof, and that's all conservatives have here.

Was sabotaging Deepwater Horizon the best way to make the point? Wouldn't any well do? Yes, though conservatives want to assign great meaning to this one well, like somehow national prestige and hopes for energy independence hung on this well they hadn't heard of before. A blowout at a producing well or a shallow well would have made the point equally well, and the shallow wells would presumably be a lot easier to attack.

So the environmentalist sabotage claim has no evidence, suspicion of motives that's unreasonable, is less than the best way to carry out such a plot if there was one, and a huge difficulty in the carrying out.

Foreign submarine attack

The foreign submarine claim fails for basically the same reasons. A believer would be correct in pointing out the public might not be told if the government knew a foreign submarine was in the area, but that's just an explanation for a lack of evidence, not evidence, and of course a common component of conspiracy theories is the evidence is being covered up, and you can't prove it isn't.

On the other hand, why would the government, and presumably BP, cover up this information when it would absolve them from blame? With the liability and horrific PR it faces, BP has a huge incentive to reveal the foreign sub attack. The government has looked very bad too; the MMS, Interior in general, congressmen who supported looser regulations, and the White House all have a huge incentive to reveal the "truth", which begs the question of why they wouldn't.

Not only would the submarine need to get close enough to attack without getting detected, it would have to escape detection after the attack. It would have to be capable of attacking a target a mile deep, and hitting a small target. I don't know what foreign submarines are capable of, but that sounds very difficult.

Moreover, whoever sent the submarine would face the prospect of war with the US if they were caught. Believers are assuming they would bear that risk for stopping one well when there are hundreds in the Gulf of Mexico already. So the motive doesn't make sense: taking a massive risk for little potential gain.

Would accused nations even be capable of doing this? I don't know, but I do know that's a question with an objectively true answer, and conservatives didn't address it, which is a bit telling. Besides, it could be projected by someone familiar with the damage torpedoes can cause or familiar with offshore drilling what the result of the attack would be, yet it seemed every expert immediately believed it was an accident.

The countries I've heard named as suspects are Russia, Venezuela, China, and especially North Korea. Presumably they know more about the global oil market than US conservatives, who can't figure out how little one well adds or even how little one oil field adds. Even allowing attacking this well would somehow bolster the price of oil by reducing supply, there are smaller oil producers who could be attacked and have less ability to retaliate. Moreover, while conservatives might still suspect Russia or Venezuela, China and North Korea are themselves importers, so it's in their interest to have the US add to the global supply. If these evil foreigners just wanted to stop us getting energy independence, this was an odd way to go about it, because whether this was an attack or accident, it's pushing us to alternative energies, the opposite of the intended effect, and that seems so obvious even a dittohead could figure it out.

So even before we have evidence of a cause other than a foreign submarine, we can tell it's highly unlikely because of the difficulty of attacking, the huge risk of retaliation relative to a dinky gain, and the main suspects wouldn't even gain by it.

Obama deliberately delayed

When Michael Brown was challenged repeatedly by Chris Mathews to state his evidence, Brown kept responding that Obama wanted to use the blowout to stop any more offshore drilling. That was a giveaway that he had no evidence, and maybe he stuck to that point because he was there to spin and he stuck to his talking point. We don't need to know his motive however, because we can see what he was doing. He was asserting a motive for an accused person doing what he is accused of, and using the motive as proof of the accusation. He may have believed it, because it's one of the marks of conspiracy theory thinking. How do you know Obama's birth certificate is fake? Because his parents wanted to pretend he was a citizen. How do you know the WTC was destroyed by planted explosives? Because the government for war.

What evidence would be needed seems clear. There would have to be a memo saying something like, "This will plug the hole, so don't do it." Or maybe, "This is what we need to stop offshore drilling." Or maybe there's no memo, but rescue boats or oil skimmers were ordered to stay away. If such evidence exists, it hasn't been presented.

Now take Obama's endorsement of increased drilling, repeated shortly before the blowout. The GOBP must think him ingeniously duplicitous to keep advocating for a position he really opposed right before it literally blows up. Did Obama take a huge risk there would be no accident and he would be stuck defending increased drilling, or did he make a mistake advocating drilling? If he really wanted less, why would he appear to fall for a Republican talking point?

So either Obama took the risk that there would never be an accident to prove his point, or he screwed up this one policy position, and any delays dealing with it have to be explained some other way.

Obama and BP conspired together

The Republican candidate who suggested this could have at least given investigators a starting point when calling for an investigation while admitting he had no evidence whatsoever. His evidence seems to be that he couldn't then and there prove himself wrong. So far, this one hasn't gotten much credence on the right. Maybe they're not completely insane.

To state what should have been but wasn't obvious, even if you buy into the idea Obama was secretly against more drilling, BP had nothing to gain and much to lose. I won't say they had every incentive to avoid an accident because some incentive was lacking, but that they had nothing to gain by an accident should be clear. They therefore wouldn't have worked with Obama to blow up their well. If they did, then all the potential whistleblowers are being silenced, and all the recordings and documents are destroyed or hidden. Or is the evidence undiscovered because it doesn't exist? You be the judge.

Nah, it's my post, I'll be the judge. It's much more likely it doesn't exist.

This has gotten plenty long, and getting into why conservatives are willing to indulge one conspiracy theory after another is a topic in itself. Instead, I'll just make a few relevant points.

I make no claim only conservatives can fall into this mode of thinking. It just happens to be more common on their side at the moment. Maybe liberals will fall into it next time our world view appears to have melted when brought into contact with reality.

I just want to reiterate that the point of all this wasn't to argue against these specific claims on the right regarding Deepwater Horizon, but to show a thought process that can be applied to any claim, even before evidence the claim is false.

Finally, here are a couple guidelines to jumpstart your next debunking. Remember Occam's razor: the simplest explanation that fits the facts is probably right. Also remember this quote by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Have fun watching the video of the meeting where BP and Obama planned the blowout! If it turns up.

*Supposedly a Canadian commission in the 1960's heard testimony from a seal hunter who was paid by a film crew to skin a seal alive. Greenpeace didn't exist until 1971.

TX Oil Companies Try to Kill CA Clean Energy Legislation

NRDC Action Fund — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:21:06 GMT

As if the oil companies from Texas - and their allies in the corridors of power - hadn't done enough harm to our country already (for more, see the late, great Gulf of Mexico), now they are at it once again. This time, it's Valero and Tesoro, pouring money into a campaign this election season to undo California's landmark, clean energy and climate law, AB 32. On Tuesday, the oil companies' proposition was certified for the November ballot. The fight, as they say, is on!

Why should you care? Let us count the ways.

First and foremost, whether you're a Californian or not, this campaign should concern you because if the oil companies succeed here, they will try this everywhere - in other states and at the federal level. Mark our words, that's exactly what they're up to here.

Second, let's be absolutely clear about what this proposition says. As the Stop Dirty Energy website explains, "The Texas oil companies want you to believe it's simply a "temporary" suspension. However, their deceptive proposition would repeal AB 32 until unemployment reached 5.5% for a full year - a market condition that has only occurred three times in the last 30 years." Which means that this proposition is nothing less than "an effective repeal of [California's] clean energy and clean air laws." In sum, they want to kill this landmark law. Period. Don't let their propaganda fool you into believing anything else.

Third, let's also be clear who these people are and how utterly deceptive they're willing to be. According to the Stop Dirty Energy Facebook page, oil companies including Valero and Tesoro recently "released yet another study bought, sold, and paid for by polluters on the impacts of AB 32." The study, for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) by the California Lutheran University's right-wing economics chief," is nothing more than "junk economics paid for by polluters that defies the reality that clean tech is the fastest-growing segment of the California economy." It gets even worse, with the author of a previous, fallacious study by CMTA attacking AB 32 affiliated with the global-warming-denying Heartland Institute, which receives heavy funding from our friends at Exxon Mobil. This institute also enjoys holding conferences to downplay and deny climate science. That's who we're dealing with here. That's who we're fighting.

Fourth, it's important to emphasize what's at stake here. Other than minor matters (ha) like the environment, public health and national security, this is about J-O-B-S. Specifically, the only sector of job growth in California has been in the clean energy technology development sector. For more, watch this video and hear how AB 32=Jobs (and, on the flip side, how killing AB 32 will kill those jobs).

Fifth, this proposition will not just hurt California jobs, it will also hurt Californians' health and ability to breathe clean air. As the Stop Dirty Energy website points out, this proposition "would create more air pollution in California and threaten public health." Currently, "California's air pollution crisis contributes to 19,000 premature deaths, 9,400 hospitalizations, and more than 300,000 respiratory illnesses for California families." Just imagine how much worse it will be if the Texas oil companies get their way and gut California's clean air laws!

Finally, as NRDC wrote in a blog post entitled, "California Crossroads, "The oil companies have chosen California as their battleground to crush the progress the State's made in moving away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy." NRDC reported from a media event (see photo above) at "Pier 7 on the city's embarcadero, overlooking the bay that is the largest and most biologically productive estuary on the West Coast" (and also where "the tanker Cosco Buscan ran aground in 2007, spilling more than 53,000 gallons of heavy bunker oil, killing wildlife and providing a harbinger of the great environmental tragedy now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico"). As the NRDC blog post puts it, "We can't let Texas oil destroy California's future simply for the purpose of stuffing more cash into their already bulging coffers."

That's why we need everyone - not just Californians, but every American who cares about clean energy and our planet's environment - to join our efforts at stopping this heinous, Texas oil company-funded Dirty Energy Proposition. Please click here for more information and to join the campaign. Sign up for Stop Dirty Energy Twitter feed, Facebook page, and YouTube channel. Also, check out the NRDC Action Fund Facebook page, as we will be heavily involved in this campaign.

Why does a national organization like NRDC care about a "California issue?" Other than the fact that California is an enormous - and enormously important -state, we care because, clearly, the Texas oil companies are attempting to set a national precedent in California against clean energy and climate action, and we can't let them do that.

We are convinced that stopping them here, exposing their lies, and deterring others from trying this in the future, is crucial to tackling our largest environmental challenges moving forward. It's also crucial, we might add, to fight against these well-funded, powerful, corporate polluters attempting to buy our politicians and our Democracy.

Thank you for your help.

NRDC Action Fund

How extreme is Tom Emmer? Part III: the environment

The Big E — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:11:00 GMT

In the first two installments I examined Republican MN-GOV candidate Tom Emmer's positions on jobs and the economy and immigration. This time I will look into his statements and positions on environmental issues.

First and foremost, Emmer's campaign website has zilch and nada on it's issue page about environmental issues. Yes, that's right. One of the most important issues facing humanity and he doesn't consider it important enough to mention on his website.

That's because Tom Emmer is a global climate change denier -- it simply isn't an issue, he falls in with the crowd who believe it's a hoax. He characterized Al Gore's efforts to educate the world about the dangers of global climate change as "climate porn":

(h/t MN Publius)

Clean Water Action Alliance gave Emmer a zero rating in 2008 and Conservation Minnesota did the same for 2007.
Republicans strongly disapprove of anyone in their party who doesn't deny global climate change. Take for example, Occasional MN Governor and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty. He has a serious problem to overcome in his presidential bid. In 2007 he signed legislation that would have seriously curbed greenhouse gas emissions in MN. Then he touted the bill before flip-flopping because he wants to be President. This doesn't sit well with the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers that make up the Republican base.

Similarly, Marty Seifert, Emmer's endorsement opponent, was hammered for supporting this same piece of legislation. While I won't claim this is the reason Emmer beat him at the convention, it was part of the litany of reasons that Team Emmer pointed out about how Seifert wasn't radical enough.

So what other kinds of things does Emmer say on environmental issues? Here's a kooky little tidbit that also exemplifies what a policy lightweight he is:

First post back in Minnesota now that I'm reading local news more closely... Let's be brief, starting with this tidbit from Doug Grow, covering filing day and the differing public personalities of the major party nominees.
"We've got four agencies that deal with water," [GOP candidate for governor Tom] Emmer said. "Health, DNR, PCA, BOWSER [sic] ... Does that make sense? So much duplication."

For the next five months, Emmer is going to drop a lot nonsense like this and pretend he's talking sense
Is there duplication among those agencies? Maybe some, but Emmer doesn't cite facts to show there's a problem. Nor does he pose a solution. He just leaves it to the listener's imagination and limited attention span to figure it out.

A Few Words About Madagascar

borderjumpers — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:24:14 GMT

Sometimes it's good to be cautious--and other times it's better to go with your gut.

People told us not to visit Madagascar, that political conflict made the country unsafe for tourists.

But we decided to go anyway because if we had listened to those voices, we'd never have gone to Nairobi, Kampala, or Kigali.

We are cautious when we travel, but aware that our best and most eye-opening experiences are places well off the beaten path.

And, Anantanrivo, Madagascar's capital city, is a place we fell in love with.

The narrow streets, alleyways, cobblestone roads, and historic buildings remind you, at times, of parts of Western Europe. At the same time the markets, the noise, the traffic, the energy, the goats and livestock walking along the highways, were all quintessentially African.

Our journey started as we did a field visit to RTM. RTM is an Italian NGO, working with farmers to provide alternatives to slash and burn agriculture--which is practiced in many rural areas as a way to provide nutrients to the soil. Unfortunately, the nutrients don't last more than a season or two, forcing farmers to burn more forest.

Afterwards we met with Xavier Rakotonjanahary, Rice Breeding Coordinator, National Center of Applied Research for Rural Development. Xavier works with rural rice farmers, helping develop different breeds of rice that will help reduce labor, fertilizer, and other inputs.

We spent Danielle's birthday trekking in the rainforest in search of lemurs in the national rainforest of Antanarivo. Lemurs are only found in Madagascar (with the exception of the island of Comoros) largely because their ancestors were displaced everywhere else due to monkeys and apes.

In Madagascar, 90 percent of the country's original forest has been destroyed and lemurs are presently endangered due to deforestation and hunting. Additionally several species of lemurs are extinct, especially the larger species. The smaller lemurs are nocturnal and all we could see was their amazing red eyes on a night trek. We also saw large chameleons, turtles and giant snails.

During the day we saw lemurs playing (they travel as families) and eating flowers, leaves and fruits. In our video below you will see them playing, and can listen to a brief explanation about lemurs from our tour guide. They are pretty incredible animals with deposable thumbs and long tails that they use to balance themselves between trees.

In summary, if you are considering a visit to Madagascar, go. You won't regret it!

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved:
1. Comment on our daily posts -- we check for comments everyday and want to have a regular ongoing discussion with you.
2. Receive regular updates--Join the weekly BorderJumpers newsletter by clicking here.
3. Help keep our research going--If you know of any great projects or contacts in West Africa please connect us connect us by emailing, commenting or sending us a message on facebook.

(Hot) Wind Energy Powers MEP Gubernatorial Debate

Aaron Klemz — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:57:42 GMT

The gubernatorial candidates at the Minnesota Environmental Partnership forum this Sunday were long on aspirations and a bit short on specifics. The remaining candidates in the race for Minnesota governor debated at the Living Green Expo on Sunday, with two notable absences. First, was the absence of Tom Emmer (R endorsed) and second was the quick departure of Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL endorsed.)

In a debate that was long on . . . well, just long, a few things stood out (More below the fold).
Emmer's Absence

Both Entenza and Dayton highlighted and lamented the absence of Tom Emmer from the forum. They also took his absence as an opportunity to define what Emmer would do to harm the environment, focusing on three issues. First, both argued that he would eliminate LGA, harming the ability of municipalities to address environmental issues. Second, that he would eliminate the Met Council, destroying mass transit and preventing effective metropolitan planning. Third, that Emmer's focus on slashing state government would cripple the ability to enforce environmental laws. Frankly, I expect that this message will sharpen over the next several months, as Emmer has made statements and votes that highlight his hostility to environmental causes in sharper relief than these jabs did.

Can Personal Responsibility Save the Environment?

On the off chance that you were taking Rob Hahn's (IP) candidacy seriously, well, you should stop doing that. "Well, I've done some reading on that," and "I was talking to someone on the phone about this," were the limits of Hahn's understanding of these issues. I wouldn't vote for this guy to be on my local Soil and Water Conservation Board, let alone set the tone for the state's environmental policy. He and Tom Horner (IP) did share an affinity toward "personal responsibility" as opposed to government "trying to do everything, and ending up doing nothing (Horner)." I am not sure how personal responsibility will stop point source pollution, or why the state government's energy policy is a personal responsibility issue. But Horner's consistent message was that new programs that spend money were pretty much impossible in a world where the next budget starts $7 billion in the red, and he's not too far wrong about that.

Dayton returned several times to criticism of the "Pollution Cooperation Agency," arguing that Gov. Pawlenty has made the agency serve the interests of polluters and not Minnesotans. He was clear and forceful on the need for enforcement of environmental regulations, but not very specific about which regulations had been unenforced.

Is Nuclear Power the Answer?

Rob Hahn thinks so, he wants build one or two "4th generation" nuclear plants. Both Dayton and Entenza dismissed this idea. Dayton called it "irresponsible" since we have no solution for storage of nuclear waste, and pointed out that nuclear waste from the Prairie Island plant was being stored in a flood plain, and waste from Monticello was being shipped by rail through downtown Minneapolis. Entenza pointed out that even if we were to decide today to build a new plant, it would be 10-20 years before it would have any impact. Horner says that we need to figure out the storage problem, but didn't take a strong position on whether more nuclear power was desirable.

Can you have your cake and eat it too?

In the "unexamined platitude" section of this debate, every candidate uttered some variation of the following statement "we need to grow the economy and protect the environment." Well, that's the trick, isn't it? The Twister game got rolling on a question about the PolyMet sulfide mine proposal. Both Entenza and Dayton were critical of the public input process and the DNR's leadership. Entenza laid the blame at the foot of Tim Pawlenty, and argued that the public information sessions made the process a "black box" where decisions were made behind closed doors. Dayton demonstrated that he's aware of the process and the poor rating the EPA gave the draft EIS, but concluded that he would do his best to strike a balance between economic development and environmental protection. Horner stated that the mine should put sufficient resources up front to protect taxpayers, echoing the argument from advocates for stronger financial assurance regulations.

It was heartening to at least hear the candidates demonstrate awareness of this issue, and gratifying to hear them note the deficiencies in the public input process. But all of them seemed to view the mine as inevitable. Horner demonstrated this best, revising his statement on the fly: "As we provide Polymet with the opportunity ... If we provide Polymet with the opportunity."

Renewable energy

Entenza's focus on growing the clean energy economy as his signature economic and environmental policy issue allows him to bake and eat his cake more elegantly. He's very good on this issue, though I would like to see more clarity about how he intends to increase the ease of financing private investments in renewables. Margaret Anderson Kelliher highlighted her role in passing the 2007 Renewable Energy Standard. Unfortunately, she needed to leave due to a prior commitment, and much of the subsequent debate was more about how to achieve the goals set forth by that legislation, with no real disagreement about the value of it.

Throughout this debate, Matt Entenza demonstrated a good grasp of all of the issues, and he does a very good job of framing. He keeps coming back to the clean energy economy as the core of his campaign, and was effective in this debate at keeping focused on this core issue. Dayton was a little all over the place. He clearly has a passion for environmental issues and a lot of knowledge, but was more scattered. Horner acquitted himself pretty well, even though this is not his core audience. If his goal was to demonstrate that he's informed, thoughtful and not a scary guy for voters who care about the environment, he succeeded. It's not fair to say much about Kelliher, as she was only present for the first third of the debate. That's too bad, because I wanted to hear more from her on these issues.

As always, the Uptake has done Minnesota voters a great service in taping and making the video of this event available. You can watch the whole debate, including video segmented by question at Uptake, or check out the opening statements:

Gov Forum @ Living Green Expo

dyna — Mon, 03 May 2010 00:52:40 GMT

Last night I again intellectually approached the question of whether or not I should support Margaret for governor whilst enjoying the Prairie Home Companion. By the time American Routes gave way to MPR's local production I'd given in and decided to march for Margaret in the May Day Parade.

But when I woke up in the morning my arms were still sore from being twisted by various and sundry DFL endorsement cultists for the last few weeks. My decision making process was also influenced by memories of past May Day parades... Memories of a four mile hike which didn't agree with my gimpy legs. So I decided to catch the Living Green Expo and especially their governor candidate forum.
Now the expo itself is about 49% eco-gadgets that don't work and 49% eco-gadgets that might work but cost far more than they'll ever save in utility bills, fuel costs, etc.. But it's the remaining 2% I attend the show for, and even if I can't afford it I can usually make some productive use of the concept. Amongst the gems in that 2% was a company seeking investors for medium sized wind and solar generating projects in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. But they're installing most of their projects in Iowa and Wisconsin because under those states pro clean energy laws they get a much faster payback. They gave me some detailed financial projections for a 40 kilowatt project for Minnesota and Wisconsin. In Minnesota the project pays back the investment and starts to turn a profit in its 9th year of operation, In Wisconsin the same project will start to turn a profit in it's 4th year... 'nuff said?

Against that financial background I investigated Margaret's energy platform, which turned out to be pretty much the status quo. In her lit and in the debate she cites what the legislature has accomplished during her tenure. Not exactly impressive when you consider that some of these accomplishments were little or no more than Pawlenty proposed. It also appears that some of my posts about Margaret's campaign had been noted by the campaign... heck, this keeps up and we may even be communicating! But the overall impression I get is that Margaret the moderate is running for governor. I much preferred Margaret the Minneapolis progressive. Strange- the upcoming primary is almost the ultimate base election, and Margaret's campaign is packaging her as a moderate?

Meanwhile, Matt took the lead in the forum. Not surprisingly, as energy and the environment is Entenza's strong point. With virtually every question Matt laid out his vision of an energy independent Minnesota with good jobs and a clean environment. Mark Dayton was the wild card, and it became almost entertaining wondering what populist talking point he'd come up with next. But Dayton's responses reflected his campaign- simplistic, uneven, even unpredictable.

Unfortunately Margaret left early to catch the parade, so we didn't get more time to suss out her platform on energy and the environment. Fortunately IP candidates Rob Hahn and Tom Horner provided comic relief. Especially entertaining was Rob Hahn's frequent "I don't know" responses. As expected for someone who's been a public person of the old school republican persuasion for the last couple decades, mister Horner was much more polished in evading answering the questions.

And Emmer the Hun? No where in sight- He was probably busy fertilizing the fields of his hobby farm with PCBs!

Support Resolutions #12 and #78! (And some more general information on Resolutions)

Aaron Klemz — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:15:21 GMT

Obviously, the race for the gubernatorial endorsement is incredibly important. But there is also other business being conducted at the DFL State Convention this weekend. One of these items is voting to add planks to the Platform and Action Item agenda for the next two years.

In a moment, I'm going to make a plug for two resolutions. But first, allow me to do a public service announcement by talking more generally about the resolution process, schedule and implications.
First, if you are going to the Convention, you should take a look at the Platform Commission Report before you go. It contains 112 resolutions that will be voted on at the Convention. These resolutions began at the caucuses, and were approved at each subsequent level of convention (SD/CU and CD).

Second, the process of voting is relatively simple. According to the proposed agenda, the action is on Friday, where there will be distribution of ballots at 1PM and a time for "special consideration" of resolutions of up to 90 minutes. At that time, delegates can request that a resolution be debated. Additionally according to the proposed rules, resolutions that are not on the Platform Committee Report can be introduced at that time, but they require the signature of 10% of the delegates, and then go to the back of the line for consideration only if there is time after the resolutions pulled for debate and amendment.

After the special consideration period, there will be a 30 minute balloting period. Only those delegates and upgraded alternates seated at the time certain of 1 PM Friday will be given ballots. Those ballots must be turned into your delegation chair by 5 PM Saturday.

Resolutions must receive 60% yes votes to pass. A "nonvote" is a no vote, in the same fashion as voting for MN Constitutional Amendment. If you fill out a ballot and leave say, #1, blank, it counts as a "no."

This is an important process, since the Platform and Action Item agenda represent the policy direction of the DFL. Participate, get educated, and ask questions. Arriving on Friday means you get to vote!

Okay, public service announcement over - here's my pitch for a couple of resolutions.

Dear Delegates,

My name is Aaron Klemz, and I am a fellow DFL State Convention delegate from Columbia Heights. I'm writing to ask your support of two resolutions for the 2010-2012 Action Agenda - Resolutions #12 and #78. Both commit the DFL to strengthen "damage deposit" regulations for new sulfide mines proposed in northeastern Minnesota.

This type of mining would be new to Minnesota. There are several differences between metallic sulfide mining and more familiar taconite mining, the most important being that waste rock from sulfide mining can produce sulfuric acid. Acid mine drainage can devastate a watershed and the aquatic life in it.

Across the country, there are many examples of abandoned mines where taxpayers are left a multi-million dollar cleanup bill. For example, the Brohm mine in South Dakota cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in cleanup costs. Here in Minnesota, we've seen mining go through cycles of boom and bust, and several bankruptcies in the taconite industry. We need regulations that require companies to provide bankruptcy-proof financial assurance that cover the costs of sulfide mining cleanup.

If you'd like more information about this issue, I encourage you to visit the Precious Waters website where you can learn more about sulfide mining and financial assurance laws. If you are interested in helping me spread this message at the DFL Convention, please feel free to message me.

I look forward to seeing my fellow DFLers in Duluth this weekend!

In Solidarity,
Aaron Klemz - SD50 Delegate

Obama Offshore Oil Drilling: The Details and What They Might Mean for Midterm Strategy

Aaron Klemz — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:43:15 GMT

The recent announcement by the Obama administration that they would open significant areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil and gas exploration has created a lot of consternation among environmentalists and a lot of skepticism in the "drill, baby, drill" crowd. And like most policy coming from the Obama White House, both groups aren't wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a policymaking motif that's been Obama's hallmark, and this issue is a great example of the technique of attempting to split the difference between irreconcilably different groups. The question is "what is to be gained by splitting the difference?" or perhaps it's better phrased as "is there a middle ground on this issue at all?"

Predictably, coverage in the news media lacks nuance and missed some of the essential points of this policy shift in its rush to describe it in its usual way - who "won" and who "lost." And that's the fundamental problem here; this is a policy shift full of nuance, with lots of gray and very little black and white.

After the jump - what exactly is the new oil and gas policy and how does it fit into the overall policy direction of the Obama White House?
In order to understand the nuances of this policy shift, you need to know about the process. Like all executive agencies, the Department of Interior (DOI) is charged with implementing legislation. In this case, there are a number of laws that govern OCS leasing. The primary law is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) which requires the DOI to make OCS leases available and establishes a framework for the development of OCS oil and gas resources. It established a four-stage process:

Preparation Stage - DOI prepares a five-year schedule for proposed lease sales.
Lease-Sale Stage - Interior solicits bids and issues leases for particular areas.
Exploration Stage - Interior reviews and determines whether to approve more extensive exploration plans.
Development and Production Stage - Interior and affected State and Local governments review a more extensive plan from the leaseholder. If Interior finds that the plan would probably cause serious harm to the environment, it may terminate the lease.

The rhythm of this five-year leasing process is important to understand what's happening now, and why it is happening now. Interior is currently in the middle of a five-year period of lease sales that began in mid-2007 and ends in mid-2012. It's also in the planning process for the next five-year period that will begin in 2012. Before the 2012-2017 lease period can proceed, new areas that would be included have to go through the environmental review process (initial "scoping" and then the development of draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the approval of a Final EIS.) So there are two separate issues: leases in the current five-year cycle that were put into limbo by a court case, and planning for the next five-year cycle.

To access some of the specific reasons why environmental groups are upset about this decision, you have to get beyond a simple "environmental groups think oil drilling is always bad" frame and understand that Interior reinstated leases that appeared to have been thwarted by a 2008 court case. Interior was under an April 2009 order from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Interior that vacated the existing OCS leasing program and ordered the Secretary to review the DOI's OCS leasing policy. Specifically, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DOI is required by OCSLA to review potential OCS oil and gas leases for "environmental sensitivity" and effects on the marine environment as a whole. In deciding to grant the leases, the Bush Interior Department had instead conducted a review that was focused exclusively on the impacts to coastlines. Part of the announcement last week was about complying with the order of the court to review leases granted under the 2007-2012 leasing program initiated under the Bush administration using this new standard. And in announcing the new oil and gas strategy, the Department of Interior specified

"In addition to shoreline/coastal resources, the new analysis includes consideration of the sensitivity of offshore/marine resources, divided into three components of the different areas of the OCS that may be affected by oil and gas activities: marine habitats, marine productivity, and marine fauna (i.e., birds, fish, marine mammals and sea turtles). The expanded analysis considers the sensitivity to oil spills and other factors, such as sound and physical disturbance, and increased sensitivity due to climate change and ocean acidification."

The court's decision in Center for Biological Diversity did not require Interior to remove specific areas from the 2007-2012 lease sale, but it did require Interior to conduct a environmental sensitivity review of the leases that were offered using the more detailed analysis. Based on that analysis, Interior removed two areas of the Alaskan coast from the 2007-2012 leasing program (North Aleutian Sea (including Bristol Bay) and Beaufort Sea) as well as areas in the Chukchi Sea except for one area called Sale 193. Sale 193 is the most important, since it attracted an extraordinary amount of industry interest, attracting $2.6 billion in bids. However, Sale 193 was also the reason why the coalition of environmental groups had originally filed the suit. These environmental groups opposed Sale 193 because of threats to wildlife (such as walrus and polar bears) and concerns about global warming. Now it appears that the Sale 193 leases have new momentum with the Interior decision and the EPA granting a necessary air emissions permit for Shell Oil to operate its drilling ship. The cancelled lease sales were areas with minimal industry interest. In addition, Salazar left intact Sale 220 off the Virginia coast, meaning that it will go up for auction sometime in 2011.

So what changed in the present lease cycle? A number of Bush-era leases that had been held in limbo by the court order are now moving forward, some were canceled, and a new type of environmental analysis was created for future OCS leasing decisions. Some of the canceled areas were environmentally sensitive, such as Bristol Bay in Alaska, a tremendously important area for fish and wildlife.

For the next lease cycle (2012-2017) there are even more changes that seem to be a victory for the oil and gas industry and a loss for environmental organizations. The press releases trumpet the millions of acres opened for oil and gas exploration and development. But you'd never know it if you read Red State, or listen to the House Republican Caucus. What are they so angry about? And what exactly does Obama's announcement mean for future exploration and development of OCS oil leases?

^{Click on image to see bigger version}

Remember, we're really early in this process. In fact, this announcement just announces the intention of Interior to include new areas in the scoping and environmental review process in the Preparation Stage for 2012-2017. That means that if the EIS process finds that these areas aren't environmentally sensitive, Interior can include some of these areas in their lease sale schedule, which then means that the oil and gas industry can decide if they want to bid on specific parcels, and their exploration and development of any specific area is subject to separate environmental review processes. Announcing that Interior will include these new areas in the EIS scoping process only means that someplace in these new areas could eventually become part of a lease sale - it does not mean that they are now open to willy-nilly widespread oil drilling. And that's why the oil and gas industry welcomes this decision, but isn't exactly doing cartwheels because of it.

Undoubtedly, the potential of offshore drilling has been oversold as an immediate answer to American energy security. Part of the reason is that the lag time from initial exploration is really long. To be clear, that's not just due to environmental review. Even if the federal government were to wave their wand and say "drill, baby, drill!" it would take years of exploration and development before a single drop was produced.

Other aspects of the new OCS policy that might bring some cheer to environmentalists include the exclusion of Alaska's Bristol Bay, and Gulf coast Florida areas within 150 miles of shore from the EIS scoping process. If an area is not included in the scoping process now, it can't be included in the lease sale process later in the five-year cycle.

Actually, the more interesting and important policy shift is in onshore leasing changes that have been percolating since Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar cancelled 77 oil and gas leases granted in the waning days of the Bush administration. In January, the DOI announced changes that frontloaded environmental review in the process of deciding which onshore leases to offer for auction and limited the application of so-called "categorical exclusions" that had limited environmental review of leases.

Taken in sum, these changes cannot be characterized in simple "win / loss" terms for either the oil and gas industry or for environmental groups. The balanced approach that President Obama is attempting to strike is precarious. The oil and gas industry and environmental groups are not known for measured rhetoric, with each choosing nearly apocalyptic terms to describe changes that they oppose. Satisfying neither group is a pretty big risk for the Obama administration.

A lot of the analysis of these decisions has focused on the idea of "political cover" that the OCS decision might provide for cap and trade legislation (see this handy compilation of editorial opinion for a sampling), but my guess is that this is the most salient:

"...maybe that's the point-offer an olive branch and watch Republicans swat it down and look unreasonable."

I think we've reached the end of trying to create legislative compromise with the recalcitrant Republican leadership, whose decision to go all-in on the "just say no" strategy means there's little to be gained legislatively in offering olive branches. However, there is potentially a lot to be gained in repeatedly demonstrating to the voting public that Republicans are unreasonably opposed to anything Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress propose. And while the incredible oil bubble of 2008 may not be repeated soon, it's hard not to remember that a majority of those who voted for Obama in 2008 favored some form of offshore drilling.

As we move toward the November 2010 elections remember this episode. Maybe the minutia of the actual policy changes bore you, but this is a template for the Obama White House and its attempt to navigate to a politically tricky middle ground.

Protecting Wildlife While Improving Food Security, Health, and Livelihoods

borderjumpers — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:29:23 GMT

This is the first in a two-part series about Nourishing the Planet co-director Danielle Nierenberg's visit with COMACO in Zambia. Cross posted from Worldwatch Institute's Nourishing the Planet.

One of the first things you notice about grocery stores in Zambia is the plethora of processed foods from around the world, from crackers made in Argentina and soy milk from China to popular U.S. breakfast cereals. Complementing these foreign foods, however, are a variety of locally made and processed products, including indigenous varieties of organic rice, all-natural peanut butter, and honey from the It's Wild brand.

It's Wild was started by the Community Markets for Conservation(COMACO), an organization founded over 30 years ago to conserve local wildlife. COMACO helps farmers improve their agricultural practices in ways that can protect the environment-such as through conservation farming-while also creating a reliable market for farm products. It organizes the farmers into producer groups, encouraging them to diversify their skills by raising livestock and bees, growing organic rice, using improved irrigation and fisheries management, and other practices, so that they don't have to resort to poaching elephants or other wildlife.

By targeting hard-to-reach farmers that live near protected areas, "we're trying to turn things around," says Dale Lewis, Executive Director of COMACO. For decades, many farmers in eastern Zambia practiced slash-and-burn agriculture and were involved in widespread elephant poaching. Farmers killed elephants and burned forests not because they were greedy, but because it was their only alternative, Lewis explains. Degraded soils, the lack of effective agricultural inputs, and drought left many farmers in the region desperate, forcing them to turn to poaching and environmentally destructive farming practices.

By training more than 650 "lead" farmers to train other farmers, COMACO hopes to not only protect the environment and local wildlife, but also help farmers increase their incomes by connecting them to the private market.

COMACO supports the creation of regional processing centers and trading depots to make it easier for farmers to process their crops and transport them to market. The group also offers a higher price to farmers who grow rice and other products organically, and for those use the conservation farming techniques they've learned from COMACO trainers and lead farmers. Where farmers "comply with COMACO, they see benefits," Lewis says, including improvements in food security and health.

The resulting products are then sold under the It's Wild brand in major supermarket chains across Zambia, such as ShopRite, Checkers, and Spar. Next year, COMACO plans to export its products to Botswana. The organization is trying to do as much of the product distribution as possible so that the money stays with the farmers and not middlemen.

COMACO has also gotten technical support from multinational food giant General Mills. The company paid for a COMACO food technician to visit its headquarters in early 2009 to learn how different food processing techniques can increase the nutritional and economic value of the foods that the organization is selling.

Lewis hopes that eventually COMACO will be self sufficient-and profitable-without the current heavy dependence on donor funding. But that's not easy for an organization that works with thousands of farmers and has high administrative, transport, and salary costs.

Stay tuned this week for more about Dale Lewis and COMACO's work.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved:
1. Comment on our daily posts-we check comments everyday and look forward to a regular ongoing discussion with you.
2. Consider donating-For a limited time only when you donate $36 dollars (tax deductible) to support the Worldwatch Institute to support our, we will mail you a signed copy of our flagship publication "State of the World 2011" when it comes out in January. To make sure you receive your copy of the book just be sure to enter the code "NTP2011" when you make your donation.
3. Receive weekly updates-Sign up for our "Nourishing the Planet" weekly newsletter at the blog by clicking here and receive regular blog and travel updates.

Did Auto and Oil Industries Deceive Us? YES

Grace Kelly — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:01:27 GMT

Rumors are that Volkswagen has a one person car, with race car safety, that gets 258 MPG, for $600! It will be first sold in China. This is after years of the auto and oil industry claiming that it cannot be done!

We do know that Volkswagen is set to reveal the world's most economical non-hybrid car to shareholders attending the 42nd annual general meeting of Volkswagen AG in Hamburg. The single-seater is capable of 0.91 litres per 100km (or 258mpg in the old measure) and can manage a top speed of 123km/h.
(Car Advice)

Sulfide Mining Hearings A Lot of Talk - But That's a Good Thing

Aaron Klemz — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:49:47 GMT

Over the last three days, I attended three hearings on sulfide mining and SF2349, a bill that would have strengthened Minnesota's "damage deposit" regulations on sulfide mining operations. After nearly 12 hours of testimony from the DNR, industry representatives, citizens, environmental groups, and elected officials, Sen. Carlson (D-Eagan) withdrew his bill without any recorded vote. This may seem like a defeat for environmental groups that have pushed for this bill for the last two sessions. However, the fact that a group of elected officials finally heard a perspective on sulfide mining that was not from an industry group or a supportive legislator was a victory in and of itself. After the fold - three things we know for sure about this debate after these hearings.
Three things we know for sure:

1) This debate over mining is ridiculously polarized

Of course, you say. This is a hot button issue (mining) near a hot button issue (the BWCA). But the framing of this issue by legislators and the media make it impossible to have a reasoned debate about the extent of regulations that should apply to this industry. Consider this example, yesterday's "Question of the Day" on MPR - "In tough economic times, should environmental protection take a back seat to job creation?" MPR received 120 comments on this question, many arguing that this forced choice was inaccurate and unhelpful. Based on all of these comments, MPR aired a five minute interview with a Professor of Economics at St. Scholastica College in Duluth - who then argued that this forced choice exists and predictably took the side of economic development. Shocking, I know.

It is exactly this kind of frame that makes this debate so polarizing. Not only is this dichotomy a false one, but it shortchanges the real deliberation required when economic development and environmental protection do conflict. It short circuits more productive questions about what kinds of economic development we should promote, what natural resources we know we never want to trade for economic gain, etc.

Mining industry advocates trade in this dichotomy because it suits their interests. The media love it because controversy and easy distinctions fit their preferred "pro/con" model of opinion. If we are ever going to actually have a real conversation about how to develop a sustainable economy in all parts of Minnesota, we need better frames.

2) Minnesota cannot continue to act as though the EPA doesn't exist or is irrelevant

A big chunk of these hearings were about the EPA's highly critical comments on the PolyMet Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unfortunately, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers both declined invitations to appear before the committee, with some speculating that political pressure may have discouraged their testimony.

While Sen. Satveer Chaudhary's conclusion seemed designed to offer something to folks for and against the bill, he declared quite clearly that he was convinced that the DNR knew in Fall 2009 that the Draft EIS was not up to federal standards, and pushed forward with it anyway. This is important both for environmental advocates and for those who want to see this mine built as quickly as possible. DNR's failure to address the EPA's concerns will only delay the environmental review process further.

3) Our public input process is broken and needs to be fixed

At one point yesterday during the testimony of Steve Colvin from the Minnesota DNR, Sen. Ellen Anderson asked if it was true that the public information sessions for the PolyMet DEIS really didn't allow people to speak about the project. He stated that this was going to be the new policy going forward, to present information to the public and allow them to present their concerns to stenographers. He also noted there was nothing in statute that required an open hearing where members of the public would be allowed to speak for or against a proposal, just a public information session.

Both Sen. Anderson and Sen. Scott Dibble were concerned with this answer. Both noted, correctly, that people feel that it is important for the public to be allowed to speak, and that there's value for elected officials in hearing the concerns of their constituents. Additionally, Sen. Dibble noted that this might cut down on the number of duplicative comments submitted to regulatory agencies, since if someone hears another person giving voice to their concerns, they wouldn't feel the need to add their comment, knowing that it will already be addressed.

Sens. Anderson and Dibble seemed to hint that legislation might be forthcoming to address this. Some of the frustration of PolyMet opponents springs from the fact that these hearing were the first open hearings where opponents were allowed to speak.

This process is frustrating for everyone, and these hearings demonstrated that conclusively. Senators wanted to know what the timeline for this project is, the DNR's Colvin flatly refused to give an answer. But one thing is absolutely clear, and should be to both mining proponents and opponents - attempts to end run this process and avoid public input will only drag it out further.

For more information about these hearings see:

#sulfidesenate twitterstream of the hearings

theuptake.org recorded last night's hearing, and will be putting a video on their website soon.

Sulfide Mining Issue Finally Gets a Hearing (or Three)

Aaron Klemz — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:01:21 GMT

After 18 months of sustained effort, a bill that would strengthen Minnesota's financial assurance regulations for sulfide mining (HF 2560 / SF 2349) will finally get a hearing in the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Actually, there are three separate hearings, two today and one on Wednesday. (Details after the fold)

There has been a sustained effort to squelch public input on this issue, but these hearings represent a victory for opponents and a chance to hear both sides of the story of proposed copper-nickel-PGE mines in northeastern Minnesota. After months of a relentless campaign to convince Minnesotans that the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the PolyMet / NorthMet mine described the most innovative, environmental friendly, cutting edge sulfide mine ever, the Environmental Protection Agency brought advocates back to earth with a stinging rebuke.
Several environmental laws require the EPA to review Draft EIS's that are filed by other federal agencies. In their review of a draft EIS, the EPA assigns two ratings. First, they rate the environmental impact that a proposed project would create on a scale from "Lack of Objections" (LO) to "Environmentally Unacceptable" (EU). Second, they rate the completeness and adequacy of the analysis in the draft EIS on a three point scale, from "adequate" (1) to "inadequate" (3). Guess what rating the PolyMet EIS received? That's right - EU-3.

Now, some might say - "well, that's just the EPA talking, and they find fault with EVERYTHING." That's a fair point, I guess. It's also one that we can check on, by looking at how the EPA has rated other projects - remember, they are required by law to do this for all draft EIS's filed by other federal agencies. From Kenneth Westlake, EPA's Chicago Office:

We count as an "adverse rating" any EIS (draft, supplemental or final)that has a rating of 3 (Inadequate EIS), EO-3 (Environmental Objections - Inadequate EIS), EU-2 (Environmentally Unsatisfactory - Insufficient
Information), and EU-3 (Environmentally Unsatisfactory - Inadequate EIS). Of the 11,834 EISs entered in the national database from 1987 to today, 127 received an adverse rating (1.1%). 41 of those 11,834 received an EU-3 rating (0.3%). Remember also that a single project may have multiple EISs as it moves through the NEPA process.
In Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN,OH, and WI), our total universe of EISs since 1987 is 844, of which 7 received an adverse rating (0.8%). 2 of those 844 were rated EU-3 (0.2%).

It's important to keep in mind that an adverse rating doesn't mean that a project is "denied." But after months of mining advocates claiming that this EIS was the best ever written, this is a clear signal that critics of the project have valid and significant concerns. The EIS process is complex, and what it does is gather information in one place for decision makers. Based on their analysis, the EPA has asked for a supplemental or revised draft EIS to address their concerns.

The mining industry has tried to make it sound like the EPA wasn't looking at the same proposal. For example, PolyMet's March 4 press release "clarifying" the environmental review process states:

The EPA's rating of the draft EIS as unsatisfactory appears to have been based on the "proposed project" without consideration of alternatives or mitigations discussed in the document.

This is simply false. The draft EIS lays out the "proposed action" and several alternatives that could be considered (in this case, a "mine site alternative" and a "tailings basin alternative.") On page two of the EPA's comment letter:

This rating applies to the Proposed Action, the Mine Site Alternative and the Tailings Basin Alternative.

This is but one example of the false spin from the PR machine behind the sulfide mining industry. Minnesotan's need to be very wary of the promises of this industry. There's a trail of broken commitments, abandoned mine sites, and water pollution created by this industry. Hopefully these hearings will shed more light on the risks Minnesota faces than the dog and pony show hearings on the draft EIS where the public was not allowed to speak, but politicians who favor the project were.

Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Hearings

Monday, March 8

12:30 PM - Room 107 of the Capitol - on the history of mining and a presentation by PolyMet about the project

6:00 PM - Room 15 of the Capitol - on the EIS and comments about the EIS

Wednesday, March 10

6:00 PM - Room 107 of the Capitol - on financial assurance regulations

If you support clean water, wear a blue shirt - see you there!