Just in from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) via email:
Due to the potential for severe weather/dangerous driving conditions, we are rescheduling the listening session in Marshall originally planned for tomorrow to Wednesday, February 24 – same time, same location (Open house starts 5:30PM, Listening session begins 6:30PM; SMSU Conference Center, Upper Ballroom). We’ll be distributing this information via our GovDelivery list, and the agency’s social media accounts, but please do share with anyone else who may have been planning to attend tomorrow’s session. We look forward to next week’s session in St. Cloud. Apologies for any inconvenience.
Anyone who has driven Highway 23 between Willmar and Granite Falls when there's any snow falling at all can appreciate this move. The National Weather Service has issued a Winter Storm Warning for areas east of Redwood Falls, but roads closer to Marshall can get slick fast.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Due to the potential for severe weather/dangerous driving conditions, we are rescheduling the listening session in Marshall originally planned for tomorrow to Wednesday, February 24 – same time, same location (Open house starts 5:30PM, Listening session begins 6:30PM; SMSU Conference Center, Upper Ballroom). We’ll be distributing this information via our GovDelivery list, and the agency’s social media accounts, but please do share with anyone else who may have been planning to attend tomorrow’s session. We look forward to next week’s session in St. Cloud. Apologies for any inconvenience.
[End update]
Bluestem received this notice today in an email from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
MPCA has scheduled four Clean Power Plan community listening sessions around the state in February. We’ve had a lot of fantastic conversations in our technical meetings over the past several months, and we want to make sure Minnesotans around the state have a good opportunity to speak their minds on the state’s Clean Power Plan efforts. We expect these meetings to focus more on general topics.
All meetings will follow this schedule:
5:30PM-6:30PM: Open house/talk one-on-one with MPCA staff
6:30PM-8PM: Meeting/listening session begins
MPCA staff will be available for follow up questions after the meeting.
Meeting locations:
February 2: Southwest Minnesota State University Conference Center, Upper Ballroom, Marshall, MN
February 9: St. Cloud State University, Atwood Memorial Center, Voyageurs Room, St. Cloud, MN
February 16: Bemidji State University, the American Indian Resource Center’s Gathering Place, Bemidji, MN
February 23: University of Minnesota – Duluth, Engineering Building, Rooms 265/231, Duluth, MN
We know where we might be on Candlemas.
Screengrab: The Marshall community listening session on February 2, 2016.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
In 2013, the Houston County Board voted that anyone who serves three consecutive 3-year term on the planning and zoning board must sit out for one term at the end of that service.
In short: term limits.
Now the move by three Houston County board members to ignore those limits in re-appointing a board member to his fourth consecutive term is receiving sharp criticism in the largely rural county in Minnesota's southeastern corner.
Many critics believe the action illustrates a pro-frac sand mining bias on a county board that flouts its own rules.
For too long, (three of) our county commissioners have operated to serve what appears to be “the good ‘ol boy” network of friends, family and special interests.
They have used their positions seemingly to govern for the few and not for the best interest of their constituents, the many.
As 92 percent of you came before them regarding your opposition to the Frac Sand mining, they listened to the outcry, but then did an about face and came down on the side of their own interest, and refused to ban frac sand mining in the county.
They continue to do all they can to protect this decision, this time by circumventing their own rule and allowing Glenn Kruse to remain on the planning commission even though in 2013 they voted that anyone who serves three consecutive 3-year terms, as Kruse has; must get off of the planning and zoning board for one term.
That rule was put in to place, of course, given the possibility that it might be a struggle to find someone to serve.
Commissioners Judy Storlie, Steve Schuldt and Teresa Walter, however, used the loop hole to ensure that the planning and zoning board not have to be represented by a diverse board of voices.
Seven individuals brought their names forward to serve on the P&Z board. There was no struggle to find someone to serve. Several highly qualified individuals were among the pool of applicants. Not all, however, agree with the latest recommendations being made to the county board by the planning commission. Therefore, not all agreed with the position of commissioners Walter, Schuldt and Storlie.
Unbeknownst to Dana Kjome who is the county board’s representative on the P&Z board, interviews were held by Storlie, Schuldt and county attorney Sam Jandt.
The commissioners then voted to reappoint a member who had served three consecutive three year terms and by their own 2013 motion should have had to remain off the P&Z board for one term.
For too often the three commissioners have taken the view point that they only want to listen to one side of an issue and not allow the other side to be heard.
They have scaled the public comment portion of their regular meetings to once per month because a frustrated constituency had come to them week after week after week after week hoping that the commissioners might actually hear them and at the very least acknowledge their concerns.
Instead the public comment period is now one meeting per month. What had been eight whole minutes (said facetiously) to have their voices heard was changed to three minutes once-per month so that the commissioners don’t need to be bothered with the trivial concerns of the voters they are supposed to represent.
And now the planning and zoning board were afforded the same luxuries.
The rules were bent so that the board members would not have to be bothered with a varied opinion.
The same narrative will continue to come from the planning and zoning board. Diverse and varied opinions will not be heard and therefore the commissioners can continue to pass, by a 3-2 margin, the planning and zoning rules that are brought forward by the board month after month.
They can continue to only have to “listen” (again I’m being facetious) to an opinion that differs from theirs just once per month, for three minutes each speaker.
When our democracy works, it works best when two sides of an issue come together to find common ground and all voices are heard and considered.
These commissioners continue to use the seats upon which they sit to forward their own narratives and agendas.
When a constituent, and coincidently someone who threw his name into the ring to be considered for the planning commission seat, asked Steve Schuldt “what do you want us to do just bend over and “take it?”
His reply was: “I guess you’ll just have to take it.”
That’s a fairly unprofessional response from a commissioner whose role should be to represent the best interests of the entire county.
It is my job to report on our leaders activities and decisions as accurately and balanced as possible. That in turn allows county residents to determine if the decisions they are making and the actions they approve are in those citizens’ best interests.
If they are not, then the constituents can decide if our current leaders should be removed so someone who will govern for the people, of the people and by the people can be put in their place.
Week after week, decision after decision it is apparent that the three commissioners are only governing for the few and not for the best interest of the citizens of this county.
We should all do everything within our power to see that this trend is stopped in November, 2016.
I guess, if voters agree, commissioner Schuldt and Storlie– you’ll just have to take it
That's fairly strong stuff. Readers and citizens are echoing the sentiments in the letters section with commentary sporting headlines like No matter how bad you think it is, it is worse:
. . .Just two years ago the County Board voted unanimously to have term limits for the Planning Commission. Three terms of three years each was to be the limit and then a person would have to sit out an entire term before being able to serve again. At the Dec. 22nd meeting these three commissioners voted to reinstall Glenn Kruse for a 6th term.
Why did this happen when there were five other highly qualified candidates to choose from, one of them an attorney. There are two reasons. 1. Glenn Kruse is in favor of frac sand mining. 2. Glenn Kruse has a long history of enabling and covering up the lack of enforcement of the Ordinances in this County. . .
suspended for five days last year (two days were dropped if he completed some actions) because a long investigation found he had retaliated against frac-sand opponents by trying to use zoning rules against them, shared confidential information with others and gave special treatment by advocating in behalf of others.
Photo: In a pit and digging deeper; or a mine in Wisconsin.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
It's an older story from December 16--and the details are behind a firewall--but the Tower Timberjay reported in Future cloudy for solar panel maker:
A solar panel manufacturer, that has claimed millions of dollars in public subsidies since opening in 2011, has laid off all but two workers and faces an uncertain future . . .
This is more bad news for the Range, where about 2000 iron miners have been laid off because of the downturn in the American steel industry. It's also likely to spur anger among other solar panel firms that did not enjoy the subsidies that were directed toward Silicon Energy.
We'll have more in this post as we learn more.
Photo: Solar panels.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
In June's special session, the Minnesota legislature asked the Commissioner of Agriculture "to identify causes and submit a report of the relative growth or decline of poultry and livestock production in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska of a certain time period."
Just last winter, the Minnesota Milk Producers Association and the Midwest Dairy Association commissioned a study that showed Minnesota was not keeping pace with neighboring states’ milk production. Though milk production was climbing, it wasn’t climbing as fast as neighbors or the country as a whole.
Last summer, the Minnesota Legislature asked the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) to conduct an all-species assessment of the relative growth or decline of livestock in the state versus its neighbors. The dairy portion of that study was released to me last Friday.
Over the last five years, Minnesota’s dairy processing capacity grew a respectable 1.2 billion lb., or roughly 3.2 million lb./day. That’s nearly a 20% increase in processing capacity. . . .
Read the entire article at Ag Web. Here's the study itself:
This briefing paper argues that today the most pressing issue the Minnesota dairy sector is facing is no longer the sluggish milk production growth, but bottlenecks in milk processing capacity. Should policy makers seek to boost Minnesota’s dairy sector, they should consider measures to stimulate investments in dairy processing capacity and boost demand for locally produced fluid milk and soft dairy products.
Some in the legislature and their industry hirelings cried havoc, and let slip rhetoric of a war on agriculture. Refuse one dairy, and the cows would never come home. By the end of the special session, the fate of the board was sealed. At MinnPost, Doug Grow provided a decent overview in How the MPCA’s Citizens’ Board did itself in.
One co-op's proposed expansion--and a bonding request
. . . By the end of the week there will be 3,000 animals.
Eventually, the farm will house a total of 8,500 animals, including about 7,000 cows that will be milked twice a day.
The cows will generate eight semi-tankers of milk daily that will be transported to the First District Association processing facility in Litchfield. . . .
. . . Located just east of the small town of Pennock — and about six miles northwest of Willmar — Meadow Star Dairy will be an 8,500-head dairy farm that will produce 500,000 pounds of milk every day and employ about 50 people when it’s in full swing.
It will be the largest dairy in Kandiyohi County and the eighth such facility owned and operated by Riverview Dairy LLP, which is based in Morris. . . .
Those 500,000 pounds of milk will be part of the increased milk supply that First District Association co-operative hopes to turn into cheese and cheese byproducts as it expands, the Litchfield Independent Review reported at the end of November in First District buys 'entire city block': CEO:
First District Association might break ground on a $125 million expansion project as soon as this spring, Chief Executive Officer Clint Fall said last week.
The project would increase the Litchfield dairy processor’s production capacity from 5 to 7 million pounds of milk each day. . . .
With expansion planning underway, company officials are seeking funds from the state for new electrical generators at the city’s West Third Street power plant, which would provide back-up power for First District in the event of a power outage.
Fall has said the generators are critical because First District’s plant relies heavily on refrigeration, and an extended power outage could cost the company in product loss and supply chain disruption.
Litchfield gets most of its power from outside sources, while it runs generators during peak-demand periods and outages. The city operates five generators able to produce 10 megawatts of power, and First District wants to add four generators capable of generating an additional 8 megawatts. The four new ones would be dedicated to First District’s operation during a power outage, while the other five would power the rest of the city.
A group of state senators, including Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, visited Nov. 19 First District’s plant, where Fall discussed the expansion project. The senators belong to the Senate Capital Investment Committee, which will decide whether to allocate funds for the new generators, along with many other projects throughout the state, in a bonding bill next year. Members of the House of Representatives also visited First District this year. . . .
Like they did two years ago, several legislators visited the dairy processor to listen to First District and City of Litchfield officials explain why they want the state to give Litchfield $5 million for new generators at the city’s power plant.
The request fell short two years ago, and failed again last year, but officials remain persistent in lobbying for funds because of electrical generation’s importance to First District’s expansion plans.
First District is studying whether to increase production at its South Swift Avenue plant from its current 5 million pounds of milk each day to 7 million pounds. The cooperative, whose members include dairy farmers in 45 Minnesota counties, expanded as recently as 2012, but it’s under pressure to grow more, according to First District Chief Executive Officer Clint Fall.
As the new report embedded above notes, with milk production increasing across the region, including Minnesota, there's a perceived need to increase processing capacity.
The request is supported by Governor Mark Dayton, but was removed from the bonding bill, the Independent Review reported:
Next year could be First District’s best chance of getting the funds. While the project never made it into the 2013 bonding bill signed by Gov. Mark Dayton, $250,000 was included for designing the project. This past year, Dayton included $5 million for the generators in his bonding proposal, but the Legislature removed the project from its final bill.
“The governor being supportive of it is certainly helpful,” Rep. Dean Urdahl, R-Acton Township said. “I think we have a decent chance of being included” in the bonding bill next year.
While legislators have touted First District as one of Minnesota’s leaders in the dairy industry, they have hesitated to include money for new generators in previous bonding bills, in part out of concern for the precedent it might set. Bonding bills, which are typically adopted every other year, pay for infrastructure projects throughout the state, but not historically for electricity generation.
“This does take us in a different direction. We don’t normally build power plants to serve a local city,” Rep. Alice Housman, DFL-St. Paul, noted during last week’s visit at First District. She raised the possibility of First District pursuing another route to obtain funding, such as through Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.
Farmers from 45 counties are co-op members, while many of the 155 employees inside the plant are represented by the Teamsters.
With processing plants at capacity across much of the Midwest, a shrinking basis is causing milk checks to contract at a time when every penny counts.
In Minnesota, the milk price basis—the difference between the mailbox price and Class III—has shrunk to about 75¢/cwt. For the past few years, it was nearly $2. But early this year, as milk plants filled up, basis starting declining, says Marin Bozic, a dairy economist with the University of Minnesota.
“I do believe a portion of this basis will be recovered in 2016,” says Bozic. But before it does, a further decrease of 25 to 35¢/cwt could occur in the next few months.
Tim Swenson, a business consultant with AgStar Financial Services, agrees. “We will get a little back, but it will still be 50 to 75¢/cwt less than historical levels,” he predicts. . . .
Bozic also gave his annual milk price prediction for 2016 at $17/cwt. There’s a 20% chance the price could fall below $16 and a 10% chance it could shoot above $18.50, he says. (For comparison, last year Bozic predicted a $17.50 mailbox price for the year. The actual average will be about $17.40.)
Swenson notes that the Class III futures market is offering stronger prices in the second half of 2016. “You need to work with your marketing experts to protect those better prices,” he says. “And they could move even above where they are now, so you need to protect these values and still leave some upside potential.”
Dropping cull cow prices are also a concern. Where cull cows were selling for more than $100/cwt for much of the year, those prices have now fallen to $80, $70 or even $65/cwt. “We will not be able to rely on beef prices next year or even the year after for cash flow,” says Bozic.
We'll keep an eye of the bonding request when the session begins in March.
Photos: One of Riverview Dairy's operating dairy barns (above); First District Association plant manager Doug Anderson gives legislators a tour of the cooperative’s plant in Litchfield; photo by Andrew Broman, Litchfield Review (below) .
If you appreciate Bluestem's posts, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Having taken the lede in City Pages' article, Meet the Minnesota Legislature's Top 5 Climate Change Deniers, but not actually having made the top five list of carbon-captured Minnesota House members, insurance salesman and state representative Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, doubled down today.
In a press release sent to his general email list Wednesday, Gruenhagen states:
If you listen to our friends on the left, they may have lead you to believe that wind and solar energy are viable energy sources to provide the base-load power needed to power homes and businesses throughout the world. I wanted to share with you a video that explains why that's just not realistic at this point in time with current wind and solar technologies. Wind and solar simply can't produce enough energy to power our state efficiently, and a dramatic shift toward wind and solar with current technology would mean a more expensive and less reliable energy grid.
Last session, Republicans pushed for policies that would make energy cleaner and more importantly cheaper. Thanks to advancements in technology, energy sources like natural gas provide a less expensive way to fuel vehicles and keep the lights on in our homes. We continue to make advancements in hydro and biofuels. Why would we jump to wind and solar, resulting in skyrocketing energy bills for families who can least afford it, rather than choosing nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and clean coal? These energy sources would continue our efforts to reduce pollution while still protecting the wallets of families.
I hope you'll watch the video and let me know your thoughts.
That link leads to a PragerU YouTube featuring the Center For Industrial Progress head and fossil fuel darling Alex Epstein as totally reliable proof that dirty hippies touting clean energy only want to oppress poor energy consumers.
What Gruenhagen doesn't provide is any context. He does want to know what people think, however, so we'll take him up on that.
What is Prager University--and who funds its pro-fossil-fuel curriculum?
For more than 30 years, Dennis Prager has been a conservative radio host and author. His broadcasts air three hours a day, five days a week across the country, beating the conservative drums against what he sees as a host of “liberal” evils—marriage equality, feminism, and multiculturalism. He has called campus rape culture a “gargantuan lie to get votes” promoted by the “feminist left.”
More recently, Prager has developed an ingenious method of getting his conservative opinions to a new kind of audience, one harder to reach via traditional media channels.
Starting in 2011, Prager founded Prager University, an online resource that produces short videos on Prager’s favorite extremist tropes. . . .
. . .Prager University is noteworthy in two respects: the program seeks to insert right-wing religious and political propaganda into schools by providing content directly to teachers and students; and it has the generous backing of two of the richest men in the United States.
. . .Prager University’s largest donors, Dan and Farris Wilks, have spent the last few years using the fortune they made from the fracking boom to fund extreme right-wing causes.
The brothers sold off their Frac Tech shares a few years ago, but they still manage Interstate Explorations, an oil and gas field services company based out of Texas. The two are reportedly worth an estimated $1.4 billion apiece. . . .
In a move that should make Prager’s fracking donors happy, the site recently launched a fundraising campaign to support a five-part video series “investigating the truth behind climate change hysteria.” The series, according to the site, will attempt to “end the debate between science and sensationalism” in regards to global warming. Another video filed under “political science” is entitled, Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel.[link added]
The star of that YouTube linked in the press release? Alex Epstein, the fossil fuel flack in the newer video that Gruenhagen shared with the press and the masses.
Who is Alex Epstein?
DeSmog Blog--motto: Clearing the PR Pollution That Clouds Climate Science--lays out 2002 Duke philosophy major's profile and documents much of his activity in its Alex Epstein profile:
Background
Alex Epstein is the director of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank he founded in 2011. Its mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” He is also a blogger at Master Resource, a “Free Market Energy Blog,” and a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization that has received funding from the Koch Foundations including at least $50,000 between 2005 and 2010. [3]
“As the Founder and the Director of the Center for Industrial Progress, I make it my job to educate the public about the incredibly positive role energy and industry, particularly the oil industry, play in their lives,” Epstein wrote. [4]
Epstein's focus is on energy and industrial policy, and he has written articles in this area in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, The Objective Standard and numerous other publications. Epstein hosts a monthly podcast titled “Power Hour” that features “leading energy thinkers” including climate change skeptics like Richard Lindzen.
He maintains a website, alexepstein.com, where he advertises his range of consulting services “from PR consulting to editorial consulting,” in which he reframes the debate to fit the view that aggressive industrial progress will always benefit the environment.
According to his website, Alex Epstein has done corporate speaking and consulting for the oil, gas, and coal industries. [5]
Stance on Climate Change
“In my opinion, the time for debate is certainly not over because the vast majority of us don't even know what the debate is about — let alone what has been proven and what hasn't, let alone what action implications all of this has.” [6]
Readers--and perhaps those journalists that Gruenhagen (and the communications staff in Daudt's caucus) are trying to woe into pro-fossil fuel copy.
The CIP's mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” CIP summarizes their philosophy on their website: [1]
“At the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), we celebrate man’s impact on nature, just as our ancestors celebrated Americans' ability to 'tame a continent.' We celebrate the never-ending project of the industrial revolution: to harness more and more energy to feed machines that do more and more work to make our lives better and better.”
“… As for pollution, so long as we embrace policies that protect property rights, including air and water rights, we protect industrial development and protect individuals from pollution. By contrast, 'green' policies do not improve the human environment, but sacrifice it to the non-human–just ask anyone trying to build an industrial project today.”
The CIP regularly publishes articles “debunking” environmentalism, and promoting the oil and coal industries, as well as some of their common talking points. For example, Alex Epstein has said that “we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.” [2]
Stance on Climate Change
“The movement to convince the public of catastrophic global warming is fundamentally unscientific. Its leaders do not, as true scientists would, objectively study and relay the full evidence about what drives the climate, they fixate obsessively on CO2. They do not share how poorly understood climate drivers are; they act as if they can predict the climate with certainty. Through manipulation of government agencies, a credulous media, and many of their cloistered colleagues in academia, they have managed to take over much of the field of climatology and the vast majority of its public relations.” [3]
Funding
According to an archived version of their website, the CIP is not a 501c-3 organization, because “with 501c-3 status comes an enormous amount of government invasiveness, including limitations on involvement in policy debates we want to participate in.”* (emphasis added). They no longer share this information on their donations page.
CIP also contendes that “we and our supporters are best-served by a model in which we maintain the flexibility, agility, and lack of red tape to make maximum use of donors' gifts.”* [4]
*The Center for Industrial Progress has since removed their website from the Internet Archive.
Those on the City Pages' list should fret that they could lose their status if Glenn keeps it up. As the screenshot below indicates, a place on the list is a source of pride for members of Speaker Daudt's caucus. On Facebook, Minnesota state representative Eric Lucero, R-Dayton, shared the City Pages article under this headnote:
Proud to take the #2 spot on the top five list and be in good company with great colleague legislators!!!
TRUTH
• The LEFT despises the free market and strives to limit choice by placing government control over the lives of individuals.
• The crisis mongering LEFT promotes the idea of human induced Global Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming in the 1990s (formerly known as Global Cooling in the 1970s)) because manufactured fear serves as the vehicle the LEFT utilizes to achieve their killing two birds with one stone...bankrupt the free market and continue expanding the class of those dependent upon the government.
• Those on the RIGHT such as myself and my great colleagues marked on their top 5 list strive to empower people with self-sufficiency and critical thinking (otherwise known as individual liberty) for each to make their own decisions to achieve the best outcome for the lives of themselves and their family.
• Those on the RIGHT understand a voluntary system of free exchange and risk/reward Capitalism is the only economic system to maintain freedom.
In a comment on the post, Southwest Metro Tea Party Patriots founder and Chanhassen Republican state representative Cindy Pugh, congratulated her majority caucus peers on getting on the list while lamenting her own absence:
To be honest, the Strib-owned former alt-weekly didn't explore fossil fuel fans and climate change deniers in the Minnesota Senate. It's a pity, because the list might have illustrate that while House Republicans might have something of an exclusive franchise on climate change denial and fossil fuel affection, this guy doesn't seem to be bringing those questions up for a vote in the state's upper chamber.
Finally, Bluestem thinks that a scorecard tallying a number votes would be a better index of lignite love and climate change denial than the anecdotes assembled by the City Pages.
Photo: Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, the lede-er of the pack.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
CNN reports this morning in COP21 climate change summit: 'Never have the stakes been so high', but Minnesota state representative Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, is having nothing to do with it. Not only did the Sibley County Republican tweet a February climate-denying column from the London Telegraph, he share the piece with House colleagues and their staff, as well as his email list.
In the email, Gruenhagen said:
More proof,that global warming temps have been manipulated and exaggerated primarily for keeping the billions of tax subsidies flowing to the climate scientist. Now the UN in Paris is asking for a $100 billion in tax subsidies for the fraudulent global warming scam.
I do believe there are pollution problems in the world but the global warming scam is more about money then fixing pollution problems.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. . . .
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”. . . .
Nice little echo chamber there, but the claims crumble under scrutiny, like that FactCheck.org published in Nothing False About Temperature Data:
The “report” to which Palmer referred was actually a series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood, which were then highly publicized in twostories by Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph in London. Both writers focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question. This is not at all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part of climate science.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has addressed these types of adjustments several times before. NOAA addresses the subject in a Q&A on its website:
Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?
Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.
NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.
More proof,that global warming temps have been manipulated and exaggerated primarily for keeping the billions of tax subsidies flowing to the climate scientist. Now the UN in Paris is asking for a $100 billion in tax subsidies for the fraudulent global warming scam.
I do believe there are pollution problems in the world but the global warming scam is more about money then fixing pollution problems.
We're conducting our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The Star Tribune's retread reminded us that we needed to look at the RSLC's monthly 8872 filings with the IRS, which have been the source of the 2014 data that gets churned through various transparency websites. After all, the MN Job Coalition is mailing cheery postcards to swing districts, as we reported in they're not from the group's legislative fund PAC,
Alas, no. The groups has switched to twice-yearly reports, so we only have the income and expenses through June 30. Here's the filing, with the only spending in Minnesota being $6671.00 paid in May to FLS Connect (St. Paul) for direct marketing (page 79):
If RSLC is paying for the current round of MJC postcards in the second half of the year, we won't know about the money until next spring.
Why the change?
Looking around for the reason for the change in reporting, we came across a post by the Washington-based group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Transparency No longer So Important to the RSLC, Apparently. Here's the explanation:
Beginning in 2006, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), a political organization focused on helping the GOP win down-ballot state-level campaigns, held itself to a higher standard when it came to disclosing its finances. Though the group is only required to publicly report its donors and expenses to the Internal Revenue Service quarterly (or semiannually, depending on the year), the RSLC elected to file its disclosure forms on a monthly basis.
Is the RSLC a 527 organization? Yes. The RSLC is registered and files reports with the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. 527. Because transparency is important to the RSLC we have voluntarily decided to file reports of all contributions and expenditures on a monthly basis. The RSLC is also registered and reports in many states across the country pursuant to each states specific campaign finance laws.
Well, at least the group used to say that. The above quote is taken from an archived version of the RSLC’s website from June 2014. The current website, which is now hosted on the .gop domain, no longer mentions transparency and doesn’t commit the RSLC to making monthly disclosures.
The most likely reason for this is that the RSLC has actually stopped filing its disclosure reports, known as Form 8872s, with the IRS on a monthly basis. As of today, the last time the RSLC filed an 8872 was in February 2015, and that report covered the end of 2014. The RSLC does not appear to have announced any kind of change to its transparency principles.
At this point in 2013, the last non-election year in which the RSLC filed reports monthly, the organization had already disclosed raising more than $7 million. That early haul included six figure contributions from Devon Energy, Exxon Mobil, Facebook, Wellpoint, Wal-Mart, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The RSLC had also disclosed receiving $54,500 from Koch Industries. On the spending side, the organization had disclosed four contributions, including $15,000 to Crossroads Generation, a youth-focused super PAC with ties to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads. The RSLC’s disclosure revealed the contribution two months before Crossroads Generation made it public in a report with the Federal Election Commission.
The mid-year report now embedded above shows that they're slightly behind track, having raised a mere $5,954,574.
Our friends at BNSF have given $50,000 so far (though little has been transferred to Minnesota pockets), and we invite readers to search the document and post their favorite corporate donor in our comment section.
We're conducting our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
While Minnesota opponents of the EPA's Clean Power Plan moan about potential increases in the price of energy (while never uttering the phrase "climate change"), some of them were not the least reluctant to support legislation that will raise electrical rates for residential consumers in favor of energy-intensive industries.
Residential customers of Minnesota Power would pay more for electricity each month to help taconite plants and paper mills survive an onslaught of global competition under a plan to be filed today with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
The rate re-jiggering, authorized by the 2015 Minnesota Legislature, would see the average Minnesota Power customer's household electric bill go up 14.5 percent, or about $11.45 per month.
An average homeowner, who uses about 750 kilowatts of electricity, would see their monthly Minnesota Power bill go from about $79 per month to $90.45.
Other customers — most businesses, government agencies, schools, etc. — would see their rates go up by a flat fee of $11.45 per meter, per month, an increase of between 1 and 4 percent. . . .
It's not a done deal, and even the sponsor of the legislation is having second thoughts:
Investor-owned Minnesota Power has a clear stake in the future of mining in the region. Mining companies alone account for more than 47 percent of Minnesota Power's revenue. Add in paper mills, and heavy industry accounts for nearly 60 percent of the utility's customer load, far different from most utilities, such as Minneapolis-based Xcel, which are tilted toward residential customers.
That makes it critical for Minnesota Power's financial health to retain its largest customers. If one or more of those large customers close permanently, Minnesota Power probably would file a rate proposal that would cause homeowner rates to go up much higher, Mullen noted.
But state Rep. Tom Anzelc, DFL-Balsam Township, who sponsored the legislation calling for the rate shift, said he's now having second thoughts. Anzelc said he's not sure the time is right for such a major shift in pricing for electricity.
"What they (Minnesota Power) are proposing to the PUC is not what they are going to get. It's too much" for homeowners, Anzelc said.
During the spring legislative session "it seemed like the right policy. But the timing now is not good," Anzelc said. "I have to see what people think. The PUC is going to have to decide if $11.45 is too much for people on fixed incomes; whether it's worth it for a 5 percent cut for taconite plants. I'm not sure right now."
Buddy Robinson, director of the Minnesota Citizens Federation, Northeast, said the formula used to make the claim that industry has been subsidizing homeowner rates is flawed.
"This isn't the first time the taconite industry has tried to do this and we've challenged it every time," Robinson said. "There are ways to figure the true cost (of electricity) that show there is in fact no subsidy going on." . . .
Here's the Minnesota Power press release. Note that qualified low-income customers won't have their rates increased. We have to wonder why--if those who claim to worry about the cost of the Clean Power Plan to the poor--aren't willing to give them a break on the rates to soften the blow to help save the planet.
Or does that only work when helping out industries that can't compete against cut-throat global capitalism?
We're conducting our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Koran released a statement announcing his intention to run against his own party incumbent and describes himself as a no-nonsense common sense conservative.
Koran serves on the Lent Township Planning Commission and has been active in a number of local land use issues. He is employed as a senior sales manager for a financial institution and formerly worked as a manager with the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
Political parties in Minnesota caucus in early March, and the state conventions deciding party endorsement, follow soon after.
Nienow announced on his Facebook page that he will seek re-election; surprising many state government observers after he publicly acknowledged that he failed to make payments on a several hundred thousand dollar Small Business Administration loan, and filed bankruptcy.
Here's Koran's filing with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board; so far, his campaign website is a placeholder.
Koran's name rang a couple of bells for us. In Tea Party activism: MIA in MN, a 2010 Politics In Minnesota article, Briana Bierschbach reported:
On a Saturday afternoon in July, a dozen or so locals sat under a gazebo in Central Park in downtown North Branch. “Wanted: Karl Marx” posters were stapled to the gazebo, and a welcome sign and a waving Don’t Tread on Me flag greeted members of the Old North Church Tea Party to what was billed as a candidate forum.
Participants sat on picnic benches that were drawn into a circle to face Ted Lazane, the event’s organizer. Lazane explained that the purpose of the gathering was to allow candidates running for public office in the area a chance to talk to Tea Party members.
But before the candidates could speak, one person in the crowd stood up and gave a five-minute speech about the federal government’s decimation of the Constitution. After he was finished, several others wanted to speak too, and were upset when Lazane said no. He wanted to get to the candidate discussion. Then another person stood up and protested to the candidates speaking, saying the Tea Party was not supposed to endorse political candidates. . . .
While candidates were speaking at the North Branch forum, several Tea Party devotees hovered nearby, grumbling about how Democrats have labeled the group as Republican, and how Republicans just assume they will have Tea Party support in November.
“We are sick and tired of the parties of the good old boys,” said North Branch resident Mark Koran. “It’s just a selection of the lesser of two evils. They should just put ‘none of the above’ on the ballot.”
Their ideal candidate is what Koran and others called a “constitutional conservative,” or someone who follows in lock step with their view of the country’s founding documents. Tea Party purists have described themselves as dejected dropouts from across the political spectrum: recovering Republicans, disenchanted Democrats, libertarians, or those who have been “politically uninterested” – as one North Branch resident put it – until now.
Koran and local land use issues
While the Tea Party has tended to be associated with removing the fetters of government from business and faith, Star Tribune blogger Michael Brodkorb reports that Koran describes himself as "an advocate for reasonable economic development that benefits the community, yet preserves its outstanding rural lifestyle."
One example? Veritas Academy, a private school with a classical and religious foundation that's connected to Veritas Chapel, was put through a year of rigorous scrutiny in the permitting and zoning process. When the husband and wife team that owns the chapel asked for a text amendment to its permit, Koran "moved to deny the application . . . based on the fact that the church is allowed to operate a school under current Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) without approval from a Township, City or County," according to the commission's minutes for May 2015.
Without the reason for the motivation, it might be thought that Koran was blocking the church's plans, rather than following RLUIPA.
Koran's scrutiny of two very different power generation projects might give some friends of theindustry pause--as well as Senate colleagues like Julie Rosen, R-Vernon Center/Mendota, who believe that rural residents simply "have to expect" misery.
A national power company that hopes to build Minnesota's fourth largest power plant near North Branch faces opposition from neighbors.
LS Power says the natural gas-fired plant will actually be good for the environment. Gas emits half the carbon dioxide of a coal-fired plant, and the company has made efforts to address local environmental concerns.
Neighbor Mark Koran is fighting the proposed plant. Although he's lit up his front yard with an old-fashioned Christmas display containing $20,000 in lights, he's no fan of generating power nearby.
"With the additional trucking, all the the building infrastructure, the smokestacks, the lighting, the noise, the vibrations that are generated by these things, doesn't fit our comprehensive plans for our rural countryside," Koran said.
Koran said when he moved to the area three years ago he reveled in the peace and quiet of the area, which is a cross between farmland and northern suburb.
He says if there's a power plant with exhaust stacks up to 17 stories high in his back yard, the atmosphere will change for the worse.
That sort of an attitude might just rub Senator Rosen the wrong way, however much it might make fans of local control cheer.
More recently, Koran has questioned proposals for solar energy projects that seek to take advantage of the same portals to the grid as that which attracted LS Power. The minutes for the PUC's scoping and informational hearing in Stacy in April 2015 for the North Star Solar Electric Power Generating Plantillustrate his concerns (beginning on page 19).
We'll keep an eye on this one.
Photo: Mark Koran (seated at table) presenting at the PUC hearing in April 2015 via We Are Lent Township.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
New York's attorney general has joined a coalition of 24 states, cities and counties seeking to intervene in court to help defend a federal plan to require power plants cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
The group is filing a motion to intervene at the U.S. Court of Appeals defending the Environmental Protection Agency's plan that has been challenged by several states and power industry groups.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says the plan is needed to respond to the threat of climate change and incorporates strategies New York and several other states have used to cut pollution.
The coalition includes attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington
Here's the filing, obtained from New York state attorney general's website:
Leaders of the nation’s major Black churches — representing nearly 13 million African-American members — presented over 10,000 pastors’ signatures to Congressional Black Caucus members in support of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
The leaders said they are making the effort to push forward the bill, which has a goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent by 2030. . . .
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who represents Oakland, Berkeley and other northern California cities applauded their effort.
” As faith and community leaders, their commitment to protecting and preserving our fragile planet is greatly needed as we work to address climate change,” Lee said in a statement.
Lee said the president’s plan and other environmental action must have a positive effect on disadvantaged communities.
“This is truly an issue about justice – environmental justice, economic justice and racial justice. The negative effects of pollution and climate change have disproportionately affected communities of color,” she said.
“As we work to reverse climate change, we must all raise our voices together and ensure that the economic opportunities created by the green economy are open to all.”
According to caucus members, almost 40 percent of the six million Americans living close to coal-fired power plants are people of color, and they are disproportionately African-American. Pollutants released from those plants have led to high rates of asthma and respiratory issues within nearby communities. . . .
We'll continue to monitor this issue.
Photo: Sherco power plant. As part of its response to the Clean Power Plan, Xcel will shut down two of three coal burning plants, converting one to burn natural gas.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
New York's attorney general has joined a coalition of 24 states, cities and counties seeking to intervene in court to help defend a federal plan to require power plants cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
The group is filing a motion to intervene at the U.S. Court of Appeals defending the Environmental Protection Agency's plan that has been challenged by several states and power industry groups.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says the plan is needed to respond to the threat of climate change and incorporates strategies New York and several other states have used to cut pollution.
The coalition includes attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. [end update]
In Tuesday's Caledonia Argus, we find a press release from state House Majority Whip Roseau Republican Dan Fabian's office reprinted on the southeastern Minnesota newspaper's op-ed page.
On Thursday, October 29, 2015, Representative Dan Fabian (R-Roseau) sent a letter to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson asking her to add Minnesota to a coalition of 25 states who have filed suit in the last week against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
A previous letter was sent to the Attorney General’s office in late September, signed by Rep. Fabian and 43 other state representatives, which requested Attorney General Swanson take action against this overreaching federal rule. Her office responded that this could not be done until the rule was published in the Federal Register, which it was on October 23, 2015.
“This expensive and burdensome new rule, which the EPA has conceded will have no measurable environmental benefit, greatly expands federal authority over state energy policy and will impact the availability of affordable energy for folks across the state,” said Rep. Fabian. “Twenty-five states have already filed suit which demonstrates just how overreaching and devastating President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is. This is a bipartisan issue that has people across the nation concerned, and that’s why now is the time for Minnesota to lead and stand up for the people of our state.”
The letter follows, with the usual crocodile tears for the poor:
Dear Attorney General Swanson,
On September 29, 2015, your office responded to a letter sent by myself and forty-three other state representatives asking the Attorney General to add Minnesota to the growing coalition of states challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a federal court regarding President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, issued under the agency’s 111(d) rulemaking authority. You indicated that your office would consult with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the rule, as well as wait for it to be published by the Federal Register.
This overreaching new rule is now in effect, having been published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015. Furthermore, you have had ample time to consult with the MPCA in regards to the effects these new federal guidelines will have on our state. That is why I would like to once again ask you to challenge this rule in a federal court on behalf of the state of Minnesota.
As I stated before, not only will this significantly expanded scope of federal power under EPA rulemaking undermine state regulatory authority, but it will also impact the availability of affordable energy for families, businesses and communities statewide. Additionally, there is a possibility that its implementation could lead to the closure of coal-fired power plants in our state, creating significant job loss and increased energy costs. These price increases will most greatly affect those who can least afford it including people with low or fixed incomes, the elderly, local schools and nursing homes.
Furthermore, the EPA conceded there will be no measurable environmental benefit which calls to question the validity of implementing these expensive, overreaching new federal requirements when there is little expected positive environmental results.
Twenty-five states have already filed suit against the Clean Power Plan in the last week, and by joining as a plaintiff, Minnesota will be a strong voice for state regulatory authority, protect Minnesota jobs and energy reliability, and hopefully help stop the alarming expansion of federal power over state energy policy.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
We've added the bold emphasis to the text about closing coal plants, since that's the special interest that leading the Republican lamentation on the Clean Energy Plan (and Xcel's response or the MPCA's stakeholders' discussions).
Climate change: the threat that dare not speak its name
The Roseau Republican can't even bring himself to use the phrases "climate change" or "global warming." Not surprising for a guy whose caucus said, 'What climate change?', as Star Tribune columnist Jon Tevlin wrote:
On the front page of Tuesday’s newspaper, a headline read: “As summers get hotter, humans get more blame.” This idea is being accepted as fact by most scientists around the world, by businesses and by government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense.
Even the pope seems to be down with it.
But apparently climate change is still not accepted in the Minnesota House.
The issue came up during the omnibus job growth and energy affordability finance bill discussion on the House floor last week. It was one of those debates that make you slap your forehead — and wonder how some of our elected representatives even found their way in to work that day. . . .
For your morning face palm, read the moments from the debate caught Tevlin's attention.
They don't believe in it, and they're not going to mention its name, if Fabian's prose is an example of the spin.
Silence is golden, or a least a strategy against public opinion
An article published yesterday by US News and World's energy, environment and STEM reporter Alan Neuhauser may underscore Fabian's need to obscure--as in not mention whatsoever--the issue.
When it comes to the Clean Power Plan, most voters don't want their day in court.
Across the 26 states suing to stop the landmark rule – the first ever to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants – an average 61 percent of adults say they support the policy, according to an analysis released Monday by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
In only three of those states do most voters oppose the Clean Power Plan: West Virginia and Wyoming, the nation's top two coal producers, as well as North Dakota, which has seen a boom in unconventional oil and natural gas production, commonly referred to as "fracking.". . .
On October 23rd, President Obama’s signature climate change program The Clean Power Plan was entered into the Federal Register. Almost immediately, 26 US states sued to stop the policy, which sets strict limits on coal-fired power plants. However, according to our model of state-level public opinion (Yale Climate Opinion Maps, 2014), a majority of the public in 23 out of the 26 states filing suits actually support setting strict limits on coal-fired power plants. Across all 26 suing states, 61% of the public supports the policy, ranging from 73% public support in New Jersey to 43% in Wyoming and West Virginia. Across all 26 suing states, only 38% of the public on average opposes the policy. . . .
America’s history of controversy over climate change and the legal and political challenges to the Clean Power Plan might suggest that the nation is divided over regulating carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Our research finds the opposite: a large majority of Americans overall support the approach. Our models find that a majority of Americans in almost every state support setting strict emission limits on coal-fired power plants. . . .
The analysis was released after Fabian sent his missive to Attorney General Swanson, but we can be forgiven in thinking that the Majority Caucus communications and political staff likely has access to its own focus group data that helps in framing this as so not being about climate change but helping those poor folks and middle class Minnesotans to whom the Republican Party is dedicated 24/7/365.
When people know the issue is taking on climate change, they support tighter standards on power plants. Solution? Don't talk about climate change.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
This post is not about embarrassing moments on social media, but rather, the unified stance of the Republican House Caucus in climate change denial. Those wishing to replace Franson might consider that their past attempts to frame her according to perceived personal defects as a strategy to defeat her at the polls have failed, miserably in the last election. Where the letter writer succeeds is in asking a question that can lead to policy considerations of climate change. To the extend that we've seen this post become a springboard for attacks to the person, rather than policy, Bluestem regrets creating it. [end note]
In March of this year, Representative Mary Franson boasted proudly on her Facebook page, “I do not believe in ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming.’”
In the Tuesday, October 20 Star Tribune, there is an article titled “Local firms commit to climate goals.” Best Buy, General Mills and Target joined 81 of America’s biggest firms such as Apple, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart, and took the climate pledge, recognizing that delaying action on climate change will be costly in economic and human terms.
I would like to challenge Rep Franson to write a letter to the editor explaining how her denial of climate change will benefit the future of her constituents, her children and her future grandchildren.
Bluestem believes that Mehrer pulled a punch in her letter by not pointing out that Franson's opinion is apparently shared by the rest of her caucus.
On the front page of Tuesday’s newspaper, a headline read: “As summers get hotter, humans get more blame.” This idea is being accepted as fact by most scientists around the world, by businesses and by government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense.
Even the pope seems to be down with it.
But apparently climate change is still not accepted in the Minnesota House.
The issue came up during the omnibus job growth and energy affordability finance bill discussion on the House floor last week. It was one of those debates that make you slap your forehead — and wonder how some of our elected representatives even found their way in to work that day. . . .
The fun began during a discussion of greenhouse gas legislation passed in 2007, back when tree hugger Tim Pawlenty ran the joint and protecting the Earth seemed to be a rational bipartisan goal.
Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, offered an amendment that stated plainly that the Legislature believes that climate change is indeed happening, and that human activity is one of the causes. She said that 97 percent of scientists agreed on the issue, and cited increasingly hotter weather patterns, and drought and flooding across the state that has cost more than $400 million. . .
At one point, Rep. Barb Yarusso, DFL-Shoreview, rose to reveal that she is, indeed, a scientist, with a Ph.D. in chemical engineering. Her training makes her understand scientific process, energy and the movement of fluids, the very idea of climate, she told me later.
“We always make judgments based on the expertise of others,” she began her remarks to the House.
Yarusso patiently, quietly, laid out the argument for man-made climate change, pointing out the struggle some members had differentiating between “climate” and “weather.”
“The point of the amendment is, we aren’t going to ignore it,” she said.
And yet they did, voting almost exactly along party lines against admitting that climate change even exists. They aren’t scientists, after all. Well, most of them aren’t. . . .
Franson is only the tip of the iceberg, and heaven only knows what else will be exposed as it melts.
Photo: Franson critic and Packers fan, Esther Mehrer, via Facebook.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
If all a person had to go on with regard to concern for the environment and climate action were Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt's declaration that the "real" divide in Minnesota is between metro environmentalists and the rest of the state--and Becker Republican state representative Jim Newberger's bleating about coal-fired power plants, we'd think that only dirty hippies in Powderhorn Park care about the planet.
But since we live in rural Minnesota, we know better. Thus, it's not a surprise to find a letter like that of Chuck Derry, of Clearwater, Minnesota, in the Sherburne County Citizen.
I read the article in last week’s edition of the Citizen regarding the recent announcement by Xcel to retire Sherco 1 & 2. It is disappointing to see, that even after Xcel has put forth their preferred plan for the plant, our local representative is still trying to scare people with how devastating this will be.
Xcel’s plan will retire the two oldest and dirtiest units at Sherco by 2023 and 2026, a timeline that is aggressive but reasonable considering the long term decisions that will need to be made in coming years when it comes to providing baseload power. Sherco is the top polluter of particulate matter that exacerbates asthma, other respiratory illnesses and heart disease. According to the Clean Air Task Force, Sherco contributes to 92 deaths, 1,600 asthma attacks, and 150 heart attacks each year. Sherco is also the single, largest source of carbon pollution that contributes to changes in Minnesota’s four seasons, our climate, and our health. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, changes to our climate are increasing heat-related illnesses, allergies, and the spread of tick-borne illnesses, like Lyme’s Disease. If that isn’t enough, Sherco is one of the most significant sources of mercury pollution in our state, contaminating our water ways, and resulting in health advisories against eating fresh caught fish.
Xcel’s plan will reduce carbon emissions by 60% and help protect jobs during that time, helping to ease retirement transition for those that are eligible and will allow for those that aren't at retirement age to maintain their positions either at the plant itself or within Xcel. The plan also includes 50MW of solar on site at the plant, which will help add money into the tax base of Becker that Xcel was supporting, diversifying the taxable income is a smart idea. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is not.
We also know that the plan includes 3,500 MW of clean energy like solar and wind (1,200 MW by 2020) which will help to create thousands of new jobs in central MN. And finally Xcel has said that the assets at the plant (boilers, including Sherco 1 & 2) were beginning to depreciate, meaning their value was lessening, which meant Xcel would be paying less in taxes as their local assets got older. This is planning for the future, something that we should have started doing long ago.
I encourage readers to let local leaders know they should stop playing politics with people’s lives and get on board with Xcel’s plan. Xcel should be applauded for the thought it put into its plan to maintain jobs, increase the tax base, at the same time it invests in clean energy. Our lives and the lives of our children depend on this. This is a win-win.
Who knew?
Photo: Sherco.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Not surprisingly for folks with both background and backers in the fossil fuel industry, both father and son are climate change deniers.
In Lake Elmo last Monday, Rafael Cruz derided climate change after touting his son's qualifications as a "servant" to the people.
From the Machine Shed: the Lake Elmo talk
At the Woodbury Bulletin, Mathias Basen reports in Ted Cruz for President campaign visits Woodbury area that the presidential candidate's father was in town as the guest of the local Republican BPOU (basic party operating units):
Rafael Cruz passed through Minnesota at the invitation of the Senate District 56 Republicans and their counterparts from Senate District 39. The local GOP party extended requests to all of the Presidential candidates’ campaigns, but Senate District 53 Republicans chairman Brandon Lerch admitted that while the Ted Cruz for President campaign was not the only one to respond to the invitation, it might be the only one that sends such a powerful spokesperson. Still Lerch and Senate District 53 Republicans chairman Nick Norman are hoping for Rafael Cruz’s speech to be the first of a series.
Unlike the lunch at the Minneapolis Club, the evening appearance was captured for a wider audience. North Star Oasis, which bills itself on its Facebook page as "a weekly live television program that airs from 4-5 p.m. Central Time every Saturday in the St. Paul, Minnesota suburban area," posted a Youtube of the entire talk here.
Conservative talk radio host Bob Davis podcast about the event in Episode 424, estimating the audience to be about 90 people.
After outlining his son's fundraising prowess among small donors and nationwide campaign structure, Pastor Cruz touts Wallbuilders' founder David Barton's assumption of the reins at the Keep The Promise group of SuperPACs:
He claims that Barton's personal integrity will set these independent groups--which are not supposed to coordinate with the campaign--apart:
Now let me tell you another huge news. David Barton now has taken over the SuperPAC [cheers from audience]. David Barton is a man of unquestionable integrity, a man that America highly, highly respects. I'll tell you what that does. It puts the SuperPAC in a totally different credibility.
Rafael Cruz said he had just learned that David Barton, an influential evangelical leader and political activist, would be leading one of the Ted Cruz super-Pacs. . . .
It's unfortunate that Brucato is too lazy to consult Mr. Google, for she would have discovered (had she had the slightest bit of curiosity about anything) that Barton's leadership wasn't a shiny thing. This non-breaking news was first reported over a month ago in obscure venues like Bloomberg News.
David Barton, an influential Christian author and activist, is taking charge of the leading super-PAC supporting Ted Cruz.
The super-PAC, Keep the Promise PAC, is the umbrella for a group of related pro-Cruz political committees that raised $38 million in the first half of the year, more than the super-PACs supporting any other candidate with the exception of Jeb Bush.
"From the outset, the Keep the Promise PACs made their mission to provide a voice for the millions of courageous conservatives who are looking to change the direction of the country," Keep the Promise PAC said in a statement today. "Barton's involvement is an important step signaling that the effort will not be run by a D.C. consultant but by a grassroots activist."
. . .Barton is a self-taught historian, former school administrator and the founder of Wallbuilders, a group dedicated to the idea that the U.S. was established as a Christian nation and should embrace those roots. Time Magazine named him one of the country's top 25 most influential evangelicals in 2005.
His 2012 book about Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Lies, was withdrawn by its publisher after being denounced by some mainstream academics as full of errors. Barton has dismissed such criticisms as politically motivated and has remained influential on the religious right. . ..
Why does David Barton have such a poor reputation in the academic community? It’s not because of his religious convictions, his politics, or even his shortage of formal training. It’s his poor track record as a self-described historian. Numerous scholars, reporters and other writers have taken Barton to task for manipulating historical fact to promote his agenda.
The following is a clearinghouse of resources on Barton's poor scholarship. ...
He believes that demons control the government and is also a Second Amendment radical who insists that there should literally be no limits on what sort of weapons individuals can own, including tanks, jet fighters, or nuclear weapons.
But most of all, Barton is vehemently anti-gay, claiming that schools are forcing students to be gay and that the government should regulate gay sex. Recently, he has been telling audiences that the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage will force all student athletes to share the same locker rooms and churches to hire pedophiles to run their nurseries while requiring the military to protect those who engage in bestiality.
Well okay then. We think that selecting Barton to run his SuperPAC might well put Senator Cruz in the driver's seat of the Clown Car, or at least allow him to call shotgun to Carson or Trump, who seem to tied for first this week.
The Bartons visit Minnesota
Between the September 9 news of David Barton's new job and Pastor Cruz' talk at the Machine Shed just over a month later, David Barton visited Minnesota while his son taught for a week at a local private Christian school in Andover.
The Minnesota Family Council shared the image above on its website, along with this message:
Christian parents understand that God has placed the responsibility of raising godly children, and guarding children's hearts and minds, solely with their parents. We deeply appreciate Christian schools like Legacy that understand parents' irreplaceble role and partner with them to raise up our next generation of godly leaders.
Legacy's outstanding guest, Historian David Barton, is renowned for his work and understanding of our Christian heritage
The largely political organization added that it was not a sponsor of the event. On its Facebook page, the Legacy Christian Academy shared several photos from the evening. Earlier in the day, it shared one with this caption:
Spiritual Emphasis Week is underway! We are blessed to have David Barton and Tim Barton at LCA to speak to our community!
It is undeniable truth the Founding Fathers of our great United States, the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights ALL had as their foundation the religious and moral conviction of the Bible. Much of present day societal ills from abortion to mass shootings, from drug abuse to human trafficking, from fatherless children to sexual redefinition (just to name a few) are the natural byproduct of turning away from truth.
Here's the photo:
David Barton had already added SuperPACmeister to his list of theocracy building by this time. Did he court any big contributors--like the members of the Freedom Club--when he was in town?
We imagine that the son's weeklong residency had probably been scheduled before the father took over management of the political action committees. Perhaps there was nothing political going on, however much the Bartons' presence attracted conservative lawmakers, like fruit flies to ripe muskmelons.
Keeping a promise I: who stuffed the bills in Ted Cruz' SuperPACs?
Barton steps into a stable of SuperPACs stoked by contributions mostly from people who've made their nut in the fossil fuel industry.
Four affiliated super PACs supporting the presidential bid of Ted Cruz reported a fundraising haul of $37.8 million — a significant haul that puts the conservative Texas senator in the top fundraising tier.
The bulk of the money comes from seven individual donors. Keep the Promise I, which took in about $11 million, is funded almost entirely by Robert Mercer, the New York hedge fund magnate. Keep the Promise II is fueled by a single $10 million donation from Toby Neugebauer, a Puerto Rico-based investor who is the son of Texas GOP Rep. Randy Neugebauer. Keep the Promise III, which brought in $15 million, is sustained only by the Texas-based Wilks brothers, Farris and Dan, billionaires who made their fortunes in fracking, and their wives, JoAnn and Staci.
A fourth pro-Cruz super PAC, called Keep the Promise PAC, took in $1.8 million, nearly all from Texas-based donors, including Robert McNair, Sr., the chairman and CEO of the Houston Texans football franchise.
Mr. Neugebauer, the son of Representative Randy Neugebauer, Republican of Texas, is the co-founder of Quantum Energy Partners and has been an active investor in the oil and gas sectors, overseeing billions of dollars of assets.
Keeping a promise II: Pastor Cruz trashes climate change
There's nothing inherently anti-evangelical or anti-Christian in the notion of climate change. Witness the Evangelical Environmental Network or Pope Francis's recent encyclical on climate change. One might be tempted to think that the Cruzes are listening to the gospel of climate change denial and their funders on this one.
Pastor Cruz is asked about climate change, something that the audience member believes is a hoax designed to control people:
Audience Member: I believe the issue of climate change was created for government control--
Pastor Cruz: Absolutely!
Audience Member: And I think it's a religion of secular Democrats.
Pastor Cruz: As a matter of fact--did you see the question that my son had with the Sierra Club just this last week in the committee? I'll tell you what, he had the president of the Sierra Club in the committee in the Senate and Ted asked him, he said, now let me ask you a question, how do you justify when you keep pushing this global warming when the data proves that over the last 18 years there's been zero global warming?
And this guy repeats--as a matter of fact he first talks to a guy that's standing behind him and then he states, well, 97 percent of a consensus of scientists is that global warming is a reality and we need to abide by that.
And then again, Ted asked the same question, he asked it about six times and this guy parroted the same answer and Ted even said, look, that statement was based on a study that has been proven to be a bogus study based on falsified data.
This week, you held a hearing on the clean air and clean water safeguards that protect millions of American families. I testified because I wanted to talk about how these safeguards are especially critical for people of color and low-income communities, who are disproportionately affected by pollution and climate disruption .
But we digress. Pastor Cruz continues in the excerpt above:
Global warming is a manufactured thing. You want to take it to the extreme, it wasn't too long ago, they even said, well, cow farting is causing global warming. Even the cows are to blame. As a matter of fact, the whole thing is based on bogus data. It is all about control. It has nothing to do with global warming.
I'll tell you where global warming has worked. It's worked for Al Gore. Al Gore has become nearly a billionaire pushing this garbage of global warming, but there's no reality to it.
In case readers forgot, in April, we learned that most of the Republicans in the Minnesota House agreed. A press release from Rep Melissa Hortman, Is Climate Change Real? 99% of House Republicans Vote No, spelled out the sad story.
Pastor Cruz goes on to attack not only the Environmental Protection Agency, but workplace safety (OSHA) and unemployment compensation. It's quite the rant about the loss of the enterprising American spirit.
Pastor Cruz is dancing with the old school, fossil fuel capitalists filling the SuperPACs' coffers.
What's this strategy all about?
Pastor Cruz bashes marriage equality as well as workplace safety and climate change; in his podcast, Bob Davis calls it "red meat" for the base, but we have to wonder why attacking policy attractive to so many voters is a path to victory.
he $38 million super PAC supporting Ted Cruz plans to highlight polarizing issues as part of a full-throttle plan to turn out the white evangelical voters that can power him to victory, a new document reveals.
Keep the Promise, whose strategy is detailed in a 51-slide PowerPoint presentation titled "Can He Win?" recently posted to the organization's website, mercilessly attacks 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney as unable to elevate "wedge issues," or divisive issues that polarize voters, to the forefront of the Republican debate. Calling Romney a "terrible candidate with a terrible campaign," the slides pillory him as a Republican who managed to squander winnable states just like every other "loser" moderate candidate.
By deploying these issues and emphasizing his Hispanic heritage and religious roots, Cruz can win the presidency, the super PAC says.
The presentation, seemingly written to appeal to donors, syncs with much of the pitch that Cruz himself makes on the stump: that Republicans have their best chance of winning the White House if they nominate a clear-eyed conservative who can turn out the GOP base. But the presentation makes the fullest case yet for how Cruz's allies believe he has a path both to win the Republican nomination and then to defeat Hillary Clinton, who is mentioned by name in the presentation.
Among the wedge issues from past campaigns that the document cites in the Fear of A Black Planet Willie Horton ads. Fearing black lives and criminal justice reform, climate change and cute boys marrying each other, the Cruz campaign--which frets over control--seeks to further divide the country in order to gain control of the White House.
Oh good.
Here's the document, which we found online, although the CNN link is no longer working:
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
In Friday's Morning Take, we read about promotional activities for tomorrow's Governor's Pheasant Opener near Mankato. Lt. Governor Tina Smith
At 4:00pm, the Lt. Governor and the Nicollet Conservation Club will take a guided boat tour of Swan Lake, the largest prairie pothole marsh in the contiguous United States.
It's good to see the lake valued and we hope Smith enjoys the tour.
Back in the early 1970s, the shallow prairie lake was a candidate for becoming the cooling pond for a coal-fired power plant. In 2013, the New Ulm Journal reported in Swan Lake meeting draws a crowd:
A roomful of outdoors enthusiasts energetically told of their past and present experiences on Swan Lake at the Nicollet Conservation Club on Tuesday.
Hosted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Nicollet County Historical Society (NHS), the event about one of the largest prairie pothole lakes in the lower 48 states included a wide array of information and story telling by DNR and NHS officials as well as area sports enthusiasts.
Once twice the size it is now, Swan Lake was Minnesota's largest marsh-wetland ecosystem before it was drained for more farmland decades ago. . . .
Swan Lake's water level is more stable than many other area lakes and sloughs. It's well vegetated," said Stein Innvaer of the Nicollet DNR office. "Northern States Power (NSP) was going to build a coal-fired power plant on the lake once.
[David Vesall, assistant game and fish director] and other officials of the DNR met with the Governor's Task Force on Power Plant Siting to explain the department's position on designation of the Lake. Swan Lake is one of seven sites proposed for development by Northern States Power Co. of a 1,600-megawatt fossil burning power plant.
It's possible, then, that Nicollet County could have going through the turmoil facing Sherburne County, rather than the tour today, had the fool-hardy choice to turn a duck-factory into an industrial site gone forward.
Yesterday, Bluestem Prairie watched the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Clean Power Plan Stakeholder meeting online, listening to representatives from utilities, environmental organizations and state legislators discuss the plan to reduce carbon emissions--and possibly slow climate change.
One legislator tweeted:
At Clean Power Plan mtg I am reminded/remember: Team work makes the Dream Work! Mn leadership works = problem solving.
What will happen in Becker as the two coal-fired units are phased out? Two Republican lawmakers fretted about that, but others, including an owner of a construction company, pointed out that clean energy also creates jobs.
. . . In 2023, Sherco Unit 2 will be shut down. In 2026, Sherco Unit 1 will be shut down and subsequently, Sherco Unit 2 will be converted to natural gas that same year.
Sherco’s larger, newer Unit 3, which has more modern pollution controls, would continue burning coal.
Xcel Energy said they are committed to continue to provide high pressure steam to Liberty Paper in Becker.
Newberger says the shutting down of Units 1 & 2 will eliminate about 150 full-time jobs.
“Xcel has informed me that many of these job eliminations will be by attrition and retirement,” Newberger said. “The rest will be reassigned to other areas within Xcel.”
Newberger also said he was relieved at the news that the currently employed will be able to remain employed if they do not retire.
“I am also relieved that creating a new gas plant will ensure some form of property tax base for the City of Becker,” he said.
But his frustration over the situation is still palpable.
“However, the fact remains that these 150 jobs will not be replaced with new workers as they would be if the plant were to continue its normal operation,” he said. “That means 150 fewer good-paying job opportunities for families in our area. The economic impact will be a staggering blow to Central Minnesota.” . ..
We'll be hearing a lot about those 150 local jobs at Xcel Energy, which will slowly be phased out as the workers filling them retire or move on to other opportunities as we move toward the shutdowns in 2023 and 2026.
We have to wonder, however, that Becker and Sherburne County might have something to dangle for companies looking to locate in Greater Minnesota. Skilled workers, quality housing, access to a freeway (and Highway 10), along with proximity to St. Cloud, the western suburbs, as well as natural amenities like the Mississippi River, the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, Sand Dune State Forest: all of these are assets.
Change is difficult--but part of leadership is to direct resources to toward the opportunities offered by it, rather than to exhaust resources and emotion in a rear-guard action against it.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Many Minnesotans concerned about clean air and climate change cheered when Minnesota Public Radio's Elizabeth Dunbar (and other reporters at additional media outlets) reported Xcel plan would retire part of coal power plant by 2026.
For MN 350 , that news isn't enough. It's out will a new report detailing how two Minnesota-based banks have hope to profit from "climate chaos." The organization tweeted at us about it:
Since the activists also sent a press release, we publish the report below, as much we dislike troll-attracting group tweets. Climate change itself is deeply concerning. From the press release:
Minnesota banking giants Wells Fargo and US Bank invest billions in some of the industries that are causing runaway climate change including tar sands oil development, mountaintop coal removal and fracking, according to a new report by local climate change activist group MN350.
“Despite their stated concern for the community and environment, Wells and US Bank are putting their financial might behind deadly and dying industries that disproportionately pollute communities of color and put life as we know it in peril,“ said Ulla Nilsen, a MN350 member who co-authored the report. “The economics of a clean energy economy get better every day and would make a better investment than extreme fossil fuels.” ...
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Here's the video of the exchange between Cathy Hollander of MN 350 and Governor Mark Dayton about pipelines. Dayton is polite but adamant that pipelines must be built. Before the exchange escalates, MEP president Steve Morse ends the debate by moving on to the next question:
Dayton isn't pandering to his environmental allies on pipeline development in Minnesota. He's disagreeing with them--and as the guest of honor at their yearly party.
Apparently the Speaker forgot to attend the August 4 gala. As a consequence, Daudt issued a press release, Daudt to Dayton administration: Let's keep Sandpiper on track, that accused Dayton of working hand-in-glove with "activist groups" that fund DFL legislators in the metro:
It's pretty easy for Democrats in Minneapolis and Saint Paul—where the unemployment rate is at 3.7 percent—to oppose these projects to appease the powerful special interest groups that fund their campaigns.
Teeny tiny greenie money
We're curious which activist groups Daudt is talking about funding DFL candidates. In 2014, the Clean Water Action Fund spent exactly $0 on candidates from all parties, while the Sierra Club's PAC forked over a whopping $12,108.11 in independent expenditures--about what the Minnesota Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund would spend on one middling race.
Conservation Minnesota Voter Fund? In 2014's amended year-end report, we learn the group spent a total of $4,196.00, with $1800.00 going to candidates in amounts so small that they didn't have to be itemized. While the DFL House Caucus received $500 in 2014, Daudt's own HRCC got $600 thrown at them. David Hann's Senate Victory Fund aced that with $500. There's one non-itemized contribution for $100. Heck, the committee started the year with $27,449.20 cash on hand, while closed it with an ending cash balance of $48,358.64.
The CMVC Fund (Conservation MN Voter Center) gave no money directly to candidates, but spent $57,863 on independent expenditures across the state. To put that in perspective, contrast the $1,209.00 spent on independent expenditures in support of Andrew Falk in MN17A (the group did no negative campaigning) with MN Jobs Coalition (right) and Alliance for a Better Minnesota in the west central Minnesota district.
MN Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund spent a total of $609,160.45 on independent expenditures statewide, with a focus on state House races, with $90,779.13 going to defeat Falk, while the Alliance for a Better Minnesota Action Fund spent $4,548,573.75 statewide (governor and House races), with $85,044.99 being spent in 17A to defeat challenger Tim Miller. We've gone into the corporate donors to MJC here before; most of the ABM action cash came from the WIN Minnesota Political Action--with the lion's share of that cash coming from labor. It's not exactly tree hugging.
We eagerly await the spectacle of Kurt Daudt's explanation of that one, but in the meantime, we're willing to bet that the Speaker will continue to rattle about Big Green Meanie Money.
Photo: Building the Sandpiper pipeline via Enbridge. We're not a fan of the project, but we can't honestly say Dayton isn't. Only Kurt Daudt can come up with that one.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The resignation of Houston County planning and zoning administrator Bob Scanlan was formally announced Tuesday at the Houston County Board of Commissioners meeting by Human Resources Director Theresa Arrick-Kruger. His final day with the county is Aug. 21. No reason was cited during the public meeting and Scanlan was not available for comment on Wednesday, but Commissioner Teresa Walter said he's accepted a new job elsewhere. . . .
Tuesday's announcement ends a controversial era in the state's southeast corner, where some silica sand critics have been so boisterous that law enforcement has removed them from public meetings.
Scanlan was suspended for three days last year by the county board after an independent investigation determined that he retaliated against some people who were opposed to frac sand mining. The investigation, which included interviews with 26 people, concluded that Scanlan had subjected mining critics to bogus zoning violations, sent an angry email to the boss of a citizen opposed to silica sand mining, and violated other ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations while generally acting as an advocate for the mining industry.
Those findings, revealed publicly in March via data requests by numerous media outlets, sparked an uproar among critics, including the Houston County Protectors, an opposition group that's worked for three years to ban all silica sand operations in the county. . . .
The local opposition group issued a press release Tuesday announcing Scanlan's departure with a headline that used 30 exclamation points.
Boese also reports that the Houston County Protectors filed an ordinance amendment proposal Tuesday that would ban all operations related to silica sand. The language was accepted by The board county board accepted the amendment for discussion at an upcoming planning commission meeting.
An environmental group on Tuesday proposed banning large-scale frac sand mining.
The Houston County Protectors offered the county board what the advocacy group described as a “thoughtful, balanced” amendment to the county’s mining ordinance.
Representing the Houston County Protectors, Ken Tschumper told the board the proposed change to the county’s mineral extraction ordinance “resolves much of the controversy … by proposing two significant changes” — prohibiting frac sand mining and resolving problems with nonconforming mines.
“I encourage you to read and study this proposed amendment carefully,” Tschumper told the board. “I think you will find that it is a thoughtful, balanced and substantive effort by members of Houston County Protectors to find common ground among most of the opinions and views on what is workable and what is problematic in Section 27.”
Readers can learn more about the Houston County Protectors at the group's website, The Sandpoint Times. Silica ("frac") sand is used in fracking oil and gas from shale; the boom in this technology has led to a demand for frac sand, which must be mined. South Eastern Minnesota's Driftless Region is home to many sand deposits.
Photo: A mine in Houston County via Sandpoint Times: "Based on records received from the Houston County Zoning and Planning Department, this is the Mathy Construction Co./Bonanza Grain Inc. Quarry. It is located two miles east of Caledonia, MN. It is one of approximately 120 permitted/existing "construction/aggregate" mines in Houston County."
Bluestem is conducting a week-long, mid-August contribution drive. Please give if you can.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
North Dakota's Lignite Research, Development and Marketing Program (Program) is a multi-million dollar state/industry partnership that concentrates on near term, practical research and development projects that provide the opportunity to preserve and enhance development of our state's abundant lignite resources.
Yesterday in the Bismarck Tribune,the Associated Press's James MacPherson reported in N.D. lignite projects languish as some question worth that few of the Lignite Research, Development and Marketing Program's projects have been worth the North Dakota Industrial Development Commission's time:
Fifteen years after North Dakota began funding research aimed at revitalizing growth in the state's lignite industry, all but one project has been abandoned or yielded little more than expensive studies that have failed to find a clean and cost-effective use for the state's plentiful but low-grade coal, data obtained by The Associated Press show.
Some say it may be time to reevaluate North Dakota's lignite research fund, which was established to boost the use of the coal as an energy source and economic engine for the state. Others blame the lack of progress on lignite projects on uncertain coal legislation.
. . . The only project to be built has been Great River Energy's plant in southeastern North Dakota, which began producing electric power last year. Construction of the power plant was finished in 2010, but its startup was delayed due to a drop in demand for electricity in Minnesota.
The contrast with that dismal record would make even an IRRRB commission blush with pride over solar energy panel factories and political call centers.
No wonder why printing out good conduct certificates for Minnesota's Senate Majority leader, buying ads with state hockey tournaments and a friendly communication consultant's sleepy website seem like such a deal. Mining Minnesota's political resources is much more effective than actually coming up with "clean" coal.
Photo: The grip and grin, photo submitted by the Coalition for a Secure Energy Future to the Tower Timberjay. If you see a photo of other legislators getting a certificate from the marketing campaign sponsored by $1.2 million of the North Dakota Industrial Commission Lignite Research, Development and Marketing Program's money, please send it to us!
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors. While progressive in outlook, she does not caucus with any political party.
Recent Comments