IE does NOT display this site and right sidebar correctly! It is highly recommended you install Firefox to view this site in its full glory. It is also much safer with less risk of viruses and spyware which IE is susceptible to.

Obama Announces New Energy Policy!

October 8th, 2007 11:56 am by Ian G.

Straight from the press release that was in my inbox, here is the new energy policy that was sent out from the Obama campaign people…..

Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future
Talking Points

In a major policy address today, Barack Obama announced a visionary plan to make America a global leader on energy. Obama’s plan lays out bold steps to combat global climate change, free America from the tyranny of oil, and create millions of new jobs and entire new industries here in America. Senator Obama is a proven leader on energy with a strong record of fighting to invest in renewable fuels and raise fuel economy standards. Obama has been honest in telling the defenders of the status quo that when he’s President, the same failures won’t do.

The first part of Barack Obama’s plan is to set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming – an 80% reduction by 2050. To reach that goal, he will ensure that all polluters have to pay based on the amount of pollution they release. The market will set the price, but unlike the other cap-and-trade proposals that have been offered in this race, no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouses gases for free. Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does.

Second, he will launch a Next Generation Clean Energy Fund that will invest $150 billion over the next decade in clean, affordable energy. He will also launch a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to provide $10 billion a year for five years to get the most promising clean energy technologies off the ground so the American economy can benefit from America’s innovations. And he will call on businesses, government, and the American people to make America 50% more energy efficient by 2030.

To meet these challenges, America cannot act alone. That’s why as President, Barack Obama will reach out to leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join us in creating a Global Energy Forum that will meet once a year and lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also work to build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, just like the OPEC nations strategize on supply.

For too long, America has failed to lead on energy. That’s partly because of a President who spent most of his time denying the existence of global warming. But it’s also a failure that pre-dates the presidency of George W. Bush. We have heard promises about energy independence from every single U.S. President since Richard Nixon – Republicans and Democrats. And yet, no matter how well-intentioned or bold, energy plans fall victim to the same timid, calculating, special interest-driven Washington politics.

Some in this race argue that the more time you spend immersed in the broken politics of Washington, the more likely you are to change it. But when they had the chance to require automakers to raise fuel standards, they refused. When they had multiple chances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable fuels that we can grow right here in America, they said no.

Barack Obama has been a leader on energy. When he arrived in the U.S. Senate, he reached across the aisle to pass a law that will give more Americans the chance to fill up their cars with clean biofuels – and he pushed through a law to help develop cars that will get 250 miles to the gallon. He even voted for an energy bill that was far from perfect because it made some real investments in renewable sources of energy. And he fought to eliminate the tax giveaways to oil companies that were slipped into that bill – oil companies that have spent half a billion dollars lobbying Congress in the last ten years while their profits have risen to record highs.

Above all, Barack Obama reached across the aisle to develop a plan to raise our fuel standards that won the support of lawmakers who had never supported raising fuel standards before. And he didn’t just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. He went to Detroit, stood in front of a group of automakers, and told them that as President, we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil. The room was pretty quiet, but Obama believes that leadership isn’t about telling people what they want to hear, it’s about telling them what they need to hear. As President, he will put an end to partisan politics, stand up to the special interests, and help solve our energy crisis once and for all.

Farm bill debate underway; Walz, Peterson, Kline, Goodlatte

July 26th, 2007 7:28 pm by DJ Danielson

Debate has officially kicked off in the US House of Representatives about the 2007 Farm Bill. I don’t follow floor debate in the US House too often but I am already having a flashback to the rhetoric from Marty Seifert and Tim Pawlenty when the Minnesota legislature had under its consideration a proposal to include inflation in budget forecasting. Those two Republicans falsely characterized it as “budget increases on autopilot.”

This time, the Farm Bill would close a loophole which allows for corporate overseas tax shelters. The elimination of this loophole, which would create $4 billion of revenue, is falsely being referred to by Republicans such as a tax “increase.”

I liken it to being shorted on your paycheck and upon notifying to your boss/payroll clerk/HR/whatever being told you shouldn’t be entitled to a pay increase.

Ugh. And due to this provision, these Republicans, such as Agriculture committee ranking member Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), are intending to vote against the bill.

Nevertheless, Minnesota elected officials will get some spotlight, such as Agriculture committee chairman Collin Peterson, who has been heralded for his efforts to find compromise, and Tim Walz who is a member of the committee.

Based on a quote from this story yesterday, it doesn’t appear John Kline will support the bill.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., commended Peterson’s effort but had some reservations, including how a $4 billion increase to nutrition programs would be paid for.

“We have to see how these concerns are met,” Kline said in a statement.

I can only assume Michele Bachmann will vote against it because, well, she votes against everything so why even bother to find some real basis for that conclusion.

We will try and offer updates from time to time here at IDHA and of course Bluestem will continue to provide stellar coverage on this issue.

[UPDATE] Quick Farm Bill update (trying not to live blog as I will not hear the end of how “lame” live blogging C-SPAN is):

The controversial Ron Kind/Jeff Flake delete-everything amendment failed on a voice vote with a roll call vote to be taken later.

In opposition to the amendment, Tim Walz said it was well intentioned but doesn’t address the needs of his district, Minnesota’s 1st, which he described as one of the “richest pieces of agriculture land in the world.”

Walz, in his usual blunt tone, showed irritation at some of the rhetoric being presented in opposition to the bill.

“When I need advice about agriculture, I go to Kevin Paap at the Minnesota Farm Bureau, not the ideology at the Cato Institute.”

13 amendments were approved “en bloc” via voice vote with 17 more remaining. Final passage is expected to take place tomorrow. [/UPDATE]

[UPDATE 2] The Kind/Flake amendment fails 117-309. Looks like that will be all for the Farm Bill tonight.  I always laugh when the parliamentarian has to guide the Speaker Pro Temp through every little process and still has to ask “Now what?” into the microphone. [/Update 2]

Update: Ballfields and a gravel pit to replace forest in Savage?

June 26th, 2007 7:07 pm by DJ Danielson

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one concerned when the Savage City Council via consensus decided to continue with plans to raze a rare Maple Basswood forest.

A letter to the editor from Christina Henning in the Prior Lake American shows perplexion as well:

Let me get this straight:

First, the Met Council, the Minnesota DNR, a local expert and an Environmental Assessment study together point out that a rare forested area known as SS-9 exists in south Savage and that it should be protected at all costs.

Second, the decision is made to build a new high school that will be filled to capacity within two years on land adjacent to SS-9.

Third, supposedly to everyone’s surprise, Prior Lake Aggregates decides its use of the gravel pit on the exact opposite side of SS-9 is at the end of its life, so it decides to develop the land for housing.

Lastly, the Savage City Council meets to discuss the demise of SS-9 and collectively pretend that they had no idea SS-9 was going to be bulldozed right from the start.

Hasn’t anyone any sense on our [Savage] City Council these days? Is there no one who has enough decency to stand up to big-money developers?

Apparently the high school kids will get a front-row seat in higher learning when the chain saws and bulldozers move in and the wildlife moves out.

Today’s lesson in suburban values?

It’s all nice and chummy to talk about protecting the environment for the future, but as benevolent Savage Mayor Tom Brennan says, “People want to see and use their natural resources.”

I’d like to thank the mayor for thinking and speaking for me, by the way. Never mind the ludicrous, idealistic folly inherent in the notion that a rare, forested wild land carries value.

Bring on the bulldozers! There’s money in that there forest!

Now that’s ethical leadership in action.

Comments to the original story on the Savage Pacer website show more citizens less than gung-ho about the proposal:

I personally will not be voting for any member that chooses development over preserving this resource. When the school site was developed, the adjacent woodland was described as a resource that would be used by the school to teach the importance of preserving our natural resources and the forest would prove to be a valuable teaching tool. The school district understood that this land would not be developed. If the school district needs more fields, let them build a second high school. The last thing that we need is another mega high school more devoted to athletics than education.

One council member stated if he was still in high school he would jump off the steep embankment needed to preserve the forest. Lets just hope that our children have a lot more common sense then him. If there are any water tower garfetti cases open from forty years ago, I think we have a suspect.

Terry O’Connell

<blockquote>

Indeed, the concern over jumping off the steep embankment seems far fetched, but you never know with those rascals in high school.

In my opinion, this is another statement from our politicians that do not have a clue what is best for its inhabitants. What can change in six short years. If a forest area is rated excellent, why change that? There was a reason it was preserved during previous development, keep the same.

Another one shows Mayor Brennan’s disconnect with the folks:

As Mayor Tom Brennan said “no one can feel it, use it” Does that mean we can destroy it with a clear conscience? No! The next time your at the Minnesota Zoo look for the sign at the beginning of one of their exhibits that says we are destroying 27,000 species of animals and plants a year! Why should we let this go on in our neck of the woods? Scientists say “this can never be recreated”, Christians would say “We can’t continue to destroy the beauty of God’s creation!” Parents would say “What kind of world will our children have if we continue like this?”

It has been amazing to see Savage grow from a town barely on most maps to a town developed to the stage it currently is. Let’s hope the council takes a step back on this issue.