Catching up: Michigan River News; North America's awesome-ist marathon river race and some guy who treaded water 17 hours in Huron

Geez. Looks like we've got some catching up to do!

In June, the Michigan Environmental Council released a report showing that the state’s oldest coal-fired power plants cost $1.5 billion annually in health care costs and damages – the equivalent of $500 annually for a  family. We pay for that in our health care premiums and copays. It is not reflected in our electricity rates, nor is it ever cited by clean energy opponents when they compare the costs of various energy sources. But it should be. Dirty air costs us, new reports increasingly show.

The Mackinac Center is still clinging to the status quo though, prompting this response from some really smart and handsome dude.

If you’re a fan of Michigan’s rivers (and who’s not?) check out the news Michigan River News web site co-founded by my MEC colleague Andrew McGlashen. The coolest river news lately is a Circuit Court ruling that a dam must be fully removed from the Pigeon River, after numerous fish kills. Thanks to our friends at Trout Unlimited’s Michigan chapter for fighting for the ecosystem.

The RiverNews guys will be at the awesome AuSable River Canoe Marathon this weekend. It’s the longest nonstop canoe race in North America, and been part of our pure Michigan summers for 64 years.

Finally, this guy is my hero for the day, 17 hours without a life jacket in Lake Huron, “I have people that depend on me,” he said.

###

Environmental funders reassess climate change tactics: First base starting to look pretty good now

Oops, wrong first base photo!

Shortly after joining the Michigan Environmental Council in 2006, I became aware of an obscure public notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments on a plan for the U.S. Coast Guard to begin live ammunition training exercises with .50 caliber machine guns in 34 areas of the Great Lakes.

I tipped some journalists to the story, lighting the fuse for a maelstrom of protest that forced the Coast Guard to re-evaluate its plans. For a couple months, I invested a fair amount of time into helping spread public awareness of a plan that heretofore had been very, VERY quietly pursued.

At one point, a longtime veteran of the environmental movement asked, “so, who’s funding you for this?” When I replied no one was, she appeared befuddled, and perhaps a little put off.  It had not occurred to me that my work priorities should be dictated by funders. The most important work should get the most attention, right? Not necessarily.

As  this interesting article from Politico points out, the donors who fund environmental work call the shots … to a certain extent. And they are not happy about the results they’ve gotten from the money they’ve poured into addressing climate change during the past several years.

Federal Cap and Trade legislation that would have begun to address the issue crashed and burned. Amid the wreckage, environmental groups are regrouping to try and accomplish change on a piece by piece basis – fighting for better building efficiency standards, and stopping new coal plants, and investing in public transportation.

If this seems like a half-assed way to deal with the planet’s most important issue, it is. But it’s what we have. As the aforementioned Politico article notes, the environmental community has neither sufficent power to punish do-nothing politicians, nor the clout to reward the good ones.

Without that power – or a groundswell of public demand for action – there is little hope of the sweeping change that many of us would like to see.

Does that mean we don’t need visionaries laying out idealistic plans? No. But it means most of us need to hunker down and work for incremental change if we’re going to have something to show for it at the end of the day.

As President Obama’s Advisor Rahm Emanuel told an environmental funder, “Your DNA and my DNA are so different. I’m about trying to get to first base. You’re about trying to hit it over the fence.”

First base might sound like a crappy place to be when you’re so far behind.

But it beats striking out. And it might get funded.

###

Northern Michigan gas well leak should strengthen calls for public discussion of fracking regulations, impending natural gas boom

Photo (not the leaking well) Heather Rousseau, Circle of Blue

Earlier this week a natural gas well in northern Michigan was abruptly shut down after hazardous toxic chemicals leaked from it. There will be an investigation and follow up to ensure that nearby water wells are not poisoned.

Natural gas is the only fossil fuel that provides Michigan with some measure of energy independence. (That is, we import all our coal, and almost all our oil but 25 percent of our gas is from in-state wells). We’ve done gas extraction for decades with minimal problems save for the marring of landscapes with access roads, pipelines and processing stations. It’s ugly and intrusive, and it’s part of the tradeoff (it’s near zero degrees as I write this, with the furnace furiously burning the stuff.) 

But there are significant environmental and health risks, including the danger of water contamination from toxic chemicals involved in the extraction technique known as underground hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” The federal Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a study of the full range of fracking’s environmental risks.

In Michigan those risks may soon increase exponentially. A huge new boom in natural gas extraction is on the horizon, foreshadowed by natural gas rights auctions in 2010 where speculators spent seven times more money buying gas drilling rights than ever before. The gas they want is far deeper underground than the traditional deposits we’ve mined, meaning up to 100 times the volume of chemical-laced water must be used. Some of that chemical broth is left underground. The rest must be recovered, stored, transported and disposed of in deep injection wells. The kinds and amounts of the chemicals used are a trade secret.

I did some reporting on the issue for the Michigan Environmental Council in a 2010 two-story package here and here. At that time, Hal Fitch, the head of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of Geological Survey, told me he believed the state’s existing rules were adequate to protect drinking water, lakes, and streams should a new frenzy of more intensive gas drilling take place.

Fitch says that Michigan has better regulations than many other states where fracking leaks and spill have had disastrous consequences.

Even so it seems reasonable – even incumbent – on the state and the industry to explain the new natural gas landscape to Michiganders as we prepare to push into a new, uncharted era of drilling intensity. A robust series of public meetings could both educate the public and provide citizen input to state regulators. If the rules are indeed adequate they should stand up to public scrutiny.

To date, however, neither Fitch’s agency nor the industry have seemed eager to begin a public dialogue. Maybe the Benzie County spill will change that. Indeed, the initial Associated Press story indicates that regulators will “likely…review some drilling regulations.” 

That review should be transparent, in public, and with citizen participation. Not behind closed doors.

###

Pollution law enforcement in Michigan: Waiting to see how the Snyder/Wyant agenda plays out

Dan Wyant

Dan Wyant is the new chief of the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

During this interview with the Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) Wyant touched on numerous topics of interest for those who want fair, firm and uniform enforcement of laws protecting Michigan’s lakes, woods, cities and people.

Some of Wyant’s answers to MEC’s questions are reassuring. For instance, he said the administration has no intention of rolling back regulations on factory farm pollution.

Some raise yellow flags: He’s big on “voluntary” compliance programs for those same farms (that’s fine as long as “voluntary” isn’t code for replacing enforcement of mandatory laws).

On other answers, he punts to his boss, Gov. Rick Snyder: Wyant’s position on the wisdom of new coal-burning power plants  will come from Snyder. So, we’ll wait and see.

The most important aspect of Wyant’s DEQ leadership will be the message that he and Gov. Snyder send to DEQ staff. The staff must hear that the administration has their backs when they enforce pollution laws fairly and firmly – whether the violator is the corner dry cleaners or a powerful international company.

There is a lot of pressure from interests that would like Michigan’s environmental regulators to back off and stand down. Some in the anti-government crowd were even hoping that Snyder would eliminate the DEQ entirely. That’s not going to happen.

Both Snyder and Wyant have said publicly that Michigan's splendid natural resources are drivers for our economy -- both in terms of tourism and the quality of life that makes people want to live, work, raise families and build businesses here. They've also said they want to cut red tape, speed issuance of permits to pollute and remove regulatory hurdles for business.

Doing both -- firmly enforcing pollution laws while reducing regulatory red tape -- is possible. It will take determination, quality leadership and buy in from the DEQ staff. 

 ###

You want some input on utopia? Help Michigan Environmental Council craft the Michigan of 2060

The Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) has taken a big step back from the everday chaos of crises, pressing issues and deadlines to issue a draft Michigan 50 Year Vision  for public comment.

The Vision lays out specific goals for a Michigan, circa 2060, that will be vibrant, healthy and engaging. You know…strong central cities, virtual energy independence, clean lakes and rivers, reliable and affordable transit options. Utopia, basically.

The Vision was more than a year in the making, and kicked off online today with the unveiling of the Water Vision document. The Water Vision – and the five other visions that will be unveiled in coming weeks – propose ambitious goals for the year 2060 as well as intermediate policy goals at 2, 10 and 20 years.

MEC is asking for plenty of public input between now and December from every corner of Michigan. It’s an ambitious undertaking, directed by MEC President Chris Kolb, with whom I share an office wall and a combative sense of humor (we like to pick on each other).

Anyway, such big picture things aren’t usually my cup of tea. Mission statements, strategic plans, goal-setting …. anything that peers more than a week into the future makes me fearful and bored silly at the same time. I blame 22 years of deadline journalism. Give me a crisis and a figurative gun to my head and the job will get done. Give me three months to write something and I’ll noodle ineffectually for 88 days before cranking into a 48 hour burst of adrenaline and caffeine, the world’s most popular psychoactive drug!

But I’m pleased with the Michigan 50 Year Vision and its potential for catalyzing constructive dialogue about Michigan’s future. Please consider taking a look and providing some input. There are spots on the web site to enter comments, and to view comments that have already been made.

And, if this week’s Water Vision doesn’t float your boat (float your boat…get it?!) wait for our other releases: Energy, Great Cities, Sustainable Communities, Transportation and Agriculture/Natural Resources).

Oh yeah, about the input. We’re moderating it. So if you want to spew bile about race, the President’s birth certificate (Obama, not Kolb), or similarities between enviros and Nazis do it on one of the sites where they’ve already given up on civil discourse.

And, remember, by 2060, there will be no incivility. It’s gonna be great!

###

This just in! Feds award $150 million for high speed Detroit-Chicago passenger railroad link

Michigan has received $150 million in federal funds toward high speed passenger rail service between Detroit and Chicago. Read about it on the Michigan Environmental Council’s web site, which darn near broke the news in Michigan.

If we can get our legislators to cough up $30 million in matching money, we’re that much closer to a Detroit-Chicago express in less than four hours!

###

Update: MEC, MLCV weigh in on Michigan's gubernatorial debate

Update: Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan League of Conservation Voters  weigh in here on Michigan gubernatorial debate shortcomings.

MI Supreme Court to decide whether "any person" really means any person when it comes to law protecting Michigan's natural resources

There’s a law, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act,
(MEPA) which gives “any person” in Michigan the right to use the courts to protect “…the air, water and other natural resources … from pollution, impairment or destruction.”

If Acme Sand Mining is ripping up globally significant Lake Michigan sand dunes and regulators are doing nothing to stop them, I can file suit to stop it. If Acme then dumps its toxic waste in Lake Superior, I can sue. Even if I live nowhere near the affected dunes and own no Lake Superior frontage, the law presupposes, I have an abiding interest in their health and well being.

At least, that’s the way it is supposed to work. In recent years, conservative-activist Michigan courts have chipped away at MEPA. In several rulings, the law’s scope has been limited. Now, it seems, only persons directly impacted by environmental damage have the right to sue.

I’m not a lawyer. But I wonder what part of “any person” the judges who eroded our citizen rights didn’t understand?


A Michigan Supreme Court case heard Wednesday gives justices the opportunity to definitively decide whether citizens have the right to sue to protect the state’s natural resources.

My employer, the Michigan Environmental Council, filed a "friend of the court” legal brief arguing that the court declare the law means what it says.

Since it was written by a horde of lawyers, it might better for the rest of to read the fine analysis by Sandra Svoboda of Detroit’s Metro Times.

Finally, for those wanting more legal meat to chew on, the whole issue is analyzed here more precisely, and in a more lawyerly fashion by Noah Hall on his Great Lakes Law blog.

###

Senate confirms Michigan environmental maverick (a real one, not the fake kind) Lana Pollack to International Joint Commission

The U.S. Senate today confirmed former Michigan Environmental Council President Lana Pollack to the International Joint Commission. Pollack, my boss for three years, is a great addition to the agency, which is designed to facilitate cooperation, resource protection, resolution of disputes and treaty enforcement over boundary waters and land borders between the two countries.

There will be no better advocate for the Great Lakes than Lana, a tireless, fierce, smart and forceful woman who has already ingrained a lasting legacy on environmental protection in Michigan. But, like many brilliant minds, she can never locate her keys or reading glasses. I hope they have someone at IJC to help her with that.

Lana will do what she thinks is right. Always. The last IJC commissioner from Michigan, Dennis Schornack, was fired when he did the right thing http://bit.ly/94t4S4 Schornack, a lifelong Republican from Williamston, was appointed by, then dumped by, the George W. Bush Administration after he ordered a couple in Washington State to remove a structure they had built illegally in a 10-foot-wide "clear boundary vista" maintained at the 5,000-mile-long border with Canada. Right wing groups took up the cause as a case of jackbooted government regulators run amok, and Bush officials ordered Schornack to back down. He didn't. So much for securing our borders.

Pollack also will sooner get fired then back down from doing the right thing -- both for border security and for the "resource protection" mandate in the IJC job description that is so vital to keeping our Great Lakes great. She is a former Michigan state senator and served as MEC president for 12 years through the end of 2008. Prior to her tenure at MEC, Pollack was elected three times to the Michigan Legislature, serving as a state senator from 1983–1994.

To learn more about the International Joint Commission, visit www.ijc.org.

###

Environmental heroes: Faye Nelson, Margaret Weber making Detroit a better place

Each year for the past dozen, the Michigan Environmental Council (my employer) has given out a pair of prestigious awards – one to leaders who have made exceptional contributions to Michigan’s natural resources and a second to grassroots activists whose selfless and often uncompensated work has made a difference.
 
The awards have gone to Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, academics, and crusaders and bona fide tree huggers.

This year, Detroit RiverFront Conservancy President Faye Alexander Nelson is slated to receive Michigan’s top environmental award, and Detroit recycling pioneer Margaret Weber has been named Michigan’s grassroots leader of the year: http://bit.ly/dvR00b

Faye (pictured at top) spearheads the Detroit RiverWalk project that has transformed the city’s riverfront from a frightening, blighted landscape to a beautiful magnet for social interaction. If you haven’t been there lately, you need to come down: http://www.detroitriverfront.org/

Margaret has spent decades bringing recycling options to Detroiters. She has been one of the key voices in, finally, establishing a pilot curbside recycling program in the city, which with persistence can be the first step toward closing the city’s polluting, expensive incinerator: http://bit.ly/94Qktg (A shout out to the Metro Times’ Curt Guyette here, whose reporting on the incinerator issue is second to none)

You can learn a little bit about them with the link to the press release above. But suffice it to say that Detroit is a better, cleaner, more attractive and more hopeful city today thanks to the hard work and vision of both these women.

They’ll be honored Wednesday, June 9 at a fundraiser/reception at the Omni Hotel on the Detroit RiverWalk.

Here's where to hear a replay of the gubernatorial debate on the environment. To the no-shows: Click on the link and hear how candidates with courage sound!

Wednesday night’s environmental forum for gubernatorial candidates at Central Michigan University was a great dialogue, at least for the three candidates who cared enough about the Great Lakes and our other natural resources to show up: Virg Bernero, Tom George and Rick Snyder.
You can listen to it here: http://bit.ly/cqFxez

To the four candidates afraid to take the microphone and defend their records and/or ideas on protecting our natural resources: Bad form guys. You should have strapped on a pair and got in the ring last night.

I have serious reservations about supporting candidates who are only willing to appear before adoring audiences. Voters should want a governor who shares their views, yes. But we should also demand a governor with the courage and self-confidence to engage with people whose ideas and world views differ from theirs. It’s a big, sprawling state with a diversity of people and opinions. Our next chief executive needs to represent all of us….including the 45 percent or so who will vote for someone else in November.

State Sen. Tom George, as an example, stood his ground on several issues that were at odds with the majority of the audience. He clearly understands the issues. Kudos to Tom.

Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero and businessman Rick Snyder were sharp on the issues, especially Snyder whose answers plainly showed that he has invested time in understanding – in far more depth than talking points --  how Michigan’s natural resources are integrally linked to the economy and the health of Michiganders.

Mike Cox – whose views differ fairly dramatically from the environmental community on many issues – spoke with my colleagues at the Michigan Environmental Council early in his campaign. He gets credit for engaging. But where was he Wednesday?

Mike Bouchard, Pete Hoekstra and Andy Dillon? AWOL. Pathetic.

The forum was sponsored by Michigan Radio, the Detroit Free Press, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters among others.

A shout out to MichiganLiberal.com for good coverage of the forum, even if one of their posters declared me a “jobs killer” http://bit.ly/dnayQk MichLib’s counterpart, RightMichigan, carried no mention of the forum.
See you at the primary election in August.

Again, Mitten State’s views are my own, not those of my employer, the Michigan Environmental Council. As a 501c3 nonprofit, MEC does not endorse or promote individual candidates. MEC, as an aside, is willing and able to educate all candidates on issues affecting our natural resources. We will be doing so vigorously through November.

Michigan voters take note: Three candidates for governor step up to debate environmental issues; four others run for cover, or couldn't care less

Michigan's candidates for governor have one chance to debate environmental issues head-to-head, and that is at Wednesday night's forum at Central Michigan University, sponsored by the Detroit Free Press and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, among others: http://bit.ly/9QA5q9

Pathetically, four of the seven candidates said "no thanks, we've got better things to do than discuss how to protect the Great Lakes, reduce health-related heartache caused by toxic pollutants, or and preserve our state's majestic forests." Really. That's exactly what they said.

Kudos to the three who apparently see our state's natural resources as worthy of an hour or two of their commitment: Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, State Sen. Tom George and businessman Rick Snyder.

The message from the no-shows is either that they do not consider Michigan's environment a priority; do not understand the monumental importance of natural resources to our economy; or they are unwilling to defend the decisions and votes they've made in the past on environmental issues.

The no-shows are Attorney General Mike Cox; Congressman Pete Hoekstra; House Speaker Andy Dillon and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard. Hoekstra has miserable record of environmental voting -- scoring less than 10 percent according to the League of Conservation Voters. Dillon has exhibited little interest in, or understanding of, the importance of strong policies to protect our state's natural resources in his legislative tenure. Bouchard? Not certain where he stands, but if he's been banging the drum for environmental issues so far I haven't heard it. Cox....well, Cox has successfully positioned himself as a leader of the state's fight to prevent Asian Carp from decimating the Great Lakes. And while he has been tone deaf to other environmental imperatives, I'm a bit surprised he isn't coming.

Anyway, again, the candidates who care enough to show up:

Rick Snyder: http://www.rickformichigan.com/
Tom George: http://www.georgeforgovernor.com/
Virg Bernero: http://www.votevirg.com/

* My opinions do NOT REPRESENT those of my employer, the Michigan Environmental Council. As a 501c3 nonprofit, the Council is not permitted to campaign for or endorse candidates for office.

First U.S. offshore wind farm approval a wake up call for Michigan policy makers

The nation’s first offshore wind farm is on its way to reality in Cape Cod after federal approval announced today: http://bit.ly/9chQXH

The Michigan Environmental Council says the Cape Cod decision should be a wake up call for Michigan legislators to get busy creating strong and sensible guidelines for wind farms in the Great Lakes: http://bit.ly/9NQXjn

In Michigan, no offshore wind projects have been formally proposed. But informal plans have already mobilized plenty of opposition from local who would rather not see turbines in their Great Lakes. Many of these NIMBY (not in my backyard) groups have adopted “environmental” names and themes. But I think it’s important to point out that, to my knowledge, no established Michigan environmental organization opposes wind turbines in the Great Lakes.

Most environmental groups, even Scenic Michigan www.scenicmichigan.org recognize that there are viewscapes, sensitive ecological areas and special places where turbines should not be permitted. But, overall, they serve the greater good.

We tolerate ugly overhead power lines, chunks of land marred by electric substations, and junction boxes in our neighborhoods as the tradeoff for reliable, cheap electricity from coal. We can tolerate turbines in some areas of the Great Lakes for the same reason – with the added advantage that turbines have none of the coal pollution that sickens our children, poisons our air, makes our fish unsafe to eat and changes our climate.

The Cape Wind project overcame NIMBY resistance from the powerful Kennedy family. The Kennedys are typically strong environmental advocates. But just not in their backyard, one supposes.

The decision is one more step in the slow but steady progression of sensible energy policy in the U.S.
###

Happy Earth Day 40 years later: Some things never change!

Today is the 40th anniversary of the original Earth Day. The milestone was part of an interesting show that aired this week, “Earth Days,” on PBS’s The American Experience: http://to.pbs.org/b2YAe7

The show was a vivid reminder of how little has changed in many respects during the past 40 years. Partisan politics rather than science and common sense still dictate decisions about environmental protection. Powerful lobbies for the chemical and utility industries still call the shots. And environmentalists are still schizophrenic about whether they should work for within the system for incremental change, or from outside the system for revolutionary shifts.

None of this is news to my colleagues in the Michigan environmental movement.

When it is simply a matter of money and power – who can hire the best lobbying firms and who has the capacity to funnel the most money into legislators’ campaign coffers – we lose. The big boys on the block are the same as they have been for a long time: The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, the Michigan Manufacturers Association, the electric utilities, and the big corporations.

Fortunately, one other thing hasn’t changed in 40 years: The collective power of people is the one certain force than can defeat the lobbying goliaths. Richard Nixon was no environmentalist, but he proclaimed the first Earth Day and signed the Clean Air Act in response to a groundswell of public support. In Michigan, public sentiment in favor of clean energy choices was a key factor in many legislators’ reluctant votes to pass Michigan’s first renewable energy requirements in 2008. And just last week, mercurial Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson backpedaled on his legal challenge to Michigan’s smoking ban law – after only a few hours and more than 100 made constituent calls and e-mails! http://bit.ly/akfEZ3

The trouble is, most people don’t demand that kind of change unless they sense impending doom or some sense of desperate urgency. For example, the anti-war youth of the 1960s; the environmentalists of the 1970s; or even the Tea Party activists of 2010 (jury still out on this one).

So maybe our Earth Day resolution shouldn’t be riding bikes or changing light bulbs or recycling. Maybe it should be demanding something of our elected officials each week. One phone call or personal letter (not an e-mail) specifically asking them to support a piece of legislation or vote some bad bill into oblivion.

If you need ideas, subscribe to the Michigan Environmental Council's Capitol Update http://bit.ly/a6uP7C or check out the organizations on the “Place of Interest” on the right hand side of this page. Many of them have multiple options to keep you abreast of current issues.
###


###

Climate Change: Smoking gun fizzles, Princeton physicist accuses me of issuing propoganda!

The British House of Commons’ investigation into the hacked e-mails of climate researchers is complete. To jog your memory, this is the so-called “Climategate conspiracy” smoking gun that was going to blow the lid off the climate change hoax and reduce 40 years of climate research to a smoking pile of rubble.

The Washington Post said the investigators criticized “a culture of withholding information” but concluded that “the integrity of its climate change research was not in doubt….The 14-member parliamentary committee said in its report that it had found nothing to challenge the "scientific consensus" that global warming is occurring and influenced by human activity.” 

Here’s the Post’s writeup: http://bit.ly/8XvCRB

And here’s the Brits’ investigation: http://bit.ly/9sMU4P

None of this is likely to slow down die-hard skeptics. For them it merely means the British House of Commons is in on the conspiracy along with the rest of us. It’s beautiful in its simplicity. If your scientific research or your laymen’s understanding of it affirms that climate change is a problem, BANG! you’re part of the hoax and nothing you say henceforth can be credible. End of story.

Speaking of skeptics, a Princeton physicist – in a publication of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy - has accused me of issuing a “propaganda statement” via a press release I issued on behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council. The release blasted the credentials and motivations of a torturously skewed panel of climate “experts” convened recently by the Mackinac Center.

Here’s our press release: http://bit.ly/cSXA2O
Here’s the Mackinac Center’s piece with the Princeton skeptic (who, it should be noted, is a smart and distinguished researcher in a field with some relevance to climate science, but is not a climatologist): Http://bit.ly/9xMiWD

So if you’d like to read them and decide for yourself where you find the propaganda, I’m cool with that! No pun intended.
###

Breaking News: MEC asks EPA to investigate Michigan's air quality program

The Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) today asked the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Michigan's air quality program: http://bit.ly/clNHgz

MEC believes that chronic underfunding of the program has led to violations of the Clean Air Act. They include an inadequate inspection schedule for major pollution sources and complaints about dangerous air pollution that go unanswered.

Funding sources that might alleviate the problem include general fund allocations from the legislature, or increased permit fees on polluters.
###

Anti-regulation activists come to Michigan dressed as science experts! (But did they stay at a Holiday Inn Express?)

Today, a panel of anti-government anti-regulation activists will convene on two Michigan college campuses, Oakland University and Central Michigan University: http://bit.ly/cSXA2O

They will spread this message: Thousands of climate scientists worldwide are either incompetent or have abandoned their ethical, moral and professional obligations as part of an insidious plot to fake the issue of climate change.

They could be right....and Arkansas-Pine Bluff could win the NCAA basketball tournament this year.

Here’s a more plausible explanation:

The panelists each work for organizations dedicated to eliminating government regulation. Two of the three are paid by big foundations and companies to fight government oversight. Climate change solutions almost certainly will require government oversight. Therefore, these organizations are desperately denying the science that threatens their mission: Minimizing regulation and protecting clients.

So maybe thousands of climate scientists are stupid or crooked.

Or maybe the panelists’ hatred of government regulation and/or loyalty to their funders is so great that they will do anything in order to block it.

The latter explanation is business as usual for the folks who continue to defend tobacco companies and oppose government regulations that prevent the Great Lakes from being siphoned into Asia-bound tankers for sale to the highest bidder.

It is telling that the so-called ‘expert panel’ today tackles the most pressing and complex scientific matter of our time, yet there are no scientists on the panel! Instead we get a newspaper cartoonist – Henry Payne of the Detroit News -- and two paid flacks for anti-government foundations: Paul Chesser of the Heartland Institute and Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation.

The anti-science crusade has been successful, as it was against tobacco regulation a generation ago. Recent polls show a decline in the number of Americans who believe the science of climate change: http://bit.ly/cfnt8g


But even with the recent dustup over e-mails stolen from climate scientists, no major US scientific organization has changed its stance on climate. In fact, a list of 250 (and growing) U.S. scientists (mostly climatologists) have signed this open letter: http://bit.ly/b5JnK8

I’ve already filled out my NCAA bracket. People who analyze basketball for a living predict an early exit for Arkansas-Pine Bluff. I’ll root for them because I love to see the underdogs make fools of the experts. But that’s not where I’m putting my money. How about you?

##

No cap. No trade. Just $438 in your pocket

A report being released today shows Michigan families would save an average $438 annually in utility bills if strong energy efficiency measures are included in the energy bill being debated in the U.S. Senate:

http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/newsroom/pressRelease.php?x=38

That energy legislation includes the controversial cap-and-trade provision to try and help get a grip on global warming pollution. Whatever one thinks of cap-and-trade, energy efficiency would seem noncontroversial:  Money in our pockets. Less pollution. Reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

We're talking programs that help businesses and homeowners afford smart low-energy lighting systems, boilers and furnaces that use less fuel, weatherproof windows and insulation to keep the cold out (or the cold in, depending on the season), etc. etc.

You would think it would be a no-brainer for our Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, and their colleagues.

You would think, anyway.

There are some great resources for homeowners available from my friends at Michigan Energy Options (see the links on the right hand side of their page):   http://www.michiganenergyoptions.org/

And I had an interesting discussion with an energetic fellow from Ann Arbor who's developed this interesting web site to show, among other things, how you stack up against other Michiganders in term of energy use. Just make sure you enter your address exactly as it's shown to get started: www.joolze.com

###

Michigan mining ballot initiative group pulls the plug on 2010

Organizers of a proposed ballot initiative to safeguard Michigan lakes and streams from dangerous mining pollutants have fallen woefully short of the funding they need to get on the ballot in 2010.

The MiWater Ballot Initiative Campaign http://www.miwater.org/ announced Thursday that it will not try and get the issue on the ballot this year.

The group raised only $125,000. Observers suspect it will take multiple millions of dollars to have a chance against the deep-pocketed international mining companies that oppose it.

The ballot issue would have required more safeguards against the seepage of heavy metals and sulfuric acid from so-called “sulfide mining” proposed in the Upper Peninsula. This is a new type of mining in Michigan, much different and more dangerous than the old-fashioned copper mining and other endeavors the U.P. is used to http://online.nwf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=glnrc_lakesuperior

Mining in U.P. sulfide rock formations will create poisonous byproducts that could, and probably will, leach into the streams and underground water reservoirs that feed Lake Superior (pictured).

There has never been a sulfide mine that has not put contaminants in waterways http://www.savethewildup.org/facts/

New laws passed in 2005 were supposed to address just this type of mining. But environmental groups in Michigan are near unanimous in their disappointment in the lax way the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental has applied these laws to the first U.P. sulfide mining proposal.

That proposal, made by Kennecott Minerals, a subsidiary of London-based Rio Tinto is pending and the subject of legal objections by a coalition that includes Indian tribes, U.P. environmental groups, and the National Wildlife Federation. It would extract nickel and other metals from a deep deposit near Marquette.

The company’s description of the project is here: http://www.eagle-project.com/

The Kennecott project has hotly divided folks in the U.P., many of whom crave the jobs it would bring.

My employer, the Michigan Environmental Council (MEC), is typical of environmental groups in its position. MEC is not opposed to mining, per se, but believes this particular project has design flaws and inherent risks that are unacceptable.

If it’s eventually approved, the jobs and the businesses that depend on the mine will evaporate in 15 years when the mine is played out. The profits will go to the London headquarters of Rio Tinto.

That’s a boom-and-bust cycle of unsustainable economic development at best. At worst, it leaves future generations with poisoned streams, a degraded Lake Superior, and a smattering of shuttered businesses and ghost towns that were built on a mirage.

###

Electric customers: 86 million, Consumers Energy: 0 Thank you MEC

From today's Jackson Citizen-Patriot:

"State regulators have ordered Consumers Energy to repay its electric customers about $86 million after finding the utility improperly kept the money as general revenue......James Clift, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council, which was one of several groups involved in the case against Consumers, said they had been raising the issue with the MPSC for eight years. Clift said the way Consumers was handling the money was a 'financial gimmick.' 'It's been a long time coming' Clift said."

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2010/02/state_regulators_order_consume.html

 http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,1607,7-159-16400_17280-231260--,00.html