(Great coverage and comment from the community -- more of the same please! - promoted by Joe Bodell)
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.
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.
I've been trying to avoid talking about this, but I just can't take it anymore: Collin Peterson is demonstrating exactly why people get tuned out from politics on the cap-and-trade legislation that's due for debate this year.
Take Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who chairs the House Agriculture Committee. Back in June, Peterson blocked the bill before winning a series of concessions to the agriculture industry.
This included language that blocks EPA from weighing certain land use changes when measuring the "lifecycle" greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol. He voted for the bill.
But now Peterson says that despite the concessions, he would vote "no" if the bill or something like it comes back through the House.
Lemme get this straight -- Peterson voted for the bill last year, but if that exact same bill came back to the House after the Senate got through with it, he would vote no? Peterson himself won concessions in exchange for his vote then, and now that's not good enough?
If it contained MORE concessions for the private sector to continue contributing to carbon emissions at their leisure, would he vote for it then? It's pretty likely the Senate would make any bill even more "compromisey" than it already is. What about then, Congressman?
"First of all, this isn't going anyplace in the Senate," Peterson told a conservative talk radio show based in North Dakota, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "But if it did and we ended up with a bill that was similar to what came out of the House and that was going to become law, I would vote no."
Shorter Peterson: I voted for it then, but I wouldn't now because...because."
Folks, THIS is one of the several things that's wrong with politics today. Inconsistency for the sake of what the Congressman thinks is political expediency causes voters' BS Meters to spin out of control. If you vote for a piece of legislation, that means you support it. If nothing about the legislation changes, you should still support it six months after you voted for it. Changes in the attitudes of your privatesector donor base should not affect that rather simple calculus.
Decisions leaders make to save their own hides end up hurting a lot more than just the folks who pay the political bills.
I voted for Klobuchar myself, although I always had an uneasy sense that she should not be trusted. What first bothered me were her signature black suits and frequent use of black clothing. Why I wondered, as an occasional student of psychology, would a politician choose to wear so much black--the color of Mafia clothing, evil, the Hell's angel's, and even the little things worn by ladies of the night?
Soon enough, her black seemed to fit her psychological makeup to me--the darkness of her soul and the prostitution of values.
Klobuchar's character became apparent when watching her, during the health care bill debacle, slither up to the big insurance contributors to her campaign and deliver a windfall to the insurance corporations. That 6 percent of our citizens would still be without health care coverage in 2019 under the Senate bill did not touch her cold heart.
It was apparent that in Klobuchar's cold heart, there were neither of the two health care values Americans hold dear. The great majority of Americans believe in universal access to quality and affordable health care for our citizens. Klobuchar does not. The great majority also believe in careful and wise stewardship of our health care resources. And Klobuchar does not.
Most disturbing, Klobuchar seemed psychopathic in her cold disinterest in those who will die because they lack insurance coverage.
Now we find that Amy Klobuchar is now touting "clean coal". And again, Klobuchar is showing an almost psychopathic disregard for issues of vital importance to the health and lives of others.
Klobuchar is disturbed and disturbing. I certainly hope that she is not elected to another term.
The question at the current Copenhagen talks is where we will make the hard choice? It looks like the disappointing ongoing answer is "no".
The book "Limits to Growth" was published more than 30 years ago, warning that if we did not change then our human civilization would crash world wide. Given the exponential growth, even miracles like doubling of all resources would only delay the inevitable. So really the choice has been to choose change or face the consequences. Even with a 30 year update, the predictions are the same. Where all those lines intersect, fill in the word "crash".
2012 Republican presidential candidate and occasional Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's presidential campaign official jumped the shark today. Or maybe this is the official kick-off. Hard to tell.
In 2006, Pawlenty talked about how important it was to address global climate change. In 2007, he signed comprehensive legislation to drastically reduce MN's greenhouse gas emissions. However, by 2008 it was clear he wouldn't be implementing the law and had stopped talking about it. Early this year he'd started making jokes that would go over well with the climate change deniers.
Now his transformation is complete:
Speaking to the Economist recently, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) told reporters that he questions the science underpinning climate change. Pawlenty explained that while the earth might be warming, it is unclear "to what extent that is the result of natural causes." As ThinkProgress has noted, Pawlenty has veered sharply to the right to appease a right-wing, tea party base. Although the tea party movement demands strict adherence to far right positions, as a Democracy Corps study shows, much of the movement sees political issues through a prism that is simply divorced from reality.
Side Note: Right after the election, I am starting a series of original research articles on community policing, foreclosures and local economics. This includes information not published elsewhere, so stay tuned after the election! - Kelly
A big announcement today of dropped plans for a giant Big Stone II coal-energy plant, planned for our South Dakota border, where the prevailing east wind would have dropped most of pollution right into Minnesota.
A power plant ran out of steam Monday as developers announced that they have decided not to build the $1.6 billion Big Stone II project near South Dakota's border with Minnesota. The joint announcement by four utilities brings to an end one of the larger environmental debates in the state in recent years because of mounting public concerns about global warming and energy policy.
Seven utilities were partners when the 500- to 600-megawatt coal-fired plant was announced in 2004, but three dropped out.
62% of Minnesota's energy comes from coal! Minnesota still has 13 coal-fired plants . These plants tend to be older plants grandfathered out of complying with the clean air act. In other words, these plants are dirtier polluters. Our heavy reliance on coal in Minnesota is one of the invisible media stories never told. These dropped plans might actually indicate a change in direction!
Despite the best efforts of green tech activists and advocates, Minnesota (and the US generally) may be about to miss the boat on the energy revolution. The problem stems from the global climate change deniers and the coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries. These companies are making billions off of the current situation and don't want to change a good thing. They are the horse and buggy companies of the 21st century.
Together with firms like Siemens, SAP, IBM and energy giants like EnBW, RWE and Vattenfall, Germany's economics and environment ministries have already mobilized €140 million for the development of the associated technologies and the tests. The government has provided €60 million and the industrial partners are raising the rest together with public utilities and smaller, innovative technology partners. According to Ludwig Karg, one of the researchers working together with scientists and communication experts in the model regions, E-Energy is intended to jump-start a greater energy revolution in Germany. "We are providing German companies with future access to markets worth billions," he said.
(Der Spiegel)
Can you imagine Goldman Sachs, General Motors and Excel Energy teaming up to push the US towards a green economy? I can almost hear you laughing.
But the Germans are moving forward on this. Their big banks and teaming up with green tech companies to build offshore wind turbine farms and solar panels farms in the Sahara.
Us? We talk about burying nuclear waste in our deserts. Republicans would hold protests chanting "Drill Baby Drill" and would promise to filibuster any legislation. Blue Dog Dems and other industry whores would team up with the Republicans do everything they can to kill any legislation in Congress. They'd protest that the prospects for "clean coal" technology holds real possibility!
Okay, I'm being a little facetious and pessimistic, but 8 years of the Bush Administration has seriously hindered our ability to move forward. It's more than likely the US will need to important most of everything for the green energy revolution. And that is wrong.
Climate change would have a devastating impact on the world and indeed we are already seeing it's effects around the world. And right here in Minnesota climate change would hurt our farmers and the natural resources we value so much. That's why Congress is considering passing comprehensive climate legislation. But like other issues progress is being obstructed by powerful interests. Thankfully some good Minnesota businesses are standing up for Minnesota's future and you can join them in making a difference.
Back in August the Chamber of Commerce called for a new 'Scopes Monkey Trial' on climate change and the Chamber has become one of the leading opponents of action on climate change. As the New York Times noted in discussing climate legislation:
No organization in this country has done more [than the U.S. Chamber] to undermine such legislation
But the Chamber bills itself as the "voice of business" and many businesses recognize the tremendous economic potential of taking strong climate action and transitioning to a clean energy economy. In fact, studies have shown the US could create 1.9 million jobs (PDF) by passing comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation like the Chamber opposes. And so many have been asking, who does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce really represent? Many large businesses such as Apple, GE and Nike have quit the Chamber outright or publicly criticized the Chamber's obstructionist position. And now some Minnesota businesses are speaking up as well.
Companies including Aveda, Perkins and Will and Tires Plus broke with the chamber and came out for action on climate change. This was a very bold step for the companies. As Tom Gegax of Tires Plus said:
"If you speak out, and I've had many of my friends in the business community say, 'you're a traitor and why are you doing this, and many others say 'keep it up.' So some are afraid to step out."
It's great that these great Minnesota companies are stepping up to the plate and taking a stand. Now will you?
Today is Blog Action Day 2009 and this years theme is climate change. Right here in Minnesota we have two Senators who will play an important role in the climate debate going on in the US Senate. Can you make a call to Al and Amy and urge them to take action to protect Minnesota from climate change while creating millions of living wage jobs? Congressional offices track calls carefully and they make a major impact when our Senators decide how to vote. This is the most critical issue of our generation, will you step up and make your voice be heard?
Just click here to use a easy tool that let's you call Amy and Al. You can do it any time of day, if their staffers have gone home to sleep you can leave a message, if you are there you can leave a message with the staffers. Whatever you do make sure you make the call.
I first met Jeremy Kalin in 2006 during his second attempt to win the 17B House seat. He'd lost his first try in 2004 and was determined to win. He was doorknocking furiously and had built a large grassroots campaign.
He won by 204 in 2006.
He quickly established himself as a hard-working and able politician. He also began making a name for himself as a leader on the green technology revolution. He won his 2008 reelection race easily with 54%.
Now he's juggling being a legislator, attending law school and chairing a Presidential panel:
State Rep. Jeremy Kalin, a second-term DFLer from North Branch, is preparing for his first meeting this afternoon as chair of the newly formed White House Working Group of State Legislators on Energy and Climate Control.
The group of about 40 state legislators from around the country hopes to help get the American Climate and Energy Security (ACES) Act legislation through Congress. Two other Minnesota legislators -- Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, and Rep. Kate Knuth, DFL-New Brighton -- are also on the panel.
(MinnPost)
"We're going to live in a clean tech economy by 2020," Kalin said. "Is it going to be 10 percent, 20 percent or 50 percent of the global economy? It's going top be a key portion. I don't want to see us replace our reliance on Middle Eastern oil with reliance on far eastern solar panels. I want those products to be made here at home."
(MPR)
So ... Congratulations, Jeremy! Your hard work and visions of MN leading the nation toward a green technology economy may actually come to fruition. I'll keep in touch with Jeremy to keep y'all up to date on what's going on with his panel.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's shifting stance on climate change legislation was deemed a "full flop" by Politifact.
The GOP governor used climate change as a punch line in a speech to the Republican National Committee in July.
"Apparently, they're announcing that President Obama is making great progress on climate change," Pawlenty said. "He's turning the political climate of the country back to Republicans."
He also wrote a letter to Minnesota's Congressional delegation criticizing proposed cap and trade legislation and came out against the Midwest Governor's Climate Change initiative -- an effort he helped launch.
(Huffington Post)
-- NOTE: I'm back after some technical difficulties. --
Regular readers of blogs like this one have heard this before, but other media are starting to wake up to 2012 Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty's flip flopping. Pawlenty has a habit of telling different audiences different things. Just like Sarah Palin, who was for end of life counseling before she called them death panels, Pawlenty was for addressing global climate change before he was against it.
Before he had presidential ambitions, Pawlenty recognized that greenhouse gases were a serious issue that needed to be addressed. He even talked up a 2007 bill that he signed to drastically reduce greenhouse gases.
Now that he has presidential ambitions, he's taken no action to implement the bill he previously touted.
Pawlenty has changed. Now, he uses climate change as a punch line.
"Apparently, they're announcing that President Obama is making great progress on climate change," Pawlenty said in a speech to the Republican National Committee in July. "He's turning the political climate of the country back to Republicans."
"The governor seems to have undergone a very significant change in his perspective in how we move to the energy economy of the future."
- Steve Morse, Minnesota Environmental Partnership
In June, Pawlenty wrote a letter to Minnesota's Congressional delegation criticizing proposed cap and trade legislation in the U.S. House. He also came out against the Midwest Governor's Climate Change initiative -- an effort he helped launch.
In both letters, he said he was concerned about the economic impact on businesses and individuals. Pawlenty also hasn't acted on any findings from the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group, a group he formed to look at the "profound impact of global warming."
(MPR)
Pawlenty's bulls*** analyzed after after the fold.
People who know what they're talking about say "yes":
Paul Aasen, executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said that scientific consensus is that global warming is due in large part to human activity.
"I'm certain you can always find somebody who says the world is still flat, and I'm certain we'll always be able to find people who doubt the extent or complicity of the human race with climate change," Aasen said. "But the vast majority of the scientific community is all on board saying it's real, and we have some responsibility for it."
Other environmental advocates agree. Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said candidates who do not accept the science of global warming are not in the mainstream.
Republican gubernatorial candidates -- AS A GROUP -- however, say "no".
Honestly, it's about time we start watching for one of them to out-crazy the others and say destroying the planet will be a great thing for tourism in Minnesota.
Hann said there's been too much focus on alternative energy sources, such as solar power and wind power, and not enough on traditional sources.
"The global warming debate comes into play because that is the excuse that is used to take this route, to go the alternative energy route," Hann said. "I've not been persuaded that to the extent that there is change in the climate, and there is change, that it's due to human activity. That to me is not a persuasive argument."
I wonder which sources Mr. Hann has been reading, and whether they're actually unbiased sources instead of the astroturf still being published by the fossil fuels industry. But perhaps I digress.
You want a persuasive argument, Mr. Hann? Have a look at this map. See all that wind potential across western and southern Minnesota? I wonder how many jobs we could generate by building a wind-based energy infrastructure in those areas, already hard-hit by recession. I wonder how many young people wouldn't have to move away from home to find jobs because there are none near their hometowns.
I wonder how many jobs we'll generate in Minnesota by focusing on oil exploration. Probably not as many, but what do I know? All I have working for me is plain old logic.
You see, Mr. Hann? There are arguments against your obtuse position on climate change that even your base would understand. You don't care about the environmental arguments, fine. Let's make it about jobs and our state's economic future.
Congratulations. You're still wrong.
In next year's gubernatorial race, Democratic candidates can and will make all the right arguments: that a green energy infrastructure is good for our climate, national security, public health, and our economic future. Republican candidates have no choice but to pander to the wing of their party that doesn't have to believe a darned word that comes out of a scientist's mouth because "it's just a theory" and it disagrees with their worldview anyway.
Which is more persuasive? And just how does the GOP expect their candidates to spin away from their lunacy?
No doubt it will have something to do with all the DFL candidates being big-city tax-and-spend liberals. You know, more half-truths and outright lies designed to scare people into forgetting that the GOP are the real out-of-the-mainstream nuts on climate change and green energy.
Paul Schmelzer of the Minnesota Independent found this account of Bachmann's remarks at the Steamboat Institute's Freedom Conference in Colorado:
(continued)
Speaking to the Economist recently, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) told reporters that he questions the science underpinning climate change. Pawlenty explained that while the earth might be warming, it is unclear "to what extent that is the result of 
I first met Jeremy Kalin in 2006 during his second attempt to win the 17B House seat. He'd lost his first try in 2004 and was determined to win. He was doorknocking furiously and had built a large grassroots campaign.
