Author Archives: 7GrittonMaine146

N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings

N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings

City government meetings are boring and tedious and deal with boring, tedious things — zoning, ceremonial items, paying a city’s bills. Most also allow time for the public to comment, which almost always entices the local gadflies and cranks to show up and share whatever’s on their minds. And it’s often the most interesting part of the meetings.

Nonetheless, the town board of Sanford, N.Y., got tired of one particular topic coming up in public comments: fracking. Speaker after speaker would rail against the practice, which is currently banned in the state. The town board reached its limit last fall, voting to ban any further comment from the public on the topic.

In spirit, we can appreciate the frustration. In practice, however, we would strongly encourage elected officials to remember that public meetings don’t exist for their convenience. To help remind the Sanford board of that fact, local residents (with the support of the Natural Resources Defense Council) are suing. From the Associated Press:

“If people are silenced by their own elected representatives, how can they trust them to act in their best interests?” said Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Kate Sinding as her group announced the U.S. District Court lawsuit. NRDC and Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy filed the lawsuit on behalf of town residents who are members of their groups.
Robert Freeman, director of the state’s Committee on Open Government, said a public body isn’t required to allow the public to speak at meetings. If the town board chooses to permit public participation, it can adopt “reasonable rules” to ensure fairness.

“The fact is that the Open Meetings Law gives the public the right to be there, but says nothing about the right to speak,” Freeman said.

Sinding disagreed, saying boards can adopt rules such as time limits or equal time provisions. “It does not mean completely banning speech on a particular topic, especially one of the most important and timely topics in the state,” she said.

credopolicysummit

Protestors target New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Towns in upstate New York fall into three categories, as you’d expect: pro-fracking, anti-fracking, and undecided. Sanford’s leadership certainly falls into the first category. Many other towns fall into the second, several of them recently pledging to maintain local fracking bans even if the state’s is lifted. Others, like Penn Yan in the Finger Lakes region, are divided.

Sanford would very likely be a hub of fracking activity if the state’s ban is overturned, particularly if the revocation is done by region. From The New York Times’ Green blog:

According to the lawsuit, the town leased land to XTO Energy [in] 2008 and later issued a permit allowing the company to use a road to enable it to withdraw water for use in natural gas extraction. Sanford’s town board also approved a resolution calling on the New York Legislature to “stand aside” in the fracking debate and allow state officials to issue permits allowing fracking, the suit noted. …

Around two-thirds of the land in the town has been leased to the gas industry, according to Melissa Bishop, a resident who opposes fracking and the town’s vote to stop discussion on the subject. She accused the board of failing to allow the democratic process to unfold on matters of public interest.

If the lawsuit and common sense both fail, there is another option for Bishop and other Sanford residents. In 2014, some of those town board members will be up for reelection.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

This article is from: 

N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on N.Y. town board sued for banning discussion of fracking at meetings

Have coal companies been ripping Americans off even more than we already knew?

Have coal companies been ripping Americans off even more than we already knew?

The coal industry, for as much as it whines and frets and fake-cries about how oppressive the government is, gets a pretty sweet deal. We’ve noted before than companies pay 25 cents a ton for coal from public lands and then can turn around and sell it for $35 a ton. (We’ve also mentioned that they often sell that coal to China, meaning we’re subsidizing the world’s largest consumer of coal, but that’s a whole other issue.)

This was reported as eight pounds of coal, probably.

What makes this so much more galling is that the weepy coal companies might not even be paying for all of the coal they’re extracting. From The Hill:

Interior is looking into whether mining firms lowball the value of coal excavated from federal lands to minimize the fees they pay the government. …

Reuters said mining companies are underreporting the price of coal at mine sites — where royalties are assessed — then selling it to marketers that they often times own. Reuters said those intermediaries then ship the coal abroad, where they fetch higher prices.

[Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore.)] and Energy Committee ranking member Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) had asked [Interior Secretary Ken] Salazar to examine those charges in a January letter. They said the government could ill afford to lose out on any revenues, noting coal royalties amounted to $898 million in 2011.

The National Mining Association suggests that the Reuters report was inaccurate. Of course, the NMA also went out of its way to propagate the “war on coal” nonsense, so it can be ignored.

As part of its investigation, Interior will review a decade of coal sales, largely from the Powder River Basin region in Wyoming and Montana that provides much of the coal exported to Asia. The department is also considering a new system that would assess a royalty on coal companies’ proceeds rather than tons of coal mined.

Or, to crib from bad parents from the 1950s: Coal companies, we’ll give you something to cry about.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original post:

Have coal companies been ripping Americans off even more than we already knew?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Have coal companies been ripping Americans off even more than we already knew?

New-old disaster aid may be coming for troubled farmers

New-old disaster aid may be coming for troubled farmers

Last year, American farmers saw the worst drought in more than half a century. At the same time, some disaster aid programs went unfunded. Why? Blame the expired Farm Bill, of course.

Crop insurance and emergency disaster loans are still available to farmers and ranchers, but other relief programs designed to help during times of drought and other disasters saw their funding end more than a year ago.

But now Congress is considering a bill to reinstate that aid “until” a new farm bill happens. (Hahaha [weep].) From the Governing blog:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is sponsoring legislation that would retroactively restore those disaster relief programs for 2012 fiscal year as well as the rest of the 2013 fiscal year while Congress works on creating another long-term farm bill.

“These livestock disaster programs expired in September 2011, leaving our livestock producers with no safety net,” Baucus said in introducing his bill. “For over a year and a half, through one of the worst droughts in recent memory, our producers have been left to fend for themselves.”

In addition to helping to pay for dead livestock, the legislation also provides disaster relief for things like destroyed orchard trees and vines, and it helps cover losses not covered by crop insurance.

There are five disaster programs — all created in the 2008 farm bill — that are among the 37 programs that are missing out on funding. Because Congress hasn’t re-authorized them, losses due to disasters that occurred after September 2011 aren’t covered

This is good news for troubled U.S. farmers, but not the greatest for the Farm Bill in total, which looks to be going nowhere fast. Could we get some disaster relief for that, too?

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from – 

New-old disaster aid may be coming for troubled farmers

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New-old disaster aid may be coming for troubled farmers

Democrats Still Uneasy Over Playing Political Hardball

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Republicans, as we know, have promised to block Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This isn’t because they have anything in particular against Cordray. They’ve promised to block anyone unless Democrats agree to changes that would essentially make the CFPB toothless. They’ve done the same for nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. The CFPB can’t legally operate without a director, and the NLRB can’t legally operate without a quorum, so, as Adam Serwer puts it, this is essentially a way to nullify a pair of agencies they happen to dislike “through procedural extortion.”

Dave Weigel is puzzled. “I continue to ask why Democrats didn’t get concessions on a few nominees in exchange for the filibuster punt,” he writes today. Unfortunately, I think the answer isn’t hard to find: Harry Reid didn’t have the votes for filibuster reform and Mitch McConnell knew it. What’s more, Reid himself didn’t seem to have the stomach for a filibuster fight in the first place. If Reid had demanded action on the CFPB and the NLRB, McConnell would have just laughed it off. It would have been a bluff and he knew it.

Democrats could have gotten more out of this. They could have gotten real filibuster reform, or, failing that, at least some concessions in return for a compromise. But they chickened out. Even after winning the fiscal cliff battle, and then forcing Republicans to back down over the debt ceiling, Dems still didn’t understand the value of playing hardball. It was an opportunity missed.

This article:

Democrats Still Uneasy Over Playing Political Hardball

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , | Comments Off on Democrats Still Uneasy Over Playing Political Hardball

Chart of the Decade: Corporations are Pessimistic About Future Growth

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ezra Klein posted this chart today showing the steady accumulation of corporate cash and reserves over the past 15 years. I’d like to nominate it for chart of the decade or something. “Why corporations are holding so much more cash is an interesting mystery,” says Ezra, but I think it’s the key mystery of the past couple of decades. Total liquid assets held by nonfinancial corporations have increased from 7.7 percent of GDP to 11.3 percent of GDP.

Why? Why are corporations increasingly unable to find anything interesting to do with their cash in the real world? Why are they implicitly so pessimistic about opportunities for future growth? Is this the financial smoking gun for Tyler Cowen’s “great stagnation” thesis?

I’m not sure. But for 15 years the people with money to bet have been betting that they’ll get better returns investing in financial instruments than they will by investing in expansion of existing products and the invention of new ones. Until we figure out why, we’re going to be stuck with a combination of sluggish growth and financial bubbles as far as the eye can see.

Taken from:

Chart of the Decade: Corporations are Pessimistic About Future Growth

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , | Comments Off on Chart of the Decade: Corporations are Pessimistic About Future Growth

CHART: Which Kills More Birds, Cats or Turbines?

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last month Fox News reported on the “grizzly deaths” of 500 songbirds in West Virginia. Behind the fell deed: a wind farm, caught red-turbined. “To date, the Obama administration… has not prosecuted a single case against the wind industry,” the Fox reporter laments. Opponents of renewable energy love to trot out the risk wind turbines pose to birds, and some engineering work has gone into making them more avian-friendly. But a new study released today in Nature shows that if you really want to protect birds, forget about wind: You need to lock up Kitty.

Chart by Tim McDonnell

The study, conducted by scientists from US Fish & Wildlife and the Smithsonian, found that “free-ranging cats… are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for U.S. birds and mammals.” No word yet on whether the Obama administration plans to prosecute these renegade felines.

Source article – 

CHART: Which Kills More Birds, Cats or Turbines?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on CHART: Which Kills More Birds, Cats or Turbines?

Farewell, Obama’s "Green Dream Team"

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Another member of President Barack Obama’s cabinet is on his way out the door. On Thursday night, Bloomberg News reported that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is planning to leave the Obama administration. The Nobel Prize winner plans to announce his intentions next week, according to sources “familiar with the matter.”

Chu came to Washington from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, where he served as director. He’s a nerd’s nerd—a guy who does physics problems for fun and continued to bike to work in Washington (at least when the Secret Service would allow him to). He has been an advocate of a better energy policy and expanded government investment in research and development in his post at the department. But he often found himself stymied by the politics and bureaucracy of Washington, as The New Republic chronicled last year. He also found himself on the hot seat when the solar company Solyndra went bankrupt shortly after receiving a $528 million loan guarantee from the DOE.

With Chu’s departure, there will be only one person left from Obama’s original “Green Dream Team,” a term environmental groups endowed upon the president’s appointees to key departments. Green jobs guru Van Jones is long gone. Climate “czar” Carol Browner resigned two years ago, and the special post created for her was dissolved a few months later. Jane Lubchenco, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has said she plans to depart in February. EPA head Lisa Jackson also announced her plans to leave the agency at the end of December. And earlier this week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signaled that he, too, is signing off. Meanwhile, the change of leadership at the State Department—with John Kerry likely taking over for Hillary Clinton—is expected to shape our international climate policy as well as key decisions like the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline.

That leaves only one of President Obama’s original “green” appointments in place (at least as far as we know right now)—Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley. This is pretty significant, as the appointees on in these posts have pretty major roles in shaping environmental policy. The administration keeps saying that climate and energy will be an important issue in the next term, but there’s no question that a change of leadership in all the key agencies will impact what happens in the next four years.

See original article:

Farewell, Obama’s "Green Dream Team"

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Farewell, Obama’s "Green Dream Team"