Tester's wilderness bill links...

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 09:27:07 AM MST

Such as Ralph Maughan: "In recent years, however, areas have been proposed for Wilderness designation where livestock effects are seen and felt on almost every acre. Yes, these areas are roadless, with little previous logging activity, and no permanent structures, but to call them places where the effects of humans are not lasting or very evident is a bad joke.

"This bill continues in this bad tradition and grandfathers this use."

Read Bill Schneider's latest on the bill: "Tester's Wilderness Bill, the Sweet and the Sour." Here's the lede: "Based on past commentaries and concerns with Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership draft legislation, I suspect many readers expect me to oppose Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Restoration Act of 2009. And I might, but not now. Instead, I've decided to keep my powder dry and reserve judgment until I see how the bill fares in the legislative process and what amendments win approval.

"Right now, I definitely see it as a sweet-and-sour pill for Montana, the main reason for my indecisiveness. To summarize, here are a few things I like--and don't like--about what could become Montana's first wilderness bill in 26 years."

Among the "sour" aspects of the bill Schneider opines that 668,000 acres of Wilderness area is "not enough," suggesting enlarging of some of the suggested areas and inclusion of others. Also, Schneider's "game changer" is release of the most of the "fabulous" West Pioneers Wilderness Study Area, that "should definitely not be tolerated, and I really have a hard time believing Congress would undo the great work of legendary Montana senators Lee Metcalf and Mike Mansfield who fought hard for S.393, nor can I believe our leading green groups or Senator Tester can even suggest this without choking on their own words."

Ochenski: "The challenge for Tester and the bill's supporters is to build a groundswell of support, but the veil of secrecy surrounding the measure, which was only lifted last Friday, has not worked in their favor. Already a number of wilderness advocates have panned the measure, and they're joined by motorized recreationists and county commissioners from the affected areas who are unhappy about any number of the bill's provisions.

"Wilderness advocates, for instance, see the de-designation of 12 Wilderness Study Areas as un-doing the work of Montana's late Sen. Lee Metcalf, who has a wilderness area named after him to honor his dedication and accomplishments. Metcalf's legislation from the late '70s requires those areas to be managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. But Tester's bill, while designating new wilderness, will remove that protection and open the areas to logging, motorized use and development.

"But wilderness was seldom mentioned at the press conference. Instead, Tester and most of the speakers focused on its utility to the logging industry, which Tester says is 'in crisis.' Under the provisions of the bill, the U.S. Forest Service is mandated to log nearly 100,000 acres of forest over the next 10 years. The key word here is 'mandated.' The Beaverhead-Deerlodge portion of the bill, for instance, says 7,000 acres a year must be harvested from the forest as part of 'landscape scale' forest treatments. Theoretically, the revenue generated from the sale of those logs will be reinvested in the forest to improve and maintain fisheries, fix trails, remove culverts and stabilize or remove roads.

"But therein lies the rub.

"As Tester admitted at the press conference, 'If nobody wants to bid on these, we are in trouble.' The trouble, however, is already here. Much of Montana is now covered with dead and dying forests due to drought, warmer winters and longer, hotter summers that have spawned an exponential explosion of bark beetles. Wood supply isn't the problem-it's the lack of demand for wood products. With the most severe economic recession in 60 years and the concurrent collapse of the housing market, there is simply no demand for the lumber, no matter how many acres are mandated to be cut. And without a market, there will be no revenues for the restoration work the 'stewardship' logging is supposed to generate. When questioned by a reporter about what would happen if the market didn't turn up, Tester simply replied: 'It's gotta happen.'"

Rick Bass: "One accusation is the bill has been assembled in secret. This is laughable, given how participants have promoted their community projects, posted websites with proposed drafts of the bill, mailed out brochures, invited comment for years, held open community meetings, asked for input and drove to meet in person the very people who are now claiming falsely to have been excluded. I personally have rolled out the maps and explained the proposal to many of the new critics feigning ignorance.

"But as Mark Twain said, a lie goes around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.

"On one side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by the timber industry, brought in by environmentalists co-opted by the mills. On the other side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by environmentalists to destroy the last of our desperate timber mills. I can assure you that there is nothing so cynical or manipulative going on here. It's really much simpler: Montanans who know the contours of their forests quite well are putting the past behind them, and seeking solutions.

"As an environmentalist, I am deeply troubled by these and other false claims that the bill is comprised of anything but integrity. It's a small bill, true, but a new start-and again, the fact that Tester is willing to devote time and resources to developing a solution for conflicts in Montana, when so much else of the world is in such worse shape, humbles those of us who have been involved in the process since day one."

New West publisher Jonathan Weber explains in The Atlantic that Tester's wilderness bill represents "carefully structured processes" of small Mountain West communities "by which people on all sides of the debate can meet and negotiate for what's really critical to them, rather than shout at each other in the service of an absolutist agenda. When you do that, you can start to bring politicians of both parties along. And sometimes, you can then actually get something done."

On Western environmentalists: "On the other side are traditional environmentalists. They argue, with some justification, that what's at issue are the last scraps of Western wilderness, and that it's nothing less than a betrayal of future generations to sacrifice them for short-term economic gain. Once the old-growth trees and the extensive wildlife habitat they provide are gone, they're gone forever. And why should a handful of loggers and ranchers be allowed to dictate policy on millions of acres of land which they don't own but rather are allowed to use courtesy of all Americans?

"Yet the old-school greens too often refuse to recognize even legitimate objections to their agenda. Since they have little political support, they rely on court actions - and especially suing the federal agencies - as their primary strategy. This does not exactly help them in the court of public opinion."

More: "Many environmental groups, such as the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, consider these efforts a sell-out, dismissing the new wilderness areas as mere 'rock-and-ice' that's no good for other uses anyway. They are furious at organizations like the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, and the Montana Wilderness Association for supporting the compromises. They're now furious at Tester, too, noting, probably correctly, that it was environmentalists and not loggers who helped get him elected. The bill's fate in Congress is by no means assured, partly because of opposition from the left.

"Personally, I find Tester's legislation a little light on wilderness protection and little heavy on job-preserving mechanisms that preserve very few jobs. Frankly, I'd probably vote for NREPA if I ever had the chance.

"But I do respect the process that produced these compromises - highly time-consuming, good-faith efforts by many people over a long period of time. I'm hoping the final bill may yet tilt a little more toward my personal priorities, but that's not really the point."

Forest bill analyzed

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:55:57 AM MST

What's wrong with this bill? What's right?

And can we avoid mouth-foaming hyperbole and character assassination, please?

My thoughts below the fold...

"The planet is going to roast and our sons' penises are going to fall off."

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 09:11:42 AM MST

...we're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking - if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided - they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it - and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community." I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists - a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun's declaration was met with applause....

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?

Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole - but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Of course, not quite understanding that Krugman was turning the right-wingers' use of the word "treason" against them - pointing out the hypocrisy of an earlier, hyperbolic use of the term for a threat that wasn't quite all that it was made out to be, by contrasting it with the same folks' laconic attitude towards an all-too real and present catastrophic threat  -  naturally the usual people went completely bath*t.

Mac: "...how can you look at a plan to save the planet and decide that it's too expensive?"

And Dan Savage has a d*mn good point as he mulls Kristof's column on the increasing number of male genital deformities and the ever-decreasing sperm cell count for which scientists think a certain class of chemicals found in "agriculture, industry, and consumer products" may be responsible. Savage:

Sperm counts are falling and birth defects in boys are increasing... and to address these problems we're going to need to change the way we grow food and eliminate certain chemicals used in tens of thousands of industrial and consumer products. These kinds of big systemic changes seem unlikely when you consider that making the simplest and most obvious changes to benefit the environment-things like banning plastic shopping bags-are nearly impossible, to say nothing of taking action on climate change. We're fucked. The planet is going to roast and our sons' penises are going to fall off.

And it's because of the selfish intransigence of consumers who threaten rebellion over sparkly dishes and the politicians that feed their ignorance and misdirect their anger. I mean, shouldn't these people be p*ssed at the corporations that put the poison into our environment, the businesses and ad agencies that conned consumers into believing that easy livin' was theirs for the low, low price...? Well, it turns out easy livin' does have a price. And the long-term payment plan is a b*tch.

The hoax is the hoax

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 08:53:15 AM MST

Here we go again.

All you need to know is that there's near unanimity that the climate is warming, and that human activity is contributing to the warming. Among those scientific institutes that say global warming is real and supported by science include NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, EPA, The Royal Society of the UK, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Academy of Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Australian Academy of Sciences, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Academy of Sciences...

BP and Shell acknowledged that global warming is real. Even Exxon - the big baddie that orchestrated and funded the climate-change-denial movement - admits global warming is real and something should be done about it.

So if you're like Senator James Inhofe and believe climate change is the "greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people," you've got to set aside reason to do so. After all, what manner of hoax could so infiltrate nearly all of the major scientific organizations throughout he world? And even include the energy companies to stand to benefit the most financially from climate change skepticism? Inhofe attacks those that insist climate change is real as members of a "religion" - yet it's only faith that supports the paranoia of the denial movement in the face of so much overwhelming evidence, faith that nearly all of the scientific community and government leaders from around the world would work in concert to achieve...what, exactly? Sadly, the duplicitous goal these people have is never explicitly stated.

(And does anyone else find it ironic that, in his speech shortly after he calls for the debate on climate change to be based on the "fundamental principles of science," he recommends Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" as an appropriate reference text? Which is, you know, fiction?)

To me, it reeks of politics. Like health-care reform, it appears that Republicans are set to block any and all Democratic legislation. And to do so in this case - the cap-and-trade bill up for vote in the House today - they're essentially sowing doubt as to the very existence of climate change.

Which seems incredibly short-sighted, if you ask me.

Too much selfishness and greed

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:13:51 AM MST

First, I saw this bit of Eric-Cantor-inspired agitprop on Dennis Rehberg's Facebook page, claiming a cap-and-trade system would cause job losses and be, in effect, a tax on middle-class households. George Will lays it on, too, citing a study from a Spanish libertarian (and paid commenter for a US energy industry front group) claiming Spain's unemployment rate stems from its commitment to green energy projects. (Odd, no mention of investment banks.) Michelle Malkin, naturally, can't stand being left behind, and piles on with a gratuitous sliming of Al Gore, comparing him to a pig.

In response, I present you with a pair of Ezra Klein posts.

First, the CBO scored the current cap-and-trade bill in the House, and found it would cost households about $165 for the average household per year.

Which is cheap if you consider the CBO's analysis of climate change literature, and the projected change in temperature to the end of the 21st century...and you realize how much economic damage climate change would do, if unchecked.

I haven't really looked into the present cap-and-trade bill. (I will.) I admit there may be problems with it. (Is it being rushed?) But in a sense, this issue is even more crucial than health-care reform. After all, if climate change science is correct, we're headed towards eco-disaster.

So, yeah. The GOPers and their minions are trotting out the "taxes" line - but, again, it's a very selfish, very self-centered philosophy, isn't it? And it's grossly irresponsible. When you hear some conservative spout off about morals being the root cause of American decline, just nod and say, yeah, there's too much short-sighted selfishness and greed.

The politics of carbon

by: Matt Singer

Fri May 22, 2009 at 12:25:15 PM MST

New modeling shows a 9 degree rise in global temperatures is a highly probably outcome of global warming at this point. This is what trained scientists refer to as a "Holy Fuck!" scenario, because it is really, really bad news.

So the next question, obviously, would be, "What can we do to get this shit under control?" And the answer, so far, is that the Clean Energy and Security Act is our starting point, but unlikely to be the final answer.

Here's some details:

The original draft [...] was a mixed bag: its "complementary policies" (the 75% of the bill devoted to energy stuff unrelated to cap-and-trade) were excellent, and its targets for climate pollution reduction were bolder than anticipated,  but it allowed for far too many carbon offsets and left unsettled the key issue of how the pollution permits under cap-and-trade would be allocated.

And the bill probably just doesn't go far enough in attempts to limit carbon output. Now, I'm seen as a jerk in some corners because I think global warming is a big enough environmental problem that I'm open to nuclear or clean coal technology to avoid our planet frying alive. It ain't my goal, of course, but I've found the Gods have yet to issue me fiat power over our government, so I'm open to carbon sequestration and other things.

But all that said, what is fascinating to me is watching how the carbon debate mirrors the health care debate:

It comes down to how you see the big picture and the larger forces of history-that Rorschach blot. Those who have turned against the bill think there will be one chance to do this; they cite the Clean Air Act to show how crappy compromises get cemented in place in legislation and become very, very difficult to reopen. They're worried that if a weak bill is put in place, by the time the country seriously revisits it it could well be too late. It blows the one chance.

The bill's supporters think history is on their side. They see the most important goals as establishing a long-term declining cap on CO2 (the 2030 and 2050 targets remain strong in W-M), getting a carbon trading system up and running, and above all shifting off the status quo trajectory.  They also point out that the U.S. desperately needs something to take to the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Only a show of good faith will get the rusty gears of multilateral negotiation turning again, and that process, too, cannot wait. As time passes, they say, climate change will hit harder, increasing political pressure to strengthen the system. States will accelerate their own programs; clean businesses will gain size and lobbying muscle; everyone will get much more serious about the problem and cognizant of the opportunities. This is the beginning of a journey that will only gain, not lose, momentum.

I had a fairly long conversation last evening with one of my favorite local conservation leaders. This discussion was at the very heart of it. When you're a principled incrementalist, the question is always what you're willing to settle for, because the reality is: if we pass major health care or global warming legislation in 2009, it will not be on the agenda again for at least several years in the same way.

Conversely, what we know from history is that when the issue dies in Congress, politicians back off their support for it, the media finds different stories, and the issue does not return again until a champion finds it once more.

Health care reform is very likely to occur this year before we move on to considering the carbon pollution caps (I don't coordinate the ball, I'm just reading the program they gave me), but this issue is going to be even tougher to navigate. It is nearly impossible to convince Americans that our healthcare system isn't broken. In the realm of climate science, disinformation still has sway.

Death by scented toilet paper

by: Jay Stevens

Tue May 19, 2009 at 07:07:50 AM MST

The money paragraph:

Once upon a time, government was supposed to defend the shores, deliver the mail and let people get on with their lives. Today's far-seeing and fastidious government, not content with designing the cars Americans drive to their homes and the lightbulbs they use in their homes (do you know that, come 2014, the incandescent lightbulb will be illegal?), wants to say where their homes can be. And to think that Republican Ray LaHood, Secretary of Behavior Modification, is an enthusiast for this, well, cozy relationship between Washington and Peoria, and everywhere else, too.

What a friggin' ridiculous argument. What, George, do you think our highway and street system is made out of sparkly unicorn pellets?

Believe it or not, George, the midcentury urban flight of middle-class white families was paid for by the American taxpayer. And, yes, George, we still pay for this outmoded, mid-20th-century transportation system with our hard-earned US dollars, even if, say, we bike or walk everywhere or use public transportation.

That's the thing. Many folks simply do not have the option to choose alternative transportation. Bike lanes are often nonexistent, communities surrounded by a grid of highways, housing far-flung from the basic amenities they depend on, isolated from necessities by antiquated zoning laws that were designed - ironically - to protect them. And worse still, those that want to escape from their grandparents' infrastructure still pay for the street grids that imprison them. George, your view of "normalcy" is suppressing the freedom of millions of Americans to choose how and where they live and commute.

I'm not surprised Will doesn't get this. We're talking about a man who pines for an era before anyone wore jeans. It's obvious he doesn't muck around in places like Peoria - the town Will marks as a good ol' American city that doesn't want to be Portland, thank-you-very-much - or else he'd have discovered Peoria already has a pretty damn good network of bike lanes and some of the best mountain biking in Illinois. But then ol' George was never good at research and fact-checking.

And ol' George's views represents a slice of Americans who feel so oppressed by common-sense regulations or government spending that DESTROYS their LIVES! Like, say, a law that makes your dishes not so sparkly! Never mind that the phosphates used to make sparkly dishes have massive negative impacts to the environment and human health. And never mind that dish soap companies can make sparkly dish soap without phosphates but never got around to it before.

No, my friends. The United States is not in a state of decline because we like to shag for fun, or because we wear too much denim, or because of the Intertubes or television or hip-hop. The end won't come about because people dare criticize their government for torturing or starting unnecessary wars, or they don't worship at your church, or because of the designated hitter. If there's anything that symbolizes the sorry state of the country, it's this: Americans are destroying rare and irreplaceable ecosystems so they can have soft toilet paper.

So while ol' George et al bluster and rant for their "freedoms" and prerogatives - never mind ours, mind you - the world disappears up our *sses.

Horse Slaughterhouse bill becomes law, but questions remain

by: Jay Stevens

Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:54:02 AM MST

In its opinion page today, the Gazette editorial board reiterates its objections to the bill for the usual reasons: it basically gives one particularly lax industry a free pass on health and environmental regulations. But there's also these two items:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says such slaughterhouses could compromise the state's efforts to adhere to clean-water and air quality regulations....

• U.S. Department of Agriculture approval is needed to ship horse meat overseas and Congress has blocked that approval process.

As a result -- as the editorial notes -- there are still a lot of questions about this law. Is it constitutional? Will Butcher et al. find an investor to build -- especially without the USDA participating in inspections? After all, one assumes investors will only build a slaughterhouse if they can sell the meat overseas...

I still can't believe the legislature rubber-stamped this dog. What were they thinking? Until proven otherwise, I'm assuming Ed Butcher has a stash of Polaroids tucked away somewhere of legislators in compromising positions...

State Senate Apparently Doesn't Want the BER to Engage in Actual Environmental Review

by: Matt Singer

Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 08:19:51 AM MST

Bill Rossbach is a well-respected environmental attorney, someone who knows how to dig in and get answers. He's someone ideally suited for a role on the Board of Environmental Review since he can, you know, review environmental impacts and analyze them with regards to relevant law.

So the Republican Senate fought his confirmation.

Bill Rossbach apparently was audacious enough to have "questioned the adequacy of pollution controls for the Highwood Generating Station." That's terrible. I hate it when people charged with oversight spend their time overseeing.

The Good Guv refocuses horse slaughterhouse debate

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:12:06 AM MST

What with all my b*tching about how this bill gives the horse slaughter industry privileged protection from litigation, it's irked me that most reports talk about the issue as if the legislature is voting on slaughterhouses themselves. So it's a relief to see Schweitzer, with his veto, focus the discussion on the bill's important elements. Schwetizer:

Before addressing my specific amendments, I want you to know that, like you, I believe horse owners must be responsible for the health and care of their animals. Like you, I believe it is unacceptable that any horse would be left starving or to die due to neglect. I also believe owners should have access to a legal method to put their horses down as necessary and appropriate - due to age, infirmity, or other legitimate circumstances.

While I understand the value in licensing horse slaughter facilities, it is equally important that any facility approved to operate in Montana comply with this state's health and environmental laws. Therefore, a person applying to license a horse slaughter facility who wishes to do so in accordance with Montana law has nothing to fear from the amendments I propose.

This isn't a bill about horse slaughterhouses, it's an attempt to gut state regulations for a specific industry -- and, if successful, no doubt a harbinger of a host of similar bills in future legislatures for the worst offenders of environment, health, and safety regulations. If your vision for the future of Montana is a landscape peppered with unregulated horse slaughterhouses, tire-burning plants, and nuclear waste dumps, by all means, support Ed Butcher's opposition to the Good Guv's amendments.

But if you believe that all industry compete on a level playing field, that all businesses should abide by the rules we've set for them, that we shouldn't craft special legislation for the worst industries, you'll support Schweitzer's amendments.

Oh, and as a little added touch of comic relief for a post heavy with serious rhetoric, check out the Missoulian's recent editorial on the bill:

Nobody wants to see these noble animals suffer. We can probably all agree that something needs to be done. We need a way, and a place, to dispose of elderly or infirm horses.

That is why we must once again applaud those who have stepped forward to take on the heavy burden of this responsibility, namely the folks behind Willing Servants, a new organization based in the Bitterroot Valley that helps find homes - or humane ends - for unwanted horses.

We are not so sure about a bill the Montana Legislature approved recently that would make our state the only one in the nation to welcome a slaughterhouse for horses that now awaits only Gov. Brian Schweitzer's signature, or veto. Himself a regular horse-rider (in campaign ads, at least), we imagine the governor, too, is asking himself: What is it about horses?

Those whacky horses!

Way to take a stand, Missoulian. Sadly, this mamby-pamby avoidance of issues seems to be becoming a trend among the state's newspapers...

Sparkly Dish Revolution

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 09:15:05 AM MST

Algal blooms look like this and this and this and have adverse effects on marine wildlife, not to mention human health. Oh, and to help understand the financial and taxpayer costs of phosphate pollution, here's a 13-page bibliography on the "economics of harmful algal blooms."

So, you know, a ban would help preserve marine habitat, protect human health, and reduce the economic, medical, and taxpayer costs associated with harmful algal blooms.

But...but...phosphates make my dishes sparkly! And, you know, that's totally worth "beat(ing my) local legislator to a bloody pulp" over! That's right, folks. Clean your guns, because it's revolution time!

Keep Your Eyes On The Road

by: Auto Alliance

Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 15:35:33 PM MST

The auto industry is undergoing a major transition.  How can we set a course for its healthy development?

Automakers, by their nature, must make plans many years in advance.   Right now, we have people designing products for 2015.  That means that, if environmental standards are to be effective, it is crucial that we have very good collaboration between government and the auto industry.  It requires smart regulatory practices, achievable goals, and a national roadmap we can depend upon.

We are in this thing together.   It is time to collaborate.

Take emissions standards, for example.  We understand the direction of the carbon economy.  We embraced 40% higher federal fuel standards in the 2007 energy bill, and we fully expect a decade of rising standards, year by year, starting with the standards for 2011 to be announced in the near future.

We intend to accomplish those standards.  In order to do that, we've urged the federal government to set emissions standards for multiple years into the future, to give us a predictable set of regulations to plan and design for.  In recent years, California and other states have played an important role in setting emissions standards when there was no federal action on the issue.  But today, the federal government is acting.  Additional uncertainty can only undermine that progress.  A single, national standard administered by the federal government is a reliable roadmap and we can move forward rapidly.

We also need to know that the infrastructure will be in place to support the advanced technologies we're developing.  You can't have a fleet of plug-in hybrids and electric cars without a place to plug them in, or without sufficient energy to power them all.

Patchwork fixes and band-aids are not a good solution to our common problems.  Our environmental and economic problems involve our whole country.  So do the solutions.  An integrated national plan provides a stable foundation for progress.

We're committed to reinventing the automobile.  We will provide you with an even wider range of efficient automobiles.  And if we can depend on a smart and stable set of regulations, the auto industry will be the driver behind a new low-carbon economy.

How to counter "scientific-sounding spin"?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 07:47:13 AM MST

Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?

Congress will soon consider global-warming legislation, and the debate comes as contradictory claims about climate science abound. Partisans of this issue often wield vastly different facts and sometimes seem to even live in different realities.
In this context, finding common ground will be very difficult.

Mooney's solution?

Perhaps the only hope involves taking a stand for a breed of journalism and commentary that is not permitted to simply say anything; that is constrained by standards of evidence, rigor and reproducibility that are similar to the canons of modern science itself.

Yeah, and the newspaper publishing the new, more rigorous commentaries will be delivered by a fleet of flying pigs.

Seriously, if we want to take action on climate change, we can't wait around for utopian journalistic ethics to kick in. Right now, the very existence of climate change has warped into a political issue and calls for a political solution. But what? A massive grassroots campaign to educate voters and pressure lawmakers to respond to the science?

Local action? Of course, local action doesn't help when the neighboring town installs a coal-burning electricity plant while you're spending municipal dollars weatherizing city buildings, does it? At some point, we need federally-enforced standards for carbon dioxide pollution.

What have you got? Do you know of any other grassroots orgs tackling this problem? Possible solutions to the current political morass?

You can lead a horse to slaughter...

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:22:45 PM MST

Now I admit I'm not too caught up with the idea of slaughtering animals -- they're...you know...animals. As long as the conditions are somewhat humane and the work poses no threat to human health, the environment, or its workers, I'm fine. Others feel differently, obviously. Horses are held in high regard in the U.S., and I'm sure a lot of pressure and attention is going to come down on the legislature over this issue, just over the issue slaughtering horses.

No doubt pressure will ratchet up when folks realize that wild (feral?) horses culled from herds by BLM agents will no doubt be sold to our Montana slaughterhouse, if built, and shipped abroad for consumption. (Incidentally made legal by an amendment ol' Connie slipped into a 2004 appropriations bill when Congress was itching to go home to their Thanksgiving turkeys.) Wild horses + slaughter = massive letter-writting campaigns from elementary schools around the nation.

Horses aside, this bill stinks. And for the reasons jhwygirl kicks off with:

First off - and away from what many might describe as the emotional side of this issue - this bills contains some very offensive attacks on environmental laws and review, along with attempts at taking away citizen rights for judicial review.

That's right! The bill contains provisions that will basically block any legal challenge to the construction of a horse slaughterhouse! Build the facility out of pure asbestos? Shoot sulfuric acid cannonballs into the nearest town? Dump arsenic into the YMCA swimming pool? No problem -- for the owners -- because you'll need to put up a bond worth 20% of the facility's value just to file papers at court. We know better than to count on the DEQ to do any enforcement, don't we? They'll be busy filling out the developer's permit for the sulfuric acid cannon.

Is anybody noticing a pattern in this legislature? If these *sshats get their way -- and there are plenty of Democrats among their ranks, people -- this body will essentially gut all of our state's environmental regulations.  

Don't turn me into a cynic, Montana Legislature

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 19:32:47 PM MST

One bill gets straight to the issue, promising to exempt hundreds of millions in economic stimulus projects from the state's landmark environmental policies. Environmentalists are ramping up lobbying efforts as a wave of measures eroding regulatory rules gain serious traction in the face of a recession and shrinking state coffers.

"It is about jobs," said Sen. Jim Keane, a Democrat from the mining town of Butte. "But I think the issue is much bigger than that. All these projects also generate new taxes and revenue for the state government."

Proponents are hoping to ease the way for everything from new coal plants to electricity transmission lines. They say complex rules killed a utility's recently failed plan to build a coal-fired electricity plant near Great Falls; the utility now plans a smaller, natural-gas-fired plant.

Get it? It's a friggin' boondoggle. All these projects that were halted or turned away because they didn't meet contemporary requirments for keeping Montana's natural and wild spaces free from pollution will now be built, pell-mell, under the blanket of the stimulus package. (That's not to mention that the Great Falls coal plant failed because of shy investors, not environmental regulation as Keane claims.)

It's obsence.

Frankly, it's unconstitutional. Read the state constitution. Read Article II, Section 3:

All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.

And lastly, it's short-sighted. So short-sighted it borders on idiocy. Build a slew of coal-fired power plants with the stimulus money? Just before an ambitious cap-and-trade program is instituted in the US? (Perhaps the cynic in me is thinking that folks want these plants built, post-haste, so they can be grandfathered in under the system and not have to buy the right to pollute after the federal regulations kick in.)

This stimulus package is an opportunity to do things right. Don't blow it.

There they go again...

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 15:13:56 PM MST

A number of folks quickly and thoroughly dismantled Will's claim about the 1970s scientific community and global cooling. (Not to mention his claim about arctic ice levels in 1979 -- and that rebuttal came from his supposed source.) In short, Will -- besides cherry-picking, misinterpreting, and inventing data -- based his column today on a dumbed-down, out-of-context re-telling by Newsweek of a 1970s scientific study about long-term climate forecasts.

In short, Will is writing a piece that misinforms the public about science based on a news report that misinformed the public about science.

And hasn't that been one of the inanities of this "debate," how the media has almost crimanally fumbled the topic? Unable -- either from lack of ability or lack of funds -- to research the issue and discern good from bad argument, the media has generally placed the scientific community's consensus on the issue against a handful of denier groups in an attempt to "balance" the "debate." Worse still, many of the data and groups that claim global warming are financed by industries that stand to benefit financially if global warming is thought to be a hoax -- and we also know that, for some energy corporations, exploiting the media to spread doubt about global warming was a condoned strategy.

ED Kain:

Essentially, global warming has become just another talking point in a long and growing list of talking points that the conservative movement uses to keep apostates out of their fold (shrinking that big tent) and to berate liberals with, rather than viewing warming as both a real cause for worry, and as an opportunity to demonstrate honest governance. Apparently obstructionism and denial are better tactics.

...Conservatives should be reading these pieces and paying heed to the vast consensus on global warming. Even if there areome holes in the larger argument, that's still no excuse to ignore what very well may be the global crisis of the coming century. Conservatives ought to be conserving things, and the environment should be at the top of the list-even above rugged individulaism and the "right" to low taxes.

That's the thing, we're stuck debating whether global warming even exists. And that's exactly how conservatives -- weirdly beholden to the short-term interest of a small segment of the big business community -- wants it. And the media, always attuned to the insider echo chamber, presents this as a viable alternative...

Good Guv reverses course on fuel efficiency standards

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:30:39 PM MST

As California goes, so goes the country -- and even the world. According to the state Air Resources Board, 71% of the world's population lives in countries with vehicle emissions standards modeled on California's. If the new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, grants California's latest waiver, 40% of the country will be driving cars that emit fewer greenhouse gases from their tailpipes, and other states are likely to follow the lead.

Letting California set tighter mileage standards for cars is verboten for an Oil Man.

And following Obama's decision was this nice surprise!

A Democratic legislator and the governor's office say Montana should follow in California's footsteps by adopting stricter fuel efficiency standards for some cars and trucks.

"We ought to be concerned in Montana for Montana, and we also ought to be concerned for the planet as a whole," Democratic Sen. Ron Erickson of Missoula told a Senate committee Friday.

The measure would make Montana one of more than a dozen states to take on the more stringent California system.

Representatives of Gov. Brian Schweitzer's office testified in support of the change.

The last sentence is the kicker. It's a complete reversal for the Good Guv from his stance last May, in which he rejected the notion that states regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

And if Montana doesn't follow California's lead, the state will become a dumping ground for the auto industry's leftover low-efficiency autos, something Montanans, living in a small town with very long streets, can't afford...

Does God favor weeds?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:48:33 AM MST

Putting aside the environmental concerns, this news is somewhat ironic because the Emperor penguin, of course, was the star of "March of the Penguins," a documentary about the animals' incredible and complex lifecycle in a harsh climate and, as a result, became the poster animal for many conservative Christians:

The movie goes on to follow the penguins as they trek back and forth over 70 miles of ice to their breeding ground and huddle together to protect their eggs in temperatures that average 70 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.

To Andrew Coffin, writing in the widely circulated Christian publication World Magazine, that is a winning argument for the theory that life is too complex to have arisen through random selection.

"That any one of these eggs survives is a remarkable feat - and, some might suppose, a strong case for intelligent design," he wrote. "It's sad that acknowledgment of a creator is absent in the examination of such strange and wonderful animals. But it's also a gap easily filled by family discussion after the film."

Many conservatives also viewed the movie as the triumph of monogamy, family, and faith.

Of course, the movie and the penguins were just symbols of Christian faith. (In reality, the penguins' mating habits are a stellar example of how evolution works -- the Emperor penguin's march and rearing strategy exploit an unused niche at the edge of a habitable ecosystem, a classic evolutionary strategy.) So, one wonders, what symbolic meaning of the penguins' eventual extinction provides? That monogomy, family, and faith failed? Given that the changes to our environment -- through habit destruction, pollution, and climate change -- favors the world's weed species -- rats, knapweed, and cockroaches -- what symbolic message does that send? That God prefers filth, disease, and lurid extravagance in creating progeny?

What's certain is that the penguins' design doesn't look so "intelligent" from where I'm sitting.

And certainly the Emperor penguins' precarious position posits some uncomfortable questions for the faithful friends of the Antarctic fowl: is global warming -- and the pigeon -- key to His Great Design? Or maybe, just maybe, man in his hubris and with billion upon billions of tons of carbon dioxide is cooking God's creation...?

Guns, medicinal marijuana, stream access, the death penalty, and a new blog

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:38:37 AM MST

First off, for the legislature, 4&20 blackbirds is the place you want to be. Jhwygirl's been doing a swell job covering the doings in Helena -- yesterday she posted the hearings scheduled for this week.

Kendall Van Dyk's stream access bill made it out of committee, while its idiot stepsister version of the bill, sponsored by Ken Patterson, looks to have died. Jhwygirl's optimistic about HB190 -- and I think she should be...for the House vote. We'll see what happens to it in the Senate, where it would need Republican support.

Krayton Kerns' new gun bill -- HB228 -- is an odd duck to say the least. It appeared among some other bills that clarified Montana's castle doctrine, sponsored by Larry Jent and Kendall Van Dyk, which appear to have the support of...well...everybody.

Not so much Kerns' bill. In its original incarnation, it included a provision that said employees "have a right to carry a gun to their workplace." If the employer bans firearms, the employer "must provide similar protection to the employee" that a gun-packin' employee would have. Or something. Naturally the Montana CoC objected -- the idea of the Krayton Kerns of the world bringing heat to their offices no doubt put a few white hairs on employers, not to mention the law is a clear effort to put the power of the government over private property holders and business owners. (Why is it that some conservatives are so eager to use the power of government to force people to adhere to their ow, personal beliefs?)

You know the rest of the story. When the CoC says, "jump," a Republican's response is, "how high?" News came that the bring-your-gun-to-work provision would be removed at hearing that same day. Still, the bill would dictate to landlords and hotel owners that they don't have a right to make rules for tenant on their property. And it includes the right for citizens to use "reasonable force" to make a citizen's arrest -- which, I assume, means they can use a gun. Which sounds sketchy to me. On the other hand, if it passes, Dick Cheney better not show his face around Montana, eh?

Hearing is tomorrow on Kerns' bill. I'm curious to see who testifies.

John Adams has a blog! It's awesome. A couple of days ago, he ably summed up the dueling bills circulating in Helena surrounding medicinal marijuana, the worst of which is Verdell Jackson's SB212, which essentially singles out registered marijuana users for mandatory extra scrutiny if they're involved in a traffic accident or traffic stop. Which, if you think about it for like 30 seconds, seems like a terrible idea. Make it mandatory to give a guy a blood test if he's caught going 40 in a 35mph zone? Police officers are already empowered to take extra action if they think a driver is impaired: why do we need this bill, other than to terrorize registered marijuana users? Answer: we don't.

Oh, and incidentally, I agree with Adams here:

Can somebody explain the argument against medical marijuana? It seems illogical to condone the use of prescription pharmaceuticals--many of which are psychoactive and can cause serious and often life-threatening side effects--and at the same time be opposed to medical marijuana.

And finally, Dave Wanzenreid introduced SB 236, which would abolish the death penalty in Montana. In 2007, a death penalty ban passed the Senate with bipartisan support, but was quashed in the House. This year, the proposed ban hasn't made much of a splash in the media, despite being supported by the Montana Association of Churches.

The death penalty played an interesting role in the Democratic primary for state attorney general, but it seemed to have fallen off the map since then...

Tester, housing market derail Rey's secret deals with Plum Creek

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:23:40 AM MST

Extensive rural development would be a disaster for Missoula county, which would have to foot the bill for rural fire protection, roads, schools, and other infrastructure for the new subdivisions, not to mention the environmental damage and threat to our already overburdened water table hundreds of new houses would necessarily mean. On the other hand, rural development would have been a great boon to Plum Creek, which is being hit pretty hard by the dropoff for demand of wood products. And it was pretty scurrilous of Bush's corporate henchman and former timber lobbyist, Mark Rey, to try to cut a secret deal with Plum Creak to allow the company to use logging roads as access routes to its property.

Montana's junior Senator, Jon Tester, had a big hand in these deals falling through. It was Tester that demanded an investigation into the Forest Service's dealings with Plum Creek, the result of which was a scathing GAO report. No doubt the negative public blowback combined with Obama's convincing win in November made following through on the deal a political liability for both Plum Creek and Forest Service administrators.

But, as George Ochenski noted in this week's Indy, while Tester's effort played a role in scuttling the deals, the housing market was probably the main motivation for Plum Creek to back off:

But there are many other likely factors in Plum Creek's decision. Leading those factors would obviously be the collapse of the housing market and concurrent widespread economic recession, which have severely impacted the pace of development throughout the nation. Until recently Montana's real estate market dodged the worst of the economic collapse and plenty of speculators were hot to sell Montana to the highest bidders while Montanans watched helplessly as our prime agricultural and forest lands were carved up into subdivisions and sold.

That trend, however, has come to an end-at least temporarily. Already approved subdivisions in the Gallatin, Helena, Missoula and Flathead valleys are languishing, awaiting construction or, in some instances, not even putting in the most rudimentary prep work such as roads and utilities. Meanwhile, even the high-end homes so sought after by already wealthy out-of-staters are in a state of dormancy with few, if any, offers being made-sometimes despite deep discounts in the asking prices.

Now, how to figure out to protect county taxpayers from future rural development?