OlsonOnline

More Wingard

(Again thanks to Ken Libby.)

Wingard denies global warming with a "clever" House floor speech.



You may be wondering how Wingard was elected to the state legislature. Well, he wasn't, at least not initially. He was appointed by the Washington County Commission in a trumped up proceeding that made a mockery of the democratic process.

A month later he ran as an incumbent and squeaked by with less that half the vote.

Now Rep. Wingard is doing his libertarian best to push school choice (the Rose Friedman Educational Opportunity Tax Credit Act) --and charter schools-- through the legislature.

Coal's dirty little secrets

It should come as no surprise that coal ash, the stuff that remains after coal is burned, has its own lobbying group, the American Coal Ash Association, which does its best to put a "clean" face on the hazardous waste that coal combustion produces.

The group even claims that coal fly ash is "good" for the environment, with "significant environmental benefits."  It seems you can even "build green" with coal residue.

Tell that to the people in Tennessee.

Health hazards from coal ash are downplayed by ACAA.  Its site on potential health issues claims that "health risks from coal ash are minimal."  No mention of heavy metals, like arsenic and lead, contained in the ash that can easily seep into ground water when it's stored in unlined holding ponds or landfills.  That sounds like a "health risk" to me.

Here's the dirty little secret:

"About 37 million tons of coal combustion products are beneficially used in the United States each year.  But more than 81 million tons are still being disposed in landfills."

Here's another one:  the federal Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that coal ash is not a hazardous waste, so its regulation is left up to the states.  Therefore, says Lisa Evans of EarthJustice, "...that because of a lack of federal oversight, 'we don't know where it goes.' "

That doesn't bode well for either the environment or for the advocates of cars --and trains-- powered solely by electricity.

How are we going to power electric cars?

Here's the one word answer:  Coal

Or more precisely, dirty coal, since there is no such thing as "clean coal".

You may have read about the coal fly ash ponds that store waste from coal-fired electrical plants, particularly the one near Nashville, Tennessee, that recently flooded hundreds of surrounding acres* with a toxic soup of arsenic, lead, chromium, barium and manganese all of which, according to the New York Times, "...can cause cancer, liver damage and neurological complications... ."

You probably didn't know --I didn't-- that these holding ponds, as well as coal ash stored in landfills, are the products of primitive attempts to "capture" carbon emissions from coal-fired plants to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide, as we all now know, is a greenhouse gas scientists claim is responsible for the recent upward spike in global temperatures. 

Meanwhile, politicians and technocrats speak rapturously about the new generation of electric cars that will help clear the atmosphere of automobile exhaust.  Few, however, are talking about the fossil fuel that likely will power these new plug-in vehicles --coal. 

Half the electricity in this country is generated by coal.  The plants generating that electricity account for  "one- third of the carbon dioxide production in the [world's] industrialized nations."

So I ask, what good are electric cars if they rely on the juice supplied by the dirtiest, and most toxic, of fossil fuels? 

In his Senate confirmation hearing, Energy Secretary-designate Stephen Chu, in response to questions from North Dakota's Byron Dorgan wary of Chu's stance on coal, said that he believed American technology would soon be able to come up with a true clean coal solution.  (North Dakota relies heavily on coal and coal production for energy.)

With all due respect to Dr. Chu, a Nobel laureate in physics, that response may be more wishful thinking --and political pandering -- than a realistic assessment of the difficulties confronting those working on scrubbing the air --and the earth-- of the pollutants associated with the burning of coal.

*(Erin Brockovich --yeah, THAT Erin Brockovich-- has a post up on HuffPo with graphic descriptions of "...a plume of this toxic ash floating down the river, resting on the banks."  It's definitely worth the read.)

Let it snow!

For those of you getting down about the 'frightful' weather, well, let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.  Nothing you can do about it anyway.



Then raise you holiday spirits with the the one, the only, the incomparable Brenda Lee



Happy Holidays!

Why is the high cost of gas a bad thing?

And why has it become a campaign issue?

Paul Krugman calls the push for offshore drilling to lower the cost of gasoline, now supported by the majority of the American people, "junk economics". But it may be a winning campaign strategy for John McCain.

Barack Obama has apparently come to the same conclusion.  His once adamant opposition to offshore drilling has morphed into support for a policy that he's smart enough to know, in Krugman's words, "...would have an 'insignificant' impact on oil prices."  

The way I see it, high fuel prices will discourage people from driving so much, encourage the more rapid development of alternative sources of energy, and eventually, as the demand for gas decreases, drive down the cost of oil.  Isn't that how "supply and demand" is supposed to work? 

Then there's the question of global warming which is at the heart of Krugman's column.  He points to  Harvard economist Martin Weitzman's conclusion that there's a 5 percent chance global temperatures will rise enough to ''effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.''  So why take the chance?

What really troubles Krugman is that politics (again) has trumped science:

"If a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming?"

I know that  the high price of gas imposes a severe hardship on those who rely on cars for their livelihood.  And that it's easy for a person like me, who doesn't have to drive and lives in a city with a fairly well-developed mass transit system, to suggest that high gas prices may be beneficial in the long run.  But I think that, compared to the cost of driving in other developed Western countries, American drivers still have it pretty good. 

If the high price of gas discourages unnecessary automobile use, I say that's a good thing, and certainly not an issue that should decide a Presidential election. 

(Isador Morgavi, writing in the Tigard Times, agrees with me.  Isador would like to see gas prices climb to $7 a gallon.)

Reducing my 'footprint'

My pal Lynn Schore got her picture in the morning paper with her featured letter criticizing --kinda-- Sam Adams for attacking the excessive use of plastic grocery bags while ignoring the city's troubled schools.

Well, my response is that Mayor-elect Adams is probably capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.  In other words, his grocery bag initiative doesn't preclude consideration of Portland Public Schools' growing problem with educational inequity. Besides, excessive consumerism and the increasing use of petroleum-based plastic are legitimate issues for the city to confront.

Global warming, remember?

The O's conservative voice, David Reinhard, not surprisingly disagrees.  Adams' proposal is an extension of the "nanny state", he writes.  And it undermines "personal responsibility". 

Speaking of personal responsibility, I've taken steps to reduce my household's carbon footprint, even though I believe that ultimately only government mandates and official disincentives --like Adams' plastic bag 'fee'-- will save the world from destroying itself.  But government action usually follows a groundswell of public demand for such action.  And a visible change in public behavior and expectations. 

And it usually starts locally, like the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott which led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.   Adams is doing the right thing.

So what steps have I personally taken?  To start with, I don't drive much.  And weekdays my wife takes the bus to work.  I zealously recycle.  I turn all the lights out at night.  And the computer.   I use nothing but organic fertilizers in the garden (all of the most commercial stuff is petroleum-based.)  I don't buy many things.

One thing I did buy is a retractable 40 foot clothesline* so I could stop using the clothes dryer --a major household energy hog-- and take advantage of the free wind and solar energy available in my backyard to do the job instead.  My kids --both 20-somethings and somewhat oblivious to the global warming threat-- think I've become a fanatic on the subject of laundry.  Maybe I have.

But then again, like most middle class Americans, in some respects I'm also a hypocrite.  For example, we just bought a new (used) car --a '98 Lexus, the first 'luxury' car we've ever owned.  Why?  Well, it was a really good deal.  And we have a daughter at home who will be working a job this fall that requires (unfortunately) the use of a car.

So there you have it.  

Lynn Schore is right by the way.  Not about the plastic grocery bag initiative, but about the need for a sound educational system to alert our future voters and decision makers to the looming environmental crisis.  All schools should have the resources to provide students with an environmental education. 

* (Slacktivist takes on homeowner's associations for their frequent opposition to unsightlly clotheslines.  It's an interesting read.)

More bad news on climate change

This time it comes from the Bush Administration --court ordered and four years late!
Here's what we can expect in the very near future:

• More people dying from heat stress and increased smog

• Water shortages

• A greater number of severe weather events --hurricanes, etc.-- and a longer wildfire season

• Increased insect infestations and disease

• An accentuation of the "disparities" in health care between the rich and the poor,  the young and the old, the insured and the uninsured.
  

And then this:

• A likely self-perpetuating increase in greenhouse gases as more power plants are built to cool people during the hotter summers

I hadn't thought of that one.

We know of course that the melting polar ice accelerates the heating of the oceans.  Ice is white and deflects the sun's rays away from the earth.  That's why it's crucial to begin reducing carbon emissions now, not just capping them.  It's also why high gas prices may be a blessing in disguise, another unintended consequence of Bush's disastrous warmongering in the oil rich Middle East and the war profiteering of his corporate backers.

High gas prices discourage driving.  At the same time they encourage the development of more climate friendly energy technologies.  That's a good thing in the long run.

What's foolish and short-sighted are proposals "for gas tax holidays" that we've seen pop up in the Presidential campaign.  Good reason to vote for Obama. 

Global warming 'religion'

That phrase was used Sunday in a letter to the editor criticizing "big government" for going after "big oil" in Congressional hearings and suggesting that, in "the near term" we start looking for more oil resources here at home --in the oceans and in Alaska, meaning I assume, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Now I'm no scientist but I do know how to read the 'scientific' conclusions of experts who say that oil from ANWAR wouldn't be available for at least ten years and even then might knock only seventy five cents off the cost of a barrel of oil.  That doesn't sound like much of a solution to the high price of gas, let alone our "addiction" to foreign oil.

But the part of the letter that got my attention was the reference to environmentalists preaching "...the tenets and doctrine of the Global Warming religion... ." 

Again, I'm no scientist.  And I don't have anything against religion.  But I do consider myself an environmentalist concerned about climate change and the ongoing degradation of the earth's ecosystems.  That concern is based not on religious "tenets and doctrine" (unless my regard for the survival of life on earth, including human life, can be considered "religious") but rather on the hard scientific data that overwhelmingly points to catastrophe in the very near future if we don't stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The burning of fossil fuels, including oil, accounts for almost all of those earth warming greenhouse gases.

If one were to base the formulation of public policy on science, then, it seems clear that oil advocates, not environmentalists and their alternative energy ideas, would lose out.  To conclude otherwise is wishful thinking, probably influenced by adherence to some form of free market ideology, which is probably more akin to religious belief than anything  espoused by those who work to save the earth. 

Runnng (home) from school

Here's another fond memory of my K-8 experience. 

Not only would I walk the three (maybe four) blocks to and from my neighborhood school, I would race home at lunchtime to see if I could beat my two brothers to the kitchen table.  (Thursday was Grandma's Swedish pancake day.)  That routine eventually culminated in head-to-head races with my siblings around the long block we lived on.  In opposite directions.

Needless to say, there was no childhood obesity in our family.

Portland, unfortunately, is not immune to the national obesity epidemic.  Today's Oregonian feature on the latest medical answer to the epidemic --laparoscopic adjustable banding-- is both a sad commentary on the well-being of American children and a reminder that locally we're doing little better that other places around the nation in promoting the health and wellness of our young people.   

Are neighborhood schools the answer to preventing childhood obesity?  No, at least not entirely.  But the diminishing number of such schools, along with the proliferation of alternatives kids can't walk to, certainly contributes to the problem.

And then there's the issue of global warming.  Few people would argue that keeping cars off the road to decrease greenhouse gases is a bad idea.  Neighborhood schools do just that --they allow children to get to their schools without the aid of climate altering motor vehicles.

Those pressing issues  --children's health and catastrophic climate change-- should be factored into the debate over the kinds of schools we want to see in the future.