Posts Tagged ‘montana’
The New York Times today has an article about this. There are some interesting opinions to say the least.
“These are the worst of the worst,” Mr. Hannity of Fox News warned. “We seem to be letting our guard down again.”
John Yoo reportedly opined:
“Nobody wants to have a detention center for terrorists in their backyard.”
Also, the GOP’s unofficial chairman:
And Rush Limbaugh released a new edition of his Guantánamo Bay T-shirts with a new past-tense subtitle: “Club Gitmo — When America was safe.”
Basically, what fool would allow terrorists to be held in U.S. prisons? Well, it’s important to remember that there are people who kill because they feel that they have to and not for ideology already in U.S. prisons. So, arguably there are already more dangerous people than terrorists in U.S. prisons. Second, U.S. prisons already hold Jose Padilla, Richard Reed, and Zacarias Moussaoui; all sent there under Bush’s watch. So we must ask: was Bush a fool for putting these men in U.S. prisons? No.
This is probably the dumbest “issue” since the laughable claims that Obama is muslim. For most people this is a NIMBY issue. I live in Bozeman, MT. Move the detainees to Hardin, MT. I’m not sure 189 miles is still my backyard, but Hardin has been looking for a way to fill their vacant prison and this is an excellent way to do that.
Unfortunately, this is not an option. According to Montana News Station:
In a statement, Senator Jon Tester says quote ” I want to see a smart, long-term plan for those prisoners before we pay any tax dollars to move them.” Senator Tester does not want detainees to come to Montana.
Senator Max Baucus says he wants to review plans before funding the closure. Senator Baucus says quote “I’m committed to helping folks find a solution that would the Hardin facility to use and create jobs, but filling it with Guantanamo detainees is not the right way to do it.”
Rehberg is also opposed. Why? Because he’s a Republican. Tester and Baucus are opposed because they’re Democrats that are afraid of Republicans accusing them of “importing terrorists” or whatever they pay Luntz to come up with (if I had the money I would pay him to come up with phrasing too). It’s sad really.
I told a friend last night that I thought filling Hardin with terrorists was a great idea. If they escape, where will they go? Who will they harm? Their escape requires them to travel through hundreds of miles of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, or Idaho if they’re truly stupid. Want to know how those poor little townfolk that are so endangered will react to the idea of terrorists escaping prison and fleeing law enforcement across their property? Well, what my friend said kinda sums it up:
They’re already the same color as deer.
Perhaps not the most politically correct phrase but it’s also not a sober phrase (alcohol sober). The truth is that if the terrorists escape they will be shot. If you are on someone’s property, charging them, screaming “Jihad” and “Allah,” and are wearing a prison uniform – you’re not gonna have a good time.
I guess I don’t understand why no one seems to realize this, or that we already have several terrorists in our prisons and that’s worked out just fine. Why is everyone so afraid of everything these days? Our country is too polarized. It’s sad.
I came across a blog posting of Roy Brown’s editorial Montana Waters in Jeopardy. The blog, Montana Headlines, linked to a follow-up done by another blog, Montana Misanthrope.
In the editorial, Roy Brown writes, “In case you haven’t followed this underreported story, some members of Congress, and even some folks in Helena, want to take away our ability to manage our own water in Montana and across the country.” This bill, he argues, will “drastically expand the power of the federal government” and “threatens” Montanans with “increased burden.”
He charges the governor with, “tak[ing] the side of extreme environmental groups who contend that the federal government should apply the standards of the Clean Water Act to all waters in Montana, from our major rivers on down to stock ponds and irrigation ditches.”
He goes on to applaude the CWA as “a largely successful policy” that has “benefited” Montana. Except this time it’s different, “But now, we face a crossroads, and the federal government is moving to take over regulation of all waters, and their inability to grasp the reality of water issues in our state could be devastating to Montanans.”
Brown argues the effects of the bill would include: (1) “expand the reach of federal agencies to a virtually limitless level,” (2) “direct assault on the rights of states and municipalities to manage our own water resources,” (3) “decisions made locally would now potentially be subject to federal review,” (4) “common-sense practices … might now require a permit from the federal government,” (5) “Montana may be required to adopt water quality standards to comply with this act, and would need to develop a system to monitor and report on the quality of those waters,” (6) “property owners are more likely to be sued, and basic changes could be held up in court simply because all Montana waters are now subject to federal review.”
But after viewing the bill (using the same link at Montana Headlines) it seems that parts of his argument are exactly like certain arguments made by Schweitzer, namely that they have no basis in fact. Some part’s of Roy Brown’s argument are easy to counter, such as the federal government gaining “virtually limitless power,” and Montanans losing ability to manage waters. The bill that is being considered states, in Section 3 Paragraph 14:
(14) States have the responsibility and right to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution of waters, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act respects the rights and responsibilities of States by preserving for States the ability to manage permitting, grant, and research programs to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, and to establish standards and programs more protective of a State’s waters than is provided under Federal standards and programs.
I don’t understand how “preserving for States the ability to manage permitting, grant, and research programs” is taking the right away. It appears to acknowledge and openly embraces states’ rights.
In fact there isn’t even a change in enforcement. Section 6 reaffirmed preexisting powers of “the Secretary of the Army or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency” under Sections 402 and 404 (subsections not included in this post) of the bill they are amending. Section 402 and 404 deal with Title IV’s permits and licenses. Find out more here or at Wikipedia.
This leaves Sections 4 & 5 as the main causes of concern about the bill. What these sections do is strike from Section 502 paragraph 7: “The term ‘navigable waters’ means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” Then adds a paragraph 24:
(24) WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES- The term `waters of the United States’ means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.
And also changes every instances of “navigable waters” to “waters of the United States.” There is nothing strange about a change like this, after all, what’s the point of protecting Flathead Lake if the water flowing into it is polluted? I know I will receive flak for saying this, but if you look at what makes the Flathead River – North, middle, and arguably south forks – and the various creeks and tributaries that make up the three forks, the bill makes perfect sense. Pollution can come from streams and creeks that aren’t exactly navigable.
This isn’t changing anything but the jurisdiction of the regulations already in place. It will cause more permits because more waters are now subject to regulation. This will also put those who abuse Montana’s waterways in the jurisdiction of federal courts. These are not bad things. Many of us evil environmentalists really just want the opportunity to take our grandchildren fishing, hiking, and rafting and want our grandchildren to have the same opportunity for their grandchildren, etc. While I doubt all the fish will be dead by the time I have grandchildren it is the direction we’re heading. Maybe we do have the right to enjoy Montana’s waters free of pollution.
Congressman Denny Rehberg agrees with Roy Brown. In response to Governor Schweitzer’s request to co-sponsor the bill the honorable congressman made two disturbing statements:
“Montanans shouldn’t have to fill out a bunch of federal forms for every single ditch, creek, and puddle on their property,” said Rehberg, a rancher and member of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.
Many of us disagree. It’s easy to abuse any waterway, but if you’re applying for a permit or filling out federal forms it discourages people from polluting. Just like stiff jail sentences attempt to discourage criminals repeating offenses. It is also important to note that puddles aren’t going to be regulated. This is an attempt to intentionally misunderstand or misinterpret the bill. If there is some part of the proposed paragraph 24 definition of “waters of the United States” invest 15 minutes in some Google searches and you’ll be able to figure out why each item in the list was included.
“While you may not believe this is the intent of the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, the harsh reality is that these new regulations will result in extensive litigation and increased compliance costs for folks who make their living off the land,” Rehberg said in the letter to Schweitzer.
This is correct, although also not a bad thing. Yes, if someone is polluting Montana’s waterways they should be sued because doing so is arguably a violation of property rights. If a currently unprotected waterway is polluted, and the pollution flows downstream onto someone else’s property, and affects their riparian area, soil quality, or their freedom of life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness then the polluter should be sued. This happens all the time over menial things like a proposal that will obstruct someone’s view. At least with pollution there are health issues involved.
Author’s short digression: A notable example of people upset about even the slightest of obstructions in view is the hilarious tale of Senator Ted Kennedy’s opposition to the Cape Wind project because there would be minuscule visibility of wind turbines. He says it’s because a for-profit company wants to use state-owned territory. But I’m sure we have all heard of the 1872 General Mining Act. Link
To conclude, this ongoing argument is really an extension of the unending argument about how best to use and protect our resources, who’s right trumps who’s right, and the value of human life – from both perspectives.
“Passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act is the best way to ensure that all of the water resources in Montana remain fully protected, reaffirm Congress’ original intent to eliminate pollution at its source, and restore clarity and certainty to the law we and most other states rely upon to limit water pollution.”
On this, I agree with the governor. But I’m sure if I spent a few more hours looking at everything he’s said I will probably find contradictory statements, loose facts, and more disappointment. C’est la vie.
Governor Schweitzer’s Energy Policy
Posted on: June 7, 2008
[NOTE: The correct spelling of camolina is camelina and is misspelled by the NPC transcript]
I am one of those people who was a conservative but have become disillusioned with the deterioration of personal liberties – what I feel is more commonly a result of Republicans. I believe that we have a right to a clean environment though not to the detriment of our national economy. Part of why I started this blog is because we can make the goals of environmentalism fit into a strong economy; our obstacles are poor legislation, and a subconscious understanding that the environment, people’s health, the lives of their family, and the survival of wild species is subordinate to profit. This is simply not true.
The manifestation of this unconscious belief is seen everywhere. As I type this we have roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq and while we are planning to reduce troop levels to between 130,000 and 140,000 we still have at least 130,000 troops in Iraq (Boston Globe; May 30, 2008). Since the beginning of the war there have been 4,090 confirmed deaths. While some may look at this and see it as an acceptable price for securing oil — our economy’s bloodline — many of us see this as a reason for change.
There is some hope available. Montana’s Governor Brian Schweitzer has proposed an interesting energy plan that has been getting attention and contributed greatly to his high approval rating. The governor’s plan can easily be criticized on its main point, coal gasification, but it’s the other aspects that are valuable.
According to Governor Schweitzer, the United States uses approximately 6.5 billion barrels of oil every year. His approach begins with conservation, to the tune of 1 billion barrels annually; a 16% reduction in the total. It is accompanied by “tax credits for anybody across America that demonstrates their ability to decrease consumption.”
“We did it in the ’70s. We can do it again. If we make conservation cool and we challenge the ingenuity of American scientists and consumers and marketers, we can reduce our consumption by 1 billion barrels. Now we have a 3 billion barrel addiction” (National Press Club, Oct. 13, 2006).
His plan continues with biofuels. Historically, farmers had to use a portion of their fields to feed the horses, or what Gov. Schweitzer calls planting for horsepower. The same can be done today with the production of biofuels:
“I think this country needs to regain our energy independence starting in the farm country, where farmers produce their own fuels for their own communities and stop paying the freight both ways — grain out, oil back. This — and I’ve done the math — could produce a billion barrels, or about 17% of the total.”
This means that instead of exporting food to the third world and having them ship us oil we would be using those crops for energy production, which would require the production of “hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America.” He believes camolina oil is the best means to do this:
“We can grow it from 10 inches of precipitation all the way up to 40; from 2,000 feet of elevation all the way up to 6,500; 75-day growing period; and you can grow 50 to 125 gallons of diesel on every acre.”
Schweitzer continues by saying that “The USDA ought to be active in every community with guaranteed loans for farmers to build their own fuel plants.” This, combined with a floor price of $1.20 ($38 per barrel) will give the market certainty and allow for more investment.
That leaves 2 million barrels.
The next step is coal gasification. When coal is pressurized it releases natural gas and carbon dioxide (CO2). The CO2 is split from the gas and the gas burned to produce electricity. The heat from this burning turns water to steam which itself runs a turbine. You can also pump the gas into another pressurized chamber and turn it into liquid, or coal-to-diesel. Gov. Schweitzer has a Dodge pickup with a Cummins engine that runs on this without modification. The last step is to take the CO2 from the initial phase and pump it into a geological structure that will hold it for a thousand years (and turn it into the very rock it’s pumped into) or into an oil field, which has further benefits for oil production.
Each ton of coal makes 2 barrels oil equivalent. So Montana’s 120 billion tons plus the other states allows us the energy we need to gain independence.
Schweitzer claims the result is that we no longer depend on foreign oil. The best result is that we no longer need war to secure our energy supply. This would allow for fewer military bases worldwide and allow the U.S. to begin moving to a non-interventionist foreign policy.
This is all to be used along with solar, wind, and nuclear power. The long-term goal is to “evolve to hydrogen or cold fusion.”
Ideally, the technology — the best energy solutions in the world — will be exported to other nations further improving the global environment and yielding profits that can be used to make alternative energy solutions even clearer.
The main criticisms of the Governor’s plan are that he is calling the politicians in Washington D.C. elitists and “big shots.” This uncouth verbal treatment is making him unpopular amongst federal politicians and that has allegedly created a barrier to getting the approximately $1.5 billion that is needed for a coal gasification plant in Montana (however, there was to be no public funding for Bull Mountain, it was a lack of private funding and other obstacles that caused this proposed plant in Roundup, MT to fail). Another barrier is from a small, misguided environmental group in Montana that believes we should wait for something cleaner instead of weaning the country from foreign oil.
My personal criticism of his plan is that he claimed in the speech I have referred to that there are 400 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken Formation, when the United States Geological Survey estimates between 3.5 and 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This is the difference between 60 years of energy independence, and 1 year. What Governor Schweitzer didn’t mention is that there are also “1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken Formation” (USGS).
Scientific American’s criticisms of coal gasification are that “the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel” and that carbon capture and sequestration is unproven and therefore we shouldn’t rely on such incipient technology. Further, they cite studies that “indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8 percent more global warming than regular gasoline.” Lastly, “researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption” (Scientific American). This means that to replace 4/6.5 billion barrels (60%) we need $420 billion.
Still, Governor Schweitzer believes we can create, “We can produce hundreds of thousands of engineering jobs in producing new technologies that we ship around the world.” The evidence is a coal gasification plant in eastern Idaho which will provide electricity for 500,000 homes; railroad jobs to move 7,000 tons of coal a day; employ 150 permanent employees at the plant; create 1,000 construction jobs; and cause economic rejuvenation (Casper Star-Tribune). Keep in mind this is only one plant for one technology in a nascent energy movement.
Responding to criticisms Schweitzer says he will only support building plants if they are required by law to sequester their carbon dioxide. As for the technologies certainty:
“Schweitzer responds that none of these facilities will be online for at least seven years, and by then we’ll have a federal carbon law that will give coal companies the incentives they need to get it done” (Adams).
Whether this is a case of environmentalists using the cornucopian trick of questioning science remains to be seen. It’s possible but until we know it would prudent to develop other alternatives, specifically, wind where Montana is not meeting it’s potential.
Much Brian Schweitzer information is from a speech given October 13, 2006 at the National Press Club that you can purchase for $5 (I think). It’s a good speech. If you have access to LexisNexis (perhaps through a university library) you can search for “Brian Schweitzer” “National Press Club” and by selecting all boxes on the search page find this for free. It’s roughly 8,965 words.
Cognitive Coup 