I get a campsite, you get Pure Michigan NASCAR and everybody's happy

Seemed reasonable at the time!

There are eight rustic camp sites, first come, first served.

There were three left when we got there, and we got site #2. It wasn’t one of the lakefront spots, but it was nestled back in the woods far enough so that … at night with a fire crackling, unobstructed stars overhead and a couple of Bellaire Browns it seemed like we were the only ones in the county. 

Where? Oh hell no. I’m not about to tell you. But with a little detective work on the DNR’s web site you shouldn’t have a problem figuring it out.

Our campground was a couple hours from Lansing, and a couple hours from magnificent Torch Lake where we spent the day Saturday with family. That night, again, we were the only ones in the world. In the morning, we drank camp coffee and a breakfast of soy sausages and homemade pesto (it seemed sensible at the time).

After a three mile walk in the woods interspersed with magnificent meadows of sun-dappled chest high grasses, we were home in time to watch the Tigers and entertain more family. Maybe I took a nap too.

It was a little slice of Michigan living. But it may not so for long. Fifteen dollars a night, times eight campsites, generates $120 … not nearly enough to cover the expenses of trash removal, outhouse and fire pit maintenance, road grading, administrative matters, tree trimming and securing the picnic table to the ground with a braided metal cable the thickness of a child’s wrist.

That leaves taxpayers on the hook. Many never use a rustic state campground, and never intend to. Many of our friends and neighbors don’t believe their tax dollars should be used to supplement the campgrounds' user fees. In fact, many were on the verge of closing this year for lack of funding, until DNR Director Rodney Stokes found a way to limp along in 2011.

So why should taxpayers who never use the rustic campgrounds be willing to fund them?

Because it is that sort of opportunity -- and thousands like it and very much unlike it – that makes people want to live, work and play in this state. It’s not very quantifiable, like tax rates and safe streets and availability to public transportation are. But it’s real, and it shows up consistently on surveys nationwide about what attracts people to live where they do.

So as legislators – many of them indoctrinated in the drown government in a bathtub cult prepare to slash away at many of the opportunities that makes our state so unique, we need a robust discussion. Not just about closing a few dozen rustic campgrounds. But about what sort of opportunities we can capitalize on here to create the Michigan we all want.

In that mix, I vote for some tax money to maintain the rustic campgrounds. In fairness, I’ll agree to use state money on something I have no interest in, like NASCAR races.

Iit’ll cost a lot less than $972k to maintain a fire pit. And while you’re at the race, I’ll be putting another log on.

 *****

If you feel like contacting your legislator you might tell them you’re glad the state’s rustic state forest campgrounds remained open this year, and that you expect him/her to work to maintain adequate funding for the state’s DNR to operate them.

 ###

"We are cutting the science and warning systems that protect us from this kind of disaster."

This quote on CNN’s earthquake/tsunami coverage tonight from Jeffrey Sachs, an economist,  director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people:

“The Republicans are cutting the science and the warning systems that protect us from this kind of disaster … they’re making terrible decisions, this should be a wakup call to Congress to stop being so anti-scientific, to stop neglecting these powerful forces of nature.”

Make no mistake, the same type of shortsighted nonsense is brewing in Michigan’s legislature, fueled by the anti-government wing of same political party that once was home to proud conservation heroes like Teddy Roosevelt and Bill Milliken.

###

Money to keep clean up leaking gas and oil tanks snatched by the Michigan Legislature to shovel into general fund abyss

There are more than 9,000 old, leaking underground petroleum storage tanks in Michigan. Where there’s an owner alive and viable (a responsible party), they are required to clean the mess up.

We pay 7/8ths of a cent on every gallon of gas we buy in Michigan to fund a program to help clean up the worst of these places when no responsible party is available to send the bill to. That’s important because some sites release dangerous petroleum pollutants into groundwater, streams or lakes. Others pollute nearby water wells. It’s also important because it puts toxic land that nobody would otherwise want back into productive use with potential to create jobs.

The tax was expiring this year, and the Legislature renewed it. You’d think that’s good news, but it’s not so simple. Legislators are using much of the money to shovel into general fund budget holes.

The program isn’t being picked on uniquely. Legislators have been robbing “non essential” programs for years to scrabble together the state budget.  And it’s going to get more cannibalistic, with $3 billion in cuts required for the next legislature to balance the budget. Cuts like that mean huge changes for lots of people. One set of proposals made by the lame duck administration in Lansing calls for privatizing the University of Michigan and eliminating State Police road patrols. Against cuts of that scale, small fry like toxic leaking underground tanks stand no chance.

So let’s just be honest. If we’re unwilling to pay enough taxes to clean up orphaned sites of contamination let’s stop collecting the 7/8ths of a cent tax altogether. We’ll have saved drivers 13 cents at each fill-up. And we’ll just write off the contaminated lands as permanent blight in our neighborhoods – and our reduced property values -- in exchange for our 13 cents. 

###

Your handy guide to translating the fringe arguments against offshore wind energy development in the Great Lakes

What turbines would look like, from left, at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 miles

Michigan has vast potential to generate energy from wind. Most of that potential is in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes. Now, the state is poised to adopt the first comprehensive rules for wind development in the Lakes.

It won’t be easy. Not everyone likes the idea of altering the view of our spectacular Great Lakes with wind turbines. Others don’t mind the view, as long as it’s not in their back yard – or more accurately, in front of their pricey lakefront properties.

Now Michigan’s anti-government bloggers are also up in arms about wind turbines. Their reasons run the gamut. They include cost (a debate worth having). Details over how to regulate them (again, a worthwhile discussion). And environmental concerns (Fringe Right bloggers mourning for the environment? Sweet Jesus! Has that EVER happened before. OK, we’ll get to that in a moment!)

Honestly, those in the distant hinterlands of conservativism will never support offshore wind turbines for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with cost or environmental concerns.

So, in order to prepare for the upcoming onslaught of doublespeak, I’m offering some translations for the arguments you will hear. But first, a note on costs.
  
Costs for wind energy keep going down while costs for conventional energy keep going up. In fact, Massachusetts regulators just OK’d a 15 year power purchase agreement for Cape Wind, the nation’s first offshore wind energy development.

The Massachusetts approval came after exhaustive review: 13 days of hearings, more than 1,300 exhibits and 3,000 pages of transcript. The conclusion: "[I]t is abundantly clear that the Cape Wind facility offers significant benefits that are not currently available from any other renewable resources. We find that these benefits outweigh the costs of the project." (and if you click on the link, don’t neglect to read the part about the 1,000 jobs created).

Now, the translations:
 

--- Wind energy shouldn't need taxpayer subsidies means (=) We have never raised a peep about the massive subsidies for conventional, polluting energy sources, but we’re mad as hell when it applies to something environmentalists support, Governor Granholm wants, or anything new and different.

--- Plans to regulate offshore wind are not up to par = Any regulation is bad. Any regulatory agency is evil. And anyone trying to enforce regulations is a jack booted thug.

--- The Great Lakes will be environmentally damaged by turbines = We don’t give a flying fruck about the environment when we support offshore oil drilling in the Great Lakes, oppose mercury emissions reductions, fight bans on water diversions, cheer more polluting coal power plants, oppose tougher vehicle emissions standards, fight against energy efficiency programs, encourage urban sprawl, urge lawmakers to bankrupt natural resource protection, or try to bury public transit initiatives. But, um, this time we do care. Really.

--- The wind doesn’t blow all the time, so it’s unreliable = This is an awesome sound bite. Game, set and match....beeeootch! We are betting nobody besides policy geeks goes to the trouble of exploring how decentralized power grids, demand load management and natural gas backup systems make this issue manageable.

 --- Coal power is tried and true, no reason to change = We talk a good game about embracing American ingenuity, cutting edge technology and striking out boldly for new frontiers like our manly heroes of the American Revolution. But when it comes down to it we're scared.

--- We don’t have faith in the leaders supporting wind energy = We despise Gov. Granholm and everything she stands for. We will despise Gov.-elect Snyder as well, should he dare cross us. The 2010 election was clearly a mandate against offshore wind.

--- It’s those pansy ass tree huggers who want wind energy = It’s those pansy ass tree huggers who want wind energy.

###,