Event aiming to turn spotlight on climate by turning off lights
BY KRISTIN NETTERSTROM
Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/255910/
Organizations and residents across the state are flipping the switch tonight, turning their lights and other electrical gadgets off for an hour to raise awareness about climate change as part of the 2009 global Earth Hour effort.
Nearly 200 U.S. cities are expected to participate, with the lights going out at hundreds of McDonald's restaurants across the Midwest and at popular tourist attractions, such as Broadway marquees in New York and the spotlights that shine on Chicago's Sears Tower's twin spires. Cities in 84 countries are expected to participate at 8:30 p.m., their local times, The Associated Press reported.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Game and Fish Commission sued over use of gas-leasing money
Game, fish agency says plaintiff lacks standing in lawsuit
BY L. LAMOR WILLIAMS
Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/255822/
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is arguing that a lawsuit filed by a Little Rock man who says money from natural gas leases held by the agency should go to the state's general fund should be dismissed because the plaintiff hasn't suffered any harm.
The commission said in a response to James Dockery's lawsuit that, among other things, Dockery has no claim to the mineral leases and does not belong to any class of persons who claim to be hurt by the lease agreement.
Dockery's attorney, Q. Byrum Hurst Jr. of Hurst, Morrissey & Hurst in Hot Springs, said he disagreed.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
In July 2008, the commission reached a $29.5 million agreement with Chesapeake Energy for the lease of 11,500 acres in the Gulf Mountain and Petit Jean River wildlife management areas.
The Gulf Mountain site in Van Buren County is situated over the Fayetteville Shale, a geologic formation primarily in north-central Arkansas that's proved to be rich in natural gas. The lease is for $28.3 million for 4,000 acres.
The Petit Jean River Wildlife Management Area lease totals $1.2 million. That land is considered part of the Arkoma basin, where Chesapeake Energy has natural gas operations in nonshale formations.
Both leases are for five years and carry a 20 percent royalty payment - well above the 12.5 percent minimum royalty mandated by state law. If the company produces gas on the land, it can automatically renew the leases.
Drilling in the Fayetteville Shale is projected to have a $22 billion effect on the state's economy between 2005 and 2012, according to a study by the University of Arkansas that was partially funded by Chesapeake Energy.
Gov. Mike Beebe had called on the constitutionally independent Game and Fish Commission to share its revenue from leasing wildlife management land, saying the money belonged to "all 2.8 million Arkansans."
However, Goodhart raised concerns that spending the money on nonwildlife causes would risk the Game and Fish Commission's eligibility to receive future federal grants, which total about $20 million a year. The agency submitted a $95.4 million budget for the 2008-09 biennium.
In September 2008, Loren Hitchcock, deputy director of the Game and Fish Commission, reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had given the green light for the agency to share the funds with the state's Oil and Gas Commission and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, which is set to get $3.5 million of the lease revenue.
When Beebe was attorney general, he issued an opinion on the issue in 2006, which reads in part:
"In my opinion the funds may not be redirected to purposes other than those listed in Amendment 35. As noted above, the funds may only be expended for 'the control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the birds, fish and wildlife resources of the State' and for 'no other purposes.'"
Amendment 35 to the Arkansas Constitution established the commission as a nearly independent state agency.
For the rest of the story, please use the following link:
Game and Fish Commission sued over natural-gas money
Copyright © 2001-2009 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved. Contact: webmaster@nwanews.com
BY L. LAMOR WILLIAMS
Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/255822/
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is arguing that a lawsuit filed by a Little Rock man who says money from natural gas leases held by the agency should go to the state's general fund should be dismissed because the plaintiff hasn't suffered any harm.
The commission said in a response to James Dockery's lawsuit that, among other things, Dockery has no claim to the mineral leases and does not belong to any class of persons who claim to be hurt by the lease agreement.
Dockery's attorney, Q. Byrum Hurst Jr. of Hurst, Morrissey & Hurst in Hot Springs, said he disagreed.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
In July 2008, the commission reached a $29.5 million agreement with Chesapeake Energy for the lease of 11,500 acres in the Gulf Mountain and Petit Jean River wildlife management areas.
The Gulf Mountain site in Van Buren County is situated over the Fayetteville Shale, a geologic formation primarily in north-central Arkansas that's proved to be rich in natural gas. The lease is for $28.3 million for 4,000 acres.
The Petit Jean River Wildlife Management Area lease totals $1.2 million. That land is considered part of the Arkoma basin, where Chesapeake Energy has natural gas operations in nonshale formations.
Both leases are for five years and carry a 20 percent royalty payment - well above the 12.5 percent minimum royalty mandated by state law. If the company produces gas on the land, it can automatically renew the leases.
Drilling in the Fayetteville Shale is projected to have a $22 billion effect on the state's economy between 2005 and 2012, according to a study by the University of Arkansas that was partially funded by Chesapeake Energy.
Gov. Mike Beebe had called on the constitutionally independent Game and Fish Commission to share its revenue from leasing wildlife management land, saying the money belonged to "all 2.8 million Arkansans."
However, Goodhart raised concerns that spending the money on nonwildlife causes would risk the Game and Fish Commission's eligibility to receive future federal grants, which total about $20 million a year. The agency submitted a $95.4 million budget for the 2008-09 biennium.
In September 2008, Loren Hitchcock, deputy director of the Game and Fish Commission, reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had given the green light for the agency to share the funds with the state's Oil and Gas Commission and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, which is set to get $3.5 million of the lease revenue.
When Beebe was attorney general, he issued an opinion on the issue in 2006, which reads in part:
"In my opinion the funds may not be redirected to purposes other than those listed in Amendment 35. As noted above, the funds may only be expended for 'the control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the birds, fish and wildlife resources of the State' and for 'no other purposes.'"
Amendment 35 to the Arkansas Constitution established the commission as a nearly independent state agency.
For the rest of the story, please use the following link:
Game and Fish Commission sued over natural-gas money
Copyright © 2001-2009 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved. Contact: webmaster@nwanews.com
Friday, March 20, 2009
Art Hobson says Feed-In Tariff bill a good idea
Please support the "Feed-In Tariff" (FIT) bill in the Arkansas legislature. FITs are the main cause of the great increase in renewable energy in many nations such as Germany, Denmark, and Spain. The idea is to subsidize entrepreneurs for the installation of small renewable electricity sources, including large wind farms because each turbine is counted as one "installation."
The subsidy is paid by the local electric power company, and the power company is then reimbursed via the Public Service Commission process. Everybody wins: The power company saves money by not having to build a new fossil-fuel power plant (expensive, and bad for the environment), rate-payers save money because the power doesn't have to raise rates to pay for a new plant, and entrepreneurs find a market for renewable power.
I've interacted with Bill Ball, who developed HB 1851, during the past year in my capacity as a member of the
Arkansas Governor's Commission on Global Warming. He's bright, forward-looking, responsible, and has a
laudable interest in renewable energy. The Commission, by a 17-to-4 "super-majority," supported a FIT proposal that was essentially identical to HB 1851.
I'm attaching the actual bill (it's brief and quite clear) in case you want to see it. And I'm attaching
Bill Ball's "talking points" for the bill. Here's the complete email list for the relevant Arkansas House Committee, the House Insurance and Commerce Committee.
Eddie Hawkins is chair, and Fred Allen is vice chair.
ossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 87th General Assembly A Bill 2
Regular Session, 2009 HOUSE BILL 1851 3
4
By: Representatives Webb, L. Smith, Cash, Carroll 5
6
7
For An Act To Be Entitled 8
AN ACT TO REQUIRE AN ELECTRIC PUBLIC UTILITY TO 9
PURCHASE ELECTRICITY PRODUCED BY A RENEWABLE 10
ENERGY PRODUCER IN THIS STATE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE 11
RECOVERY OF THE ELECTRIC PUBLIC UTILITY’S COSTS; 12
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 13
14
Subtitle 15
THE ARKANSAS RENEWABLE ENERGY FEED-IN 16
ACT OF 2009. 17
18
19
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 20
21
SECTION 1. Arkansas Code Title 23, Chapter 18, is amended to add an 22
additional subchapter to read as follows: 23
23-18-901. Title. 24
This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Arkansas 25
Renewable Energy Feed-In Act of 2009". 26
27
23-18-902. Legislative findings and declaration of purpose. 28
(a) The General Assembly finds that it is in the public interest to: 29
(1) Promote and encourage the wise development and use of this 30
state’s renewable energy resources; 31
(2) Foster investment in emerging renewable energy technologies 32
using the renewable energy resources found within this state; and 33
(3) Require electric utilities to include Arkansas renewable 34
energy resources as an integral part of their energy portfolios. 35
(b) The purpose of this subchapter is to ensure that an electric 36
As Engrossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 HB1851
utility will include Arkansas renewable energy resources as an integral part 1
of its energy resource plan. 2
3
23-18-903. Definitions. 4
As used in this subchapter: 5
(1) “Commission” means the Arkansas Public Service Commission or the 6
appropriate regulatory governing body for an electric utility that is not 7
regulated by the commission; 8
(2) “Electric utility” means a publicly owned or an investor-owned 9
utility, an electric cooperative, or a municipal utility that is engaged in 10
the business of supplying electricity to an end user in this state; 11
(3) “Feed-in tariff” means a commission approved tariff that governs 12
the purchase of energy from a renewable electric generation facility by an 13
electric utility; 14
(4) “Renewable electric generation facility” means a facility for the 15
generation of electric energy that: 16
(A) Is located within this state; 17
(B) Is fueled by a renewable energy resource; and 18
(C) Has an effective capacity of not more than five megawatts 19
(5MW); and 20
(5) “Renewable energy resource” means a solar, wind, water, 21
geothermal, or biomass resource located within this state. 22
23
23-18-904. Requirement to purchase renewable energy. 24
(a) An electric utility shall file with the commission a feed-in 25
tariff that: 26
(1) Requires the electric utility to purchase the renewable 27
energy produced by a renewable electric generation facility at the price 28
established by the commission for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years; 29
and 30
(2) Contains those terms and conditions that are necessary to: 31
(A) Encourage the development and use of renewable energy 32
resources to generate electricity; 33
(B) Protect the integrity and reliability of the electric 34
utility’s electric system; and 35
(C) Protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 36
As Engrossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 HB1851
(b) The commission shall approve the tariff: 1
(1) After notice and hearing; and 2
(2) If it finds the tariff is in the public interest. 3
(c)(1)(A) After the tariff is approved by the commission, an electric 4
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least two percent 5
(2%) of its annual electricity supply from a renewable electric generation 6
facility. 7
(B) However, unless the commission for good cause modifies 8
the requirement for an electric utility under this subdivision, the electric 9
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least twenty 10
percent (20%) of its electricity supply requirement under subdivision 11
(c)(1)(A) of this section from a residential or commercial renewable electric 12
generation facility. 13
(2) For an electric utility that demonstrates that compliance 14
with the requirement under subdivision (c)(1) of this section will cause its 15
energy costs to increase more than three percent (3%) than those energy costs 16
would have been otherwise, the commission shall reduce the requirement under 17
subdivision (c)(1) of this section. 18
(d) The electric utility shall retain any renewable energy credit that 19
derives from a feed-in tariff. 20
21
23-18-905 Cost of necessary interconnection facilities. 22
The cost of an addition or a modification of an electric utility’s grid 23
that is made at or beyond the point where the renewable energy producer 24
interconnects with the electric utility’s grid for the sole purpose of 25
receiving electricity from a renewable electric generation facility is the 26
exclusive responsibility of the renewable electric generation facility unless 27
the commission requires the electric utility to bear that cost or a portion 28
of that cost under § 23-18-906. 29
30
23-18-906. Cost recovery by the electric utility. 31
The commission shall permit an electric utility to: 32
(1) Recover the cost of electric energy purchased under a feed-33
in tariff; and 34
(2) Recover and earn a return on the reasonable and prudent 35
investment cost incurred by the electric utility for the construction of an 36
electric system upgrade that is reasonably necessary to receive the electric energy purchased under the feed-in tariff. 2
As Engrossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 HB1851
(b) The commission shall approve the tariff: 1
(1) After notice and hearing; and 2
(2) If it finds the tariff is in the public interest. 3
(c)(1)(A) After the tariff is approved by the commission, an electric 4
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least two percent 5
(2%) of its annual electricity supply from a renewable electric generation 6
facility. 7
(B) However, unless the commission for good cause modifies 8
the requirement for an electric utility under this subdivision, the electric 9
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least twenty 10
percent (20%) of its electricity supply requirement under subdivision 11
(c)(1)(A) of this section from a residential or commercial renewable electric 12
generation facility. 13
(2) For an electric utility that demonstrates that compliance 14
with the requirement under subdivision (c)(1) of this section will cause its 15
energy costs to increase more than three percent (3%) than those energy costs 16
would have been otherwise, the commission shall reduce the requirement under 17
subdivision (c)(1) of this section. 18
(d) The electric utility shall retain any renewable energy credit that 19
derives from a feed-in tariff. 20
21
23-18-905 Cost of necessary interconnection facilities. 22
The cost of an addition or a modification of an electric utility’s grid 23
that is made at or beyond the point where the renewable energy producer 24
interconnects with the electric utility’s grid for the sole purpose of 25
receiving electricity from a renewable electric generation facility is the 26
exclusive responsibility of the renewable electric generation facility unless 27
the commission requires the electric utility to bear that cost or a portion 28
of that cost under § 23-18-906. 29
30
23-18-906. Cost recovery by the electric utility. 31
The commission shall permit an electric utility to: 32
(1) Recover the cost of electric energy purchased under a feed-33
in tariff; and 34
(2) Recover and earn a return on the reasonable and prudent 35
investment cost incurred by the electric utility for the construction of an electric system upgrade that is reasonably necessary to receive the electric energy purchased under the feed-in tariff.
/s/ Webb 4
The subsidy is paid by the local electric power company, and the power company is then reimbursed via the Public Service Commission process. Everybody wins: The power company saves money by not having to build a new fossil-fuel power plant (expensive, and bad for the environment), rate-payers save money because the power doesn't have to raise rates to pay for a new plant, and entrepreneurs find a market for renewable power.
I've interacted with Bill Ball, who developed HB 1851, during the past year in my capacity as a member of the
Arkansas Governor's Commission on Global Warming. He's bright, forward-looking, responsible, and has a
laudable interest in renewable energy. The Commission, by a 17-to-4 "super-majority," supported a FIT proposal that was essentially identical to HB 1851.
I'm attaching the actual bill (it's brief and quite clear) in case you want to see it. And I'm attaching
Bill Ball's "talking points" for the bill. Here's the complete email list for the relevant Arkansas House Committee, the House Insurance and Commerce Committee.
Eddie Hawkins is chair, and Fred Allen is vice chair.
ossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 87th General Assembly A Bill 2
Regular Session, 2009 HOUSE BILL 1851 3
4
By: Representatives Webb, L. Smith, Cash, Carroll 5
6
7
For An Act To Be Entitled 8
AN ACT TO REQUIRE AN ELECTRIC PUBLIC UTILITY TO 9
PURCHASE ELECTRICITY PRODUCED BY A RENEWABLE 10
ENERGY PRODUCER IN THIS STATE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE 11
RECOVERY OF THE ELECTRIC PUBLIC UTILITY’S COSTS; 12
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 13
14
Subtitle 15
THE ARKANSAS RENEWABLE ENERGY FEED-IN 16
ACT OF 2009. 17
18
19
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 20
21
SECTION 1. Arkansas Code Title 23, Chapter 18, is amended to add an 22
additional subchapter to read as follows: 23
23-18-901. Title. 24
This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Arkansas 25
Renewable Energy Feed-In Act of 2009". 26
27
23-18-902. Legislative findings and declaration of purpose. 28
(a) The General Assembly finds that it is in the public interest to: 29
(1) Promote and encourage the wise development and use of this 30
state’s renewable energy resources; 31
(2) Foster investment in emerging renewable energy technologies 32
using the renewable energy resources found within this state; and 33
(3) Require electric utilities to include Arkansas renewable 34
energy resources as an integral part of their energy portfolios. 35
(b) The purpose of this subchapter is to ensure that an electric 36
As Engrossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 HB1851
utility will include Arkansas renewable energy resources as an integral part 1
of its energy resource plan. 2
3
23-18-903. Definitions. 4
As used in this subchapter: 5
(1) “Commission” means the Arkansas Public Service Commission or the 6
appropriate regulatory governing body for an electric utility that is not 7
regulated by the commission; 8
(2) “Electric utility” means a publicly owned or an investor-owned 9
utility, an electric cooperative, or a municipal utility that is engaged in 10
the business of supplying electricity to an end user in this state; 11
(3) “Feed-in tariff” means a commission approved tariff that governs 12
the purchase of energy from a renewable electric generation facility by an 13
electric utility; 14
(4) “Renewable electric generation facility” means a facility for the 15
generation of electric energy that: 16
(A) Is located within this state; 17
(B) Is fueled by a renewable energy resource; and 18
(C) Has an effective capacity of not more than five megawatts 19
(5MW); and 20
(5) “Renewable energy resource” means a solar, wind, water, 21
geothermal, or biomass resource located within this state. 22
23
23-18-904. Requirement to purchase renewable energy. 24
(a) An electric utility shall file with the commission a feed-in 25
tariff that: 26
(1) Requires the electric utility to purchase the renewable 27
energy produced by a renewable electric generation facility at the price 28
established by the commission for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years; 29
and 30
(2) Contains those terms and conditions that are necessary to: 31
(A) Encourage the development and use of renewable energy 32
resources to generate electricity; 33
(B) Protect the integrity and reliability of the electric 34
utility’s electric system; and 35
(C) Protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 36
As Engrossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 HB1851
(b) The commission shall approve the tariff: 1
(1) After notice and hearing; and 2
(2) If it finds the tariff is in the public interest. 3
(c)(1)(A) After the tariff is approved by the commission, an electric 4
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least two percent 5
(2%) of its annual electricity supply from a renewable electric generation 6
facility. 7
(B) However, unless the commission for good cause modifies 8
the requirement for an electric utility under this subdivision, the electric 9
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least twenty 10
percent (20%) of its electricity supply requirement under subdivision 11
(c)(1)(A) of this section from a residential or commercial renewable electric 12
generation facility. 13
(2) For an electric utility that demonstrates that compliance 14
with the requirement under subdivision (c)(1) of this section will cause its 15
energy costs to increase more than three percent (3%) than those energy costs 16
would have been otherwise, the commission shall reduce the requirement under 17
subdivision (c)(1) of this section. 18
(d) The electric utility shall retain any renewable energy credit that 19
derives from a feed-in tariff. 20
21
23-18-905 Cost of necessary interconnection facilities. 22
The cost of an addition or a modification of an electric utility’s grid 23
that is made at or beyond the point where the renewable energy producer 24
interconnects with the electric utility’s grid for the sole purpose of 25
receiving electricity from a renewable electric generation facility is the 26
exclusive responsibility of the renewable electric generation facility unless 27
the commission requires the electric utility to bear that cost or a portion 28
of that cost under § 23-18-906. 29
30
23-18-906. Cost recovery by the electric utility. 31
The commission shall permit an electric utility to: 32
(1) Recover the cost of electric energy purchased under a feed-33
in tariff; and 34
(2) Recover and earn a return on the reasonable and prudent 35
investment cost incurred by the electric utility for the construction of an 36
electric system upgrade that is reasonably necessary to receive the electric energy purchased under the feed-in tariff. 2
As Engrossed: H3/9/09 H3/16/09 HB1851
(b) The commission shall approve the tariff: 1
(1) After notice and hearing; and 2
(2) If it finds the tariff is in the public interest. 3
(c)(1)(A) After the tariff is approved by the commission, an electric 4
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least two percent 5
(2%) of its annual electricity supply from a renewable electric generation 6
facility. 7
(B) However, unless the commission for good cause modifies 8
the requirement for an electric utility under this subdivision, the electric 9
utility shall offer to purchase under the feed-in tariff at least twenty 10
percent (20%) of its electricity supply requirement under subdivision 11
(c)(1)(A) of this section from a residential or commercial renewable electric 12
generation facility. 13
(2) For an electric utility that demonstrates that compliance 14
with the requirement under subdivision (c)(1) of this section will cause its 15
energy costs to increase more than three percent (3%) than those energy costs 16
would have been otherwise, the commission shall reduce the requirement under 17
subdivision (c)(1) of this section. 18
(d) The electric utility shall retain any renewable energy credit that 19
derives from a feed-in tariff. 20
21
23-18-905 Cost of necessary interconnection facilities. 22
The cost of an addition or a modification of an electric utility’s grid 23
that is made at or beyond the point where the renewable energy producer 24
interconnects with the electric utility’s grid for the sole purpose of 25
receiving electricity from a renewable electric generation facility is the 26
exclusive responsibility of the renewable electric generation facility unless 27
the commission requires the electric utility to bear that cost or a portion 28
of that cost under § 23-18-906. 29
30
23-18-906. Cost recovery by the electric utility. 31
The commission shall permit an electric utility to: 32
(1) Recover the cost of electric energy purchased under a feed-33
in tariff; and 34
(2) Recover and earn a return on the reasonable and prudent 35
investment cost incurred by the electric utility for the construction of an electric system upgrade that is reasonably necessary to receive the electric energy purchased under the feed-in tariff.
/s/ Webb 4
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Arkansas Senators aren't helping the fight against coal-burning power plants
King Coal
— By Kevin Drum | Fri March 13, 2009 11:26 AM PST
Barack Obama has promised to push cap-and-trade legislation this year, and one way of getting it approved in the Senate is to push it through via the budget reconciliation process, where it would require only 50 votes to pass. Elana Schor reports that this has run into a roadblock:
In a letter delivered to the Senate Budget Committee yesterday, eight Democratic senators joined 25 Republicans to defend the GOP's right to set a 60-vote margin for passing emissions limits.
"We oppose using the budget process to expedite passage of climate legislation," the senators, including eight centrist Democrats, wrote in their missive.
...Late Update: The eight Democratic senators who signed on to the letter are Robert Byrd (WV), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Pryor (AR), Bob Casey (PA), Carl Levin (MI), and Mary Landrieu (LA).
Take a look at those names: six are from the midwest and the south, joined by Casey and Byrd. In other words, coal country senators. Nearly all the electricity generated in these regions comes from coal, and a lot of that coal comes from West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the #2 and #4 coal-producing states in the country.
This is a dynamic to watch. The battle over cap-and-trade isn't just between liberals and conservatives, it's also between regions. You'll find coal-fired electric plants all around the country, but the midwest and the south rely on it much more heavily than the west and the northeast, which generate a lot of their electricity via hydro and natural gas. Cap-and-trade will raise the price of coal-fired electricity more than any other kind, which means the price increases will hit the south and midwest especially hard.
This letter, then, isn't just a sign that there are some Democratic senators who feel strongly about not bending Senate rules. It's a sign that Democrats from the south and midwest are probably going to have to bribed to support cap-and-trade. The big question is, how? Can they be bought off in fairly benign, traditional ways, or will their price effectively mean the gutting of the legislation? Stay tuned.
Mother Jones story click here
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/03/king-coal
— By Kevin Drum | Fri March 13, 2009 11:26 AM PST
Barack Obama has promised to push cap-and-trade legislation this year, and one way of getting it approved in the Senate is to push it through via the budget reconciliation process, where it would require only 50 votes to pass. Elana Schor reports that this has run into a roadblock:
In a letter delivered to the Senate Budget Committee yesterday, eight Democratic senators joined 25 Republicans to defend the GOP's right to set a 60-vote margin for passing emissions limits.
"We oppose using the budget process to expedite passage of climate legislation," the senators, including eight centrist Democrats, wrote in their missive.
...Late Update: The eight Democratic senators who signed on to the letter are Robert Byrd (WV), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Pryor (AR), Bob Casey (PA), Carl Levin (MI), and Mary Landrieu (LA).
Take a look at those names: six are from the midwest and the south, joined by Casey and Byrd. In other words, coal country senators. Nearly all the electricity generated in these regions comes from coal, and a lot of that coal comes from West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the #2 and #4 coal-producing states in the country.
This is a dynamic to watch. The battle over cap-and-trade isn't just between liberals and conservatives, it's also between regions. You'll find coal-fired electric plants all around the country, but the midwest and the south rely on it much more heavily than the west and the northeast, which generate a lot of their electricity via hydro and natural gas. Cap-and-trade will raise the price of coal-fired electricity more than any other kind, which means the price increases will hit the south and midwest especially hard.
This letter, then, isn't just a sign that there are some Democratic senators who feel strongly about not bending Senate rules. It's a sign that Democrats from the south and midwest are probably going to have to bribed to support cap-and-trade. The big question is, how? Can they be bought off in fairly benign, traditional ways, or will their price effectively mean the gutting of the legislation? Stay tuned.
Mother Jones story click here
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/03/king-coal
What name would make people understand climate change and global warming?
Time to Change "Climate Change"
Thursday 12 March 2009
by: George Monbiot | Visit article original @ The Guardian UK
What's clear from Copenhagen is that policymakers have fallen behind the scientists: global warming is already catastrophic.
The more we know, the grimmer it gets.
Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects:
• Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.
• Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming.
• Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have been underestimated in the last IPCC report.
Apart from the sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC assessments that are years out of date even before they are published, as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its implications for global policy.
The second is that we have to stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe events like this, with their devastating implications for global food security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential catastrophe humankind has ever encountered.
I think we should call it "climate breakdown." Does anyone out there have a better idea?
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.
"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.
Thursday 12 March 2009
by: George Monbiot | Visit article original @ The Guardian UK
What's clear from Copenhagen is that policymakers have fallen behind the scientists: global warming is already catastrophic.
The more we know, the grimmer it gets.
Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects:
• Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.
• Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming.
• Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have been underestimated in the last IPCC report.
Apart from the sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC assessments that are years out of date even before they are published, as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its implications for global policy.
The second is that we have to stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe events like this, with their devastating implications for global food security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential catastrophe humankind has ever encountered.
I think we should call it "climate breakdown." Does anyone out there have a better idea?
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.
"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Stand against coal
From: Bill McKibben, 350.org
Dear Friends,
There are moments in a nation's--and a planet's--history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction.
Today is one of those days.
In a few hours, the first big protest of the Obama era -- and the largest-ever civil disobedience against global warming in this country -- will take place against the not-very-scenic backdrop of the coal-fired Capitol Hill Power Plant in Washington DC.
Myself and people of every stripe will be risking arrest today, and I'm asking you to stand with me as it unfolds.
Please stand with the thousands gathering today in DC, and show the world that people everywhere are uniting behind a future free of coal--a future safe from the ravages of climate change.
Click here to stand in solidarity with this action: http://www.350.org/Coal-Free/
Here's the statement you'll be signing onto:
I share your vision of a coal-free future and a safe climate, not only in Washington DC--but all over the world. I stand in solidarity with the coalition of citizens working for a clean energy future for the entire planet.
You also have the option to add your personal statements of solidarity with the activists on the ground. We're trying to show as much support as possible in the next few hours--can you sign on now? http://www.350.org/Coal-Free/
With President Obama and a new US Congress, there is more possibility for climate action than ever before. It really feels like the U.S. is close to a breakthrough--and this protest can help create the political space a breakthrough requires.
Here's the backstory: Washington DC has seen its share of big protests over the years, and most of them center on the White House, the Mall or the Capitol.
But today's event is just a few blocks a way from the White House at the the Capitol Power Plant--a dirty symbol of the dirtiest business on Earth, the combustion of coal.
In that one plant -- owned and operated by our senators and representatives -- you can see all the filth that comes with coal. There are the particulates it spews into the air and hence the lungs of those Washington residents who enjoy breathing. There are the profits it hands to the coal industry, which is literally willing to level mountains across West Virginia and Kentucky to increase its fat margins. And most of all there is the invisible carbon dioxide it spews each day into the atmosphere, drying our forests, melting our glaciers and acidifying our oceans.
The power plant is only a symbol, of course -- a lunch counter or a bus station in the fight for environmental justice. We'll sit down at its gates for a single afternoon, but the message is much larger: it's time to start figuring out how to shut down every coal-fired plant on the planet. Success won't come right away because we're up against some of the world's richest corporations, but we have to start turning this tanker around someday, and tomorrow is that day.
Again, our efforts will be greatly helped if you stand in solidarity with this action: http://www.350.org/Coal-Free/
This may seem like an odd time to take to the streets -- after all, the new administration has done more in a month to fight global warming than all the presidents of the past 20 years. But in fact, it's the perfect moment. For one thing, our leaders may actually listen -- in the anti-science years of the Bush administration, global warming activists concentrated their work on state capitols, knowing that the federal government would never budge. Now, if we demonstrate that there's real public pressure, we may give the Democratic Congress and the White House some room to act.
More to the point, the time not to act is running out. Climate science has grown steadily darker in the past 18 months, ever since the rapid melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer of 2007 showed scientists that change was coming faster than they'd reckoned.
That message was underlined recently at the Washington meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, when Stanford researcher Christopher Field said: "We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations." Our foremost climatologist, NASA's James Hansen, has given that future a number -- any level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere beyond 350 parts per million, his team has demonstrated, is "incompatible with the planet on which civilization developed."
Since we're already past that number -- the carbon dioxide level is at 387 parts per million -- the fight is on. Indeed, by Hansen's calculation, the world will need to be out of the coal-burning business by 2030, and the West much sooner than that, if we're ever going to get back to 350. It's no accident that NASA's James Hansen announced he'll be on hand to get arrested. So will Gus Speth, who ran the United Nations Development Programme, and the farmer and author Wendell Berry who has seen the devastation of his native Kentucky.
And maybe most heartening, I'll be joined by over a thousand college students who will have just come from lobbying in the halls of Congress for clean energy. They'll have just wrapped up PowerShift '09--an climate convergence organized by a separate coaltion that promises to be a historic catalyst in this movement. These two complimentary tactics are a very good sign: a healthy movement is like a healthy ecosystem--marked by spectacular diversity. There are many ways to be a climate activist--lobbying, rallying, educating, and on and on and on. For me--today at least--being a climate activist means risking arrest with civil disobedience.
Getting the planet off coal -- getting the planet back to 350 -- will be the main political and economic challenge for the lifetimes of those college students. Those of us who are older won't live long enough to see the final victory, but we can help get it started, by lobbying, by writing e-mails -- and by sitting down in the street on an afternoon in March.
Please join me,
Bill McKibben
P.S. Please forward this message far and wide. If your friends and family share a vision for coal-free, clean energy future safe from climate change--and I'm quite sure at least some of them do--ask them to sign our solidarity statement by clicking here: http://www.350.org/coal-free/
----------------------------------------
350.org is an international grassroots campaign that aims to mobilize a global climate movement united by a common call to action. By spreading an understanding of the science and a shared vision for a fair policy, we will ensure that the world creates bold and equitable solutions to the climate crisis. 350.org is an independent and not-for-profit project.
350.org needs your help! To support our work, donate securely online at http://www.350.org/donate
To subscribe, visit http://www.350.org/signup.
Join us on Facebook by becoming a fan of our page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/350org/12185972707
Gladys Tiffany
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Dear Friends,
There are moments in a nation's--and a planet's--history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction.
Today is one of those days.
In a few hours, the first big protest of the Obama era -- and the largest-ever civil disobedience against global warming in this country -- will take place against the not-very-scenic backdrop of the coal-fired Capitol Hill Power Plant in Washington DC.
Myself and people of every stripe will be risking arrest today, and I'm asking you to stand with me as it unfolds.
Please stand with the thousands gathering today in DC, and show the world that people everywhere are uniting behind a future free of coal--a future safe from the ravages of climate change.
Click here to stand in solidarity with this action: http://www.350.org/Coal-Free/
Here's the statement you'll be signing onto:
I share your vision of a coal-free future and a safe climate, not only in Washington DC--but all over the world. I stand in solidarity with the coalition of citizens working for a clean energy future for the entire planet.
You also have the option to add your personal statements of solidarity with the activists on the ground. We're trying to show as much support as possible in the next few hours--can you sign on now? http://www.350.org/Coal-Free/
With President Obama and a new US Congress, there is more possibility for climate action than ever before. It really feels like the U.S. is close to a breakthrough--and this protest can help create the political space a breakthrough requires.
Here's the backstory: Washington DC has seen its share of big protests over the years, and most of them center on the White House, the Mall or the Capitol.
But today's event is just a few blocks a way from the White House at the the Capitol Power Plant--a dirty symbol of the dirtiest business on Earth, the combustion of coal.
In that one plant -- owned and operated by our senators and representatives -- you can see all the filth that comes with coal. There are the particulates it spews into the air and hence the lungs of those Washington residents who enjoy breathing. There are the profits it hands to the coal industry, which is literally willing to level mountains across West Virginia and Kentucky to increase its fat margins. And most of all there is the invisible carbon dioxide it spews each day into the atmosphere, drying our forests, melting our glaciers and acidifying our oceans.
The power plant is only a symbol, of course -- a lunch counter or a bus station in the fight for environmental justice. We'll sit down at its gates for a single afternoon, but the message is much larger: it's time to start figuring out how to shut down every coal-fired plant on the planet. Success won't come right away because we're up against some of the world's richest corporations, but we have to start turning this tanker around someday, and tomorrow is that day.
Again, our efforts will be greatly helped if you stand in solidarity with this action: http://www.350.org/Coal-Free/
This may seem like an odd time to take to the streets -- after all, the new administration has done more in a month to fight global warming than all the presidents of the past 20 years. But in fact, it's the perfect moment. For one thing, our leaders may actually listen -- in the anti-science years of the Bush administration, global warming activists concentrated their work on state capitols, knowing that the federal government would never budge. Now, if we demonstrate that there's real public pressure, we may give the Democratic Congress and the White House some room to act.
More to the point, the time not to act is running out. Climate science has grown steadily darker in the past 18 months, ever since the rapid melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer of 2007 showed scientists that change was coming faster than they'd reckoned.
That message was underlined recently at the Washington meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, when Stanford researcher Christopher Field said: "We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations." Our foremost climatologist, NASA's James Hansen, has given that future a number -- any level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere beyond 350 parts per million, his team has demonstrated, is "incompatible with the planet on which civilization developed."
Since we're already past that number -- the carbon dioxide level is at 387 parts per million -- the fight is on. Indeed, by Hansen's calculation, the world will need to be out of the coal-burning business by 2030, and the West much sooner than that, if we're ever going to get back to 350. It's no accident that NASA's James Hansen announced he'll be on hand to get arrested. So will Gus Speth, who ran the United Nations Development Programme, and the farmer and author Wendell Berry who has seen the devastation of his native Kentucky.
And maybe most heartening, I'll be joined by over a thousand college students who will have just come from lobbying in the halls of Congress for clean energy. They'll have just wrapped up PowerShift '09--an climate convergence organized by a separate coaltion that promises to be a historic catalyst in this movement. These two complimentary tactics are a very good sign: a healthy movement is like a healthy ecosystem--marked by spectacular diversity. There are many ways to be a climate activist--lobbying, rallying, educating, and on and on and on. For me--today at least--being a climate activist means risking arrest with civil disobedience.
Getting the planet off coal -- getting the planet back to 350 -- will be the main political and economic challenge for the lifetimes of those college students. Those of us who are older won't live long enough to see the final victory, but we can help get it started, by lobbying, by writing e-mails -- and by sitting down in the street on an afternoon in March.
Please join me,
Bill McKibben
P.S. Please forward this message far and wide. If your friends and family share a vision for coal-free, clean energy future safe from climate change--and I'm quite sure at least some of them do--ask them to sign our solidarity statement by clicking here: http://www.350.org/coal-free/
----------------------------------------
350.org is an international grassroots campaign that aims to mobilize a global climate movement united by a common call to action. By spreading an understanding of the science and a shared vision for a fair policy, we will ensure that the world creates bold and equitable solutions to the climate crisis. 350.org is an independent and not-for-profit project.
350.org needs your help! To support our work, donate securely online at http://www.350.org/donate
To subscribe, visit http://www.350.org/signup.
Join us on Facebook by becoming a fan of our page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/350org/12185972707
Gladys Tiffany
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
