Where there's a Will, there's a way

I've been watching coverage of the Martin Luther King Jr. monument dedication this week. I'm eager to visit DC again to see it.

While news networks are honoring the most famous advocate of civil disobedience in American history, I've seen very little coverage of the mass civil disobedience happening this week at the White House to protest the Keystone tar sands pipeline. So far 275 people and counting have been arrested in what must be the nation's largest act of civil disobedience to stop climate change.

Apparently, news outlets believe that memorializing civil disobedience of the past is more newsworthy than similar acts happening today. The only mention I've seen of the Keystone XL pipeline on MSNBC, for example, is in oil industry ads running to support the project. I have to get news updates at Tar Sands Action. It must be difficult for reporters in the White House press room to reach protests happening directly outside the White House.

I wonder how Martin Luther King Jr. would have fared in today's news environment. Modern police forces are trained to not repeat the public spectacles provided by Bull Connor and his dogs. Even in the rare cases when police tactics are overly aggressive it rarely receives news coverage and blame is routinely placed on the victims. You'll have to turn to the alternative press to learn about the unbelievable abuse of civil liberties surrounding the 2008 republican convention. Massive anti-war protests of hundreds of thousands before the invasion of Iraq received only brief mention on the evening news. Leaders of those protests were generally not given time to speak for themselves as guests on news programs.

Was the press this unimpressed with civil disobedience in the 1950's and 60's? Would MLK have been nationally known if the press of his time were as reluctant to cover civil disobedience as today's networks?

Next time environmentalists want news coverage for a protest they should pretend to be the Tea Party. Reporters will flock to them.

Posted by Will at 8:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Americans for Prosperity has a "running on empty" bus tour. The group is funded by the Koch brothers, who are invested in oil, and what do you know, the tour is pushing the oil industry position on energy issues.

Their website is so stocked full of anti-environment talking points that it inspired me to create a new logo for their gas-guzzling bus tour. Maybe someone can make use it of at one of the stops.

Posted by Will at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few days ago I wrote about the old news that the wind industry already employs more people nationally than coal mining. Grist pointed me toward One Block Off the Grid, which claims they've made a conservative estimate of how many solar industry jobs could be created in each state.

They believe that solar could support nearly 6,000 jobs in Illinois. Less than 4,000 people are employed in mining Illinois coal.

With the lack of federal action, some of the most important progress is happening at the state level. Their analysis grades state solar policies and gives Illinois an A. I assume that's because solar was added to that Illinois' renewable energy portfolio standard that environmental groups advocated. Because the solar portion of the standard won't kick in for several more years, the industry is only beginning to rise in Illinois.

If you're wondering what's going to happen to Illinois' fleet of obsolete coal plants, check out this Washington Post article, which provides a good summary of the likely road ahead. It covers a Congressional Research Office study that offers a more reliable analysis than the hysteria we predictably hear from the coal industry about every proposed regulation. New EPA regulation of coal, plus incentives for renewable energy, are the current Plan-B for dealing with climate change since the Senate refused to vote on cap-and-trade.

We'll hear more shouting about jobs from the coal industry as they fight the transition to new energy sources. It's important to remember that the alternatives to coal will likely provide more jobs than we get from the world's deadliest power source.

Posted by Will at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I only caught parts of the speech Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer gave at the Illinois State Fair, but I heard him finish by talking about green jobs. It makes sense since that was the most successful part of the federal stimulus bill.

The wind industry now employs more people than coal mining, and it's the fastest growing energy source in the country. There are still people in central Illinois who believe they can boost the regional economy by reviving coal mining. They might as well try to revive the horse and buggy sector. Illinois' future isn't in 19th century energy sources.

Iowa already produces 20% of its power from wind. Illinois is headed the same direction wtih the renewable energy portfolio standard. Rather than getting nostalgic about the last Illinois coal boom, communities that are serious about creating jobs should look to wind, solar and other green job opportunities.

Posted by Will at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

CNN has an ongoing problem covering coal issues. Author Jeff Biggers wrote about their new special on mountaintop removal coal mining and Blair Mountain West Virginia.

Dear Soledad: Appalachians Respond to CNN’s Blair Mountain Special on Mountaintop Removal

In a move that has bewildered many affected residents in central Appalachia, O’Brien and her producers decided to tell the story of Blair Mountain and mountaintop removal, an admittedly criminal mining practice that provides less than 5 percent of our national coal production, stripped jobs and gutted the miners’ unions, and left the central Appalachian communities in entrenched poverty and illness, through the eyes and experiences of seemingly embattled strip miners who are afraid of losing their jobs.

Many Appalachian viewers have asked: What about the already displaced coal mining communities afraid of losing their lives?

The article goes on to quote reactions from people in West Virginia communities impacted by mountaintop removal.

Using the Blair Mountain march as metaphor, CNN has done a grave disservice to the actual crisis, the real and ongoing human rights disaster that exists in Appalachia. The choice in Appalachia is NOT, as CNN suggests, between “jobs” and “environmentalists,” but between Life, itself and the grim death that is the handmaiden of the eternal profit-seekers who destroy our homes, our communities, our heritage and our very lives. I’m no “environmentalist.” I’m a human rights advocate who opposes the mountaintop removal industry’s callous disregard for the value of my family’s, friends, neighbors’ and colleagues’ very lives. I’m a student of history who understands that the people of this state have a constitutional right to the quiet enjoyment of their property that is actually greater than a mountaintop removal company’s right to make a profit.

There are many more excellent quotes in Biggers' article. Most of those quoted bring up coal industry advertising on CNN and the network's history of biased reporting on coal.

The story posted at CNN is headlined: "Steady job or healthy environment: What would you choose?"

This is deceptive in several ways. First, mountaintop removal employs fewer miners than less destructive mining methods. Mine companies do it because they can cut costs by hiring fewer people. Also the wind industry already employes more people than coal. Blowing up mountains destroys the potential for other economic activity like building wind turbines or creating a tourism industry.

In this case, protecting the environment would create MORE jobs, not less. The "jobs v environment" framing by CNN is outdated propaganda that's usually pushed by polluting industries. And anyone familiar with the coal mining industry knows that calling it a "steady" job is a bit of a stretch.

This is part of a pattern at CNN. Nothing makes media bias more obvious than knowing the reality behind their reporting on the coal industry. It's as true at CNN as it is for several coal friendly newspapers in downstate Illinois.

Posted by Will at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tired of polluting interests having too much power in state politics? Do you want to see more pro-environment candidates elected in Illinois? Then Tuesday is your chance to help the environmental movement flex its political muscle.

The Sierra Club Sangamon Valley Group is hosting our annual political fundraiser with guest speakers Illinois Department of Natural Resources Director Marc Miller and Attorney General Lisa Madigan. Funds raised will help build the political power of the environment by supporting candidates endorsed by the Sierra Club.

It happens this Tuesday, August 16, 5:00pm - 7:00pm.
Floyd’s Thirst Parlor, 2nd Floor.
Downtown Springfield, 210 S. 5th Street

$15 Suggested Donation
Sponsorships Available - $100 Sangamon Defender $50 Friend of the Club

Appetizers and cash Bar.

And here's the legally required language: Checks must be made payable to Sierra Club Illinois PAC. Because your contribution will be used to help elect pro-environment candidates, contributions are not tax-deductible. A copy of our report filed with the State Board of Elections is available for purchase from the State Board of Elections, Springfield Illinois.

Posted by Will at 10:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sarah Palin's bus sneaked in and out town before I knew she was here. Apparently, she only stayed long enough to visit the Lincoln Presidential Museum, two blocks from the Old State Capitol building where Obama announced his campaign for President.

Just a few days ago Palin claimed she took her bus tour to the Iowa State Fair during the Republican straw poll, while all the national press happened to be there, to celebrate the historic importance of state fairs. She even said, "I love this all-American venue. I consider the Iowa State Fair very historical."

OK, that's cool. And since she's in Springfield today it makes sense that she would also stop by the Illinois State Fair that's happening here right now. But no! She totally skipped the Illinois State Fair!

What, our state fair isn't historical enough for you, Sarah Palin? But, the fair grounds are listed on the National Register of Historic Places! Springfield held the first one in 1853! Iowa has nothing on the Illinois fair! Our butter cow is just as good as theirs!

She gets to Illinois and all of a sudden she doesn't care about "historic" state fairs anymore. Whatever.

If you're really interested in the historical significance of state fairs, unlike Sarah Palin, check out the Illinois State Fair Museum Foundation.

Posted by Will at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I listened to Rick Perry give his Presidential announcement speech today. He bragged about job growth in Texas and claimed it happened because he cut state government spending. That's an interesting fantasy, but the reality is that much of the job growth in Texas is a direct result of President Obama's green stimulus bill.

According to Recovery.gov, Texas has been awarded over $16 Billion in stimulus funds. Only California received more. Much of that is funding clean energy and efficiency projects. One of many examples is the State Energy Conservation Office award of over $218 million in grants to fund energy efficiency and distributed renewable generation projects around the state, including green job training programs. To give another, Duke Energy received $21 million for an energy storage project at a Texas wind farm.

One of the largest grant recipients is CenterPoint Energy, which was awarded $200 million to install an energy-saving smart grid system in Houston, including 2.2 million smart meters. Since then, CenterPoint was given an award for their economic development efforts with a letter of support from Governor Rick Perry.

Apparently, Rick Perry does support government spending for job creation and he likes it even better when other states pay the bill.

Wind is the fastest growing energy source in America, and Texas has the most wind capacity of any state in the union. This isn't the random work of the market's magical invisible hand. Obama's green stimulus bill boosted the industry by including a wind energy production tax credit and other clean energy incentives.

No state has benefited more from pro-wind policies than Texas. It includes the nation's top five largest wind farms and is the first state to surpass more than 10,000MW of wind installations. In 2010 that resulted in 8,000-9,000 direct and indirect wind power jobs, including manufacturing facilities, plus $30 million in lease payments to Texas landowners.

Wind power came through for Texas during recent rolling blackouts. High temperatures stopped some power plants from working, including coal and natural gas plants. In contrast, wind stayed reliable, providing more megawatts than the industry is expected to supply during peak summer demand.

To be fair, the Texas legislature deserves partial credit for enacting a renewable energy portfolio standard in 1999. It mandates that the state ramp up its use of renewable energy and currently the targets are expected to be met ahead of schedule. President Obama has made a similar proposal for the nation. Once again, the solution that's working best directly contradicts Perry's free-market-anarchy rhetoric in campaign speeches.

Dear Governor Perry:
On behalf of the environmental community I'd like to say, "you're welcome!" We're glad that you were able to create thousands of green jobs in Texas with the help of federal and state incentives. Environmental groups worked hard to enact those policies. You may thank us in return by dropping the fantasy explanation for job growth and start showing support for the green job stimulus spending policies that worked so well for Texas.

Posted by Will at 6:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"YERT: Your Environmental Road Trip" screened to a packed house at Liberty Brew & View Tuesday night. YERT is an official selection of the Route 66 Film Festival, which brought in viewers beyond the usual tree-hugger crowd. Pairing a road trip movie with a film festival held along the classic Mother Road made a perfect match.

Co-Director/Producer Ben Evans and co-star Julie Dingam Evans answered questions for nearly an hour on environmental issues and their experience making the film.

The documentary follows three travelers across all 50 states as they explore unique ways Americans are tackling environmental threats.

YERT is different from many environmental movies in that it's not horribly depressing. There are many excellent documentaries about environmental disasters that I'm glad I've seen, but the experience of watching those movies can be draining. YERT skips the gloomy warnings of impending climate doom, which most of us have already seen, and moves right into exploring the innovative, interesting and ingenious ways those problems are being solved on the coasts and deep in the heartland.

The quick jumps from state to state and issue to issue makes the film a kind of ADD experience. That should make it perfect for college campuses but the baby boomer crowd at the screening loved it too. The fast-paced way they cover many different ideas makes the movie's above average length easy to digest.

Evans said they have hundreds of hours of footage they couldn't fit into the final version. It would be nice to see them put it to use in a TV series after the feature film makes the rounds. In the mean time, you can view extra clips and check for screenings at the YERT website. Don't miss any chance you get to see this film!

Posted by Will at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Federal Rail Administration's public meeting in Springfield today lasted more than two hours. Members of the Springfield rail corridor study citizen advisory group appeared frustrated, confused and unable to agree on any major issue.

The current study of preferred rail corridors in Springfield will be folded into a new statewide study of the St. Louis to Chicago line. One major change is that the new study will include a fourth option of keeping passenger rail on the 3rd street corridor while moving freight traffic to the 10th street corridor.

Incredibly, one member of the Springfield rail study citizen advisory group asked representatives of the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) why that fourth option had not been considered earlier in the first study.

I would ask the same question of the advisory group. Why didn't they insist that the fourth reasonable alternative be included in the existing Hanson Engineering study? Were they lead to believe that they weren't allowed to consider anything other than the three alternatives presented to them? Did the city leaders who insisted on local control of the study discourage consideration of any additional options? Did it simply never occur to them to seriously consider anything other than 10th street corridor consolidation?

Much of the public language used by the study group suggests a reluctance to view passenger rail as a separate issue. The FRA official said that the fourth alternative "should have been part of the process all along." It appears that the new study is necessary partly because the current one failed to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives.

At another point in the meeting, FRA officials were asked why the advisory group hadn't been given copies of the existing Hanson Engineering study. Once again, that question could have been directed to Mayor Mike Houston and County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter who both have the study and have commented on it in the press. In fact, the FRA official said city leaders are free to make the Hanson study available at any time.

I suppose Houston and Van Meter are free to characterize the study in any way they choose as long as it isn't available to the public. They bypassed the citizen advisory group when they took the study's conclusions directly to a friendly newspaper instead of making it available to everyone. They both remained silent during the meeting while several members complained of not having seen the study.

Comments from the advisory group revealed a total lack of unity. One member claimed that most everyone would prefer that all trains be routed outside of the community. Later, another member said passenger rail inside the city along 10th street would be a good thing because the new public transit multimodal facility will drive east side economic development. And even though it would drive economic development on the east side, we're told it will harm development of downtown and the medical district if placed along 3rd.

I have yet to figure out how the same multimodal proposal could drive development on one corridor and destroy it on another. I give city council member Gail Simpson credit for recognizing that good mass transit can be an economic development tool. This fact seems lost on those representing the medical district. The most frightening part of the meeting was to see how many people in the room have an outdated, 1960's automobile-centric mindset about transportation planning.

Yet another member spoke about NAACP's opposition to 10th street consolidation because it would unfairly burden the east side with the negative impacts of freight traffic. He was one of several people in the room who suggested that the advisory group was unfairly stacked with people who had their minds made up from the start.

Mike Houston closed the meeting by saying that resolving the issue will take the community coming together in agreement. Good luck! Despite a stacked advisory group and a massive public relations effort in favor of 10th corridor consolidation, it's clear that city residents are still deeply divided.

It was an interesting meeting. I'll write more from my notes when I have time.

Posted by Will at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We're used to hearing about temperatures and sea levels rising as a result of climate change. Senator Dick Durbin put the focus on one aspect of what that means in practical terms.

Is the federal government financially prepared to handle the rising number of catastrophic weather disasters? It's an excellent question for Illinois in particular after this year's massive spring floods along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.

Think Progress blogged about Durbin's speech in an appropriations subcommittee hearing. His last comment reminds me why he's still my favorite member of the Senate.

“We’ve stopped talking about this on Capitol Hill,” Durbin concluded. “We’ve decided that the debate over global warming is too contentious. I think it’s a big mistake.”

He's absolutely right. We can't afford to ignore climate change even if some pundits and special interests have decided it's not a convenient time to tackle the issue.

Think Progress includes a short clip in their blog post but I strongly recommend watching this longer five minute video of Durbin's comments, especially if you've never heard a Senator start their speech by quoting Bob Dylan lyrics.

Polluting industries have tried to convince people that protecting the environment will cost jobs. The real question is how many homes, jobs and lives will be lost in weather disasters because we waited too long to deal with climate change.

Creating green jobs by building clean energy projects is the best plan anyone has come up with for reviving the economy. We can pay for clean energy projects that create jobs now, or we can pay much more later for disaster relief because we failed to slow climate change. I'm glad Dick Durbin understands that reality.

Posted by Will at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Do you recognize this Springfield intersection?

It's a rail crossing along the 3rd Street corridor at N. 3rd and Union. It's on the edge of downtown, near Memorial Hospital, in a residential neighborhood.

Do you notice what's missing from the picture?

This rail crossing has no gates or arm guards of any kind. In the middle of town in a residential neighborhood.

It's no wonder that Amtrak and freight trains lay on their horns through Springfield. They're forced to with unsafe crossing like this one.

Union Pacific is going to significantly increase freight traffic on this line. They own the track and have shown no interest in paying for 10th Street corridor consolidation. Amtrak will increase passenger lines on this track as well. Springfield needs to prepare.

We could be having a conversation about how to make intersections like this one safer when rail traffic increases. If we improve the safety of crossings along the entire corridor we'll be able to pass ordinances requiring trains to not lay on their horn non-stop all the way through town. Springfield could be creating our own 3rd street corridor mitigation plan that results in the least disruption to our central neighborhoods and downtown.

But we aren't having those conversations. That kind of productive discussion isn't happening because city leaders continue to chase after the lost cause of 10th Street corridor rail consolidation and exaggerate the negative impacts of track upgrades along the 3rd Street corridor. We should consider the consequences if County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter and Mayor Mike Houston continue their stubborn refusal to discuss anything other than consolidation.

The worst case scenario for Springfield is that federal high speed rail funding will run out before track upgrades are made. We could be left with a significant increase in rail traffic along the 3rd Street corridor but with no improvements to any crossings. We'll have all the inconvenience of more freight trains and no mitigation measures to improve safety or the flow of street traffic.

If that happens, we'll owe partial thanks to the Tea Party and other Republicans in Congress for their opposition to federal high speed rail funding. Even Springfield area Republicans like John Shimkus, Aaron Schock, and Bobby Schilling are doing their best to cut job-creation projects like high speed rail from the federal budget. It's unfair and unrealistic for Houston and Van Meter to expect Dick Durbin to deliver rail funds when the Republican Congressmen who represent Springfield are working against it.

Realistically, there isn't money for 10th Street consolidation unless the city issues a major bond and raises taxes. We all know how popular tax increases are.

Springfield needs to produce its own mitigation plan to make the best of high speed rail on the 3rd Street corridor. Having better passenger rail service in the heart of downtown on 3rd Street can be an economic development tool just like it has been in many other communities. It's time to face facts and have that conversation.

Posted by Will at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's a breakthrough! A Tea Party leader endorsed the same plan for corporate taxes that Obama proposed in his last State of the Union address.

Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of the Tea-Party-creating FreedomWorks, argued on Real Time with Bill Maher that there are too many loopholes for special interests in the tax code. He thinks the loopholes should be eliminated and the corporate tax rate lowered.

Obama made the same argument in his 2011 State of the Union speech.

"Over the years a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change."

Obama called on Congress to close the loopholes and lower the corporate tax rate, which would still increase revenue. He pushed for the same thing during debt ceiling negotiations but the idea was rejected by House Republicans.

Another guest on the show, Elliot Spitzer, pointed out to Kibbe that he was arguing for something Obama has already proposed. Kibbe seemed unaware and/or in denial.

Of course, the Tea Party and FreedomWorks claim to be non-partisan, so I'm sure they won't have any trouble supporting Obama's proposal now that Kibbe was informed that they're on the same page. They should send out the word to Tea Party groups across the country to call their Congressman in support of President Obama's plan to close special interest loopholes and cut corporate taxes. They'll demand that Tea Party members of Congress stand up to Speaker Boehner and get behind Obama's tax plan!

That's the only logical thing for them to do. Right? What else would they do since they're non-partisan issue activists? I'm sure they'll get to it any day now.

Posted by Will at 6:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)