MsLaurel

Tarot for Lovers and Significant Others


Blog

view:  full / summary

Aquarium Economy

Posted by mslaurel at 05:04 PM on June 21, 2009 Comments comments (1)
All analogies are imperfect, simply because they are analogies and not the thing itself; however, analogies can be entertaining:

Think of the economy in which you live, work and pay the bills as a nice, large aquarium with pretty fish swimming in it.   When some of the water is siphoned out of the aquarium, the water-level drops.  That is a recession.

When some more water is siphoned out of said aquarium, the water-level drops lower, and the  fish start swimming near the bottom.  That is a depression.

What do you call the bucket into which most of the aquarium-water was siphoned?  That, my friend, is called banks and insurance companies.

Now, BE the Change . . .

Posted by mslaurel at 01:16 PM on November 05, 2008 Comments comments (0)
Voting for change is only the beginning, because all genuine change comes from within. By voting, we send out our signal to the Universe that we are ready to enter into change; however, to succeed, one must, as Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

In other words, if we want our Congresspeople to be leaders, we must lead them. (If we do not lead them, the lobbyists and the filibusters will wear-down their resolve.) Fortunately, "leading" is something we can do from where we sit, right now:

After registering with the Care2 petition site, you will receive a "heads up" in the form of an e-petition from one of many reputable activist organizations, whenever an environmental or social issue arises. Petitions carry with them a lot of information in a small space, and you will be amazed at how well-informed you become by reading them.

In addition, writing to our Congresspeople is surprisingly easy when one uses the template provided by the secure site Write Your Representative. This site also provides the correct Congressperson's e-mail address, depending upon one's zip-code.

One thing is for certain: Our Governors, our Congress, our government, will not know what we want or whether we are pleased or displeased --if we lean back in our reclining chairs and wait for them to read our minds.

Obama Victory Speech Transcript

Posted by mslaurel at 09:00 AM on November 05, 2008 Comments comments (0)

Transcript: 'This is your victory,' says Obama

  • Story Highlights
  • Obama: Tonight is answer to those who still question the power of our democracy
  • Obama: "I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Sen. McCain"
  • Obama: "I was never the likeliest candidate for this office"

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama spoke at a rally in Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois, after winning the race for the White House Tuesday night. The following is an exact transcript of his speech.

Obama:

Hello, Chicago.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.

We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. VideoWatch Obama's speech in its entirety »

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America.

A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Sen. McCain.

Sen. McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.

I congratulate him; I congratulate Gov. Palin for all that they've achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart, and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady Michelle Obama.

Sasha and Malia I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the new White House.

And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.

And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe, the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best -- the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America.

To my chief strategist David Axelrod who's been a partner with me every step of the way.

To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.

It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.

It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.

This is your victory.

And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me.

You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education.

There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you, we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

All AboutBarack Obama ? Democratic Party ? John McCain

Wall Street Bail-Out is a Trap (read the fine print)

Posted by mslaurel at 08:52 PM on September 24, 2008 Comments comments (0)
Of the many excellent articles available regarding our prospective bail-out of Wall Street, I have found these three paragraphs from economist Nomi Prins, formerly of Bear Stearns, to be the most insightful:

The $700 Billion Bailout Plan's Fine Print Commentary: A reformed Wall Streeter sifts through the details of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
By Nomi Prins September 24, 2008

"Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan now has a name: the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. But even as Capitol Hill debates TARP, few seem to have noticed the proposal item that puts taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts. It's in Section 6, and the key phrase is this: 'The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.'

"What does "at any one time" actually mean to economists? It means that if everything we American taxpayers buy re-evaluates down to zero, we get to buy more. That's hardly taxpayer 'protection.'"

"In 1999, [Senator Byron] Dorgan had the foresight to vote against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the financial protections put in place following the Great Depression. He warned then that a 'financial swamp' would result from 'the casino-like prospect of merging banking with the speculative activity of real estate and securities,' and that 'the bill will raise the likelihood of future massive taxpayer bailouts.'"

It's a trap! Better to scuttle the whole thing: Let the investment banks liquidate what they can, write down what they can and beg their stockholders and executives to give back some dough. (BTW: If you're not solvent enough to pay what you owe, you have no business distributing dividends or executive bonuses.)

It would be far more efficient and economy-stimulating for the government to 1) pass a law that freezes all sub-prime mortgages, providing a deadline by which time all sub-primes must be re-written in a way that keeps the families in their homes, and 2) print $700 billion to: A) directly help past, present and future sub-primes keep their homes, reacquire, replace or repair the damage done to their foreclosed homes, then B) build dormitories for the homeless people, and C) begin a government-sponsored down-payment-assistance program for first-time home-buyers.

That should get the housing market back on its feet and stimulate local economies a little.

With what is left over, the government can fast-track solar-electric cars, sponsor a trade-in rebate and distribute solar roof-panels instead of oil-stimulus-checks. That would create some good jobs while helping to get the utility companies and their stock-holders off people's backs.

FDR's New Deal Could Prevent Another Wall Street/Mortgage/Economic Mess

Posted by mslaurel at 03:23 PM on September 18, 2008 Comments comments (2)
The Republican Prime Directive, however worded or spun, is to decimate Roosevelt's New Deal. Whether crusading to "deregulate" banks or to "privatize" Fannie and Freddie, Social Security, the VA, public schools and Medicare --it is Roosevelt's New Deal that they are undermining.

This week, in the Wall Street crash, we have yet another example of economic destruction wreaked via undermining The New Deal. What needs to be done is: Reinstate The New Deal and expand on it to catch the Twenty-First Century crooks.

Here is an excellent explanation, in layman's terms, by Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine, as well as a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the think tank Demos. He was a longtime columnist for Business Week, and continues to write columns in the Boston Globe. He is the author of Obama's Challenge, and other books:

Seven Deadly Sins of Deregulation -- and Three Necessary Reforms

Our current crisis is the result of the misguided notion that financial markets
can regulate themselves. Here's a rundown of the mistakes we've made and
the three reforms we need now.


By Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect
Posted on September 18, 2008, Printed on September 18, 2008

The current carnage on Wall Street, with dire spillover effects on Main Street, is the result of a failed ideology -- the idea that financial markets could regulate themselves. Serial deregulation fed on itself. Deliberate repeal of regulations became entangled with failure to carry out laws still on the books. Corruption mingled with simple incompetence. And though the ideology was largely Republican, it was abetted by Wall Street Democrats.

Why regulate?

As we have seen ever since the sub-prime market blew up in the summer of 2007, government cannot stand by when a financial crash threatens to turn into a general depression -- even a government like the Bush administration that fervently believes in free markets. But if government must act to contain wider damage when large banks fail, then it is obliged to act to prevent damage from occurring in the first place. Otherwise, the result is what economists term "moral hazard"-- an invitation to take excessive risks.

Government, under Franklin Roosevelt, got serious about regulating financial markets after the first cycle of financial bubble and economic ruin in the 1920s. Then, as now, the abuses were complex in their detail but very simple in their essence. They included the sale of complex securities packaged in deceptive and misleading ways; far too much borrowing to finance speculative investments; and gross conflicts of interest on the part of insiders who stood to profit from flim-flams. When the speculative bubble burst in 1929, sellers overwhelmed buyers, many investors were wiped out, and the system of credit contracted, choking the rest of the economy.

In the 1930s, the Roosevelt administration acted to prevent a repetition of the ruinous 1920s. Commercial banks were separated from investment banks, so that bankers could not prosper by underwriting bogus securities and foisting them on retail customers. Leverage was limited in order to rein in speculation with borrowed money. Investment banks, stock exchanges, and companies that publicly traded stocks were required to disclose more information to investors. Pyramid schemes and conflicts of interest were limited. The system worked very nicely until the 1970s -- when financial innovators devised end-runs around the regulated system, and regulators stopped keeping up with them.

Seven Deadly Sins

Sin One: Allowing Mortgage Lending to Become a Casino. Until 1969, Fannie Mae was part of the government. Mortgage lenders were tightly regulated. Homeownership rates soared throughout the postwar era, from about 44 percent on the eve of World War II to 64 percent by the mid-1960s. Nobody in the mortgage business got filthy rich, and hardly anyone lost money. Fannie's job was to buy mortgages from banks and thrift institutions, to replenish their money to make mortgages, and along the way to set standards. Fannie financed its operations by selling bonds. In the late 1970s, private Wall Street firms started emulating Fannie. They packaged mortgages, and converted them into bonds. Over time, their standards deteriorated, because they could make more money creating riskier products. In order to avoid losing market share, Fannie emulated some of the same abuses. Government did not step in to regulate the affair -- which was a time bomb waiting for the creation of the sub-prime mortgage business.

Sin Two: Allowing Unregulated Bond Rating Agencies to Decide What was Safe. Sub-prime is only the best known of a widespread fad known as "securitization." The idea is to turn loans into bonds. Bonds are given ratings by private companies that have official government recognition, such as Moody's and Standard and Poors, but no government regulation. These rating agencies have become thoroughly corrupted by conflicts of interest. If you want to package and sell bonds backed by risky loans, you go to a bond-rating agency and pay it a hefty fee. In return, the agency helps you manipulate the bond so that it qualifies for a triple-A rating, even if the underlying loans include many that are high-risk. Without the collusion of the bond-rating agencies, sub-prime lending never would have gotten off the ground, because it would not have found a mass market. Had regulators looked inside this black box, they would have shut it down. They might have needed new legislation, but they never asked for it. And public-minded regulators might have done a lot under existing law, since banks (which are regulated) were heavily implicated in the financing of sub-prime.

Sin Three: Failing to Police Sub-prime. The core idea of bank regulation is that government inspectors periodically examine the quality of bank assets. If too large a portion of a bank's loan portfolio is behind in its interest payments, the bank is made to raise more capital as a cushion against losses. Problems are nipped in the bud. But complex securities require more sophisticated regulation than simple loans. Regulators basically waived the rule on adequate capital for the new wave of mortgage lenders who created sub-prime. Many mortgage companies were not banks. They made loans only to sell them off to the Wall Street sinners of Deadly Sin No. 1 (see above). So there was no loan portfolio to examine, and no real capital. The Democratic Congress anticipated this problem in 1994, when it passed the Homeownership Opportunity and Equity Protection Act. This prescient law required the Federal Reserve to regulate the loan-origination standards of mortgage companies that were not otherwise government-regulated. But Alan Greenspan, a free-market zealot, never implemented the law. And when Republicans took over Congress in 1995, they never called him on the carpet.

Sin Four: Failure to Stop Excess Leverage. The financial economy is crashing today because so much speculation was done with borrowed money. A typical leverage ratio of a hedge fund or private equity company is 30 to one. That means $30 of debt for $1 of actual capital. If you make one serious miscalculation, you are out of business. And in the case of sub-prime mortgage companies, the leverage ratio was infinite, because they had no capital. The game was entirely based on creating debt. As long as times were good, financial firms could keep borrowing to finance their deals. But once investors looked down, they panicked. Some parts of the system are unregulated, such as hedge funds and private-equity companies. But they all ultimately get a lot of their funding from banks. And regulators do retain the power to look closely at banks' books (see Sin No.3 above). Had they used that power to police the kind of highly risky stuff banks were underwriting, they could have shut it down.

Sin Five: Failure to Police Conflicts of Interest. Remember the accounting scandals of the 1990s? In those scandals, accounting firms were paid once to audit corporate books and then again to help clients cook the books and still pass muster with the audit. That was a sheer conflict of interest. Though accountants were (loosely) regulated, Congress did not crack down until cooked books caused the stock market to crash. A second conflict of interest was the corruption of stock analysts, who were telling customers to buy dubious stocks because their bosses were profiting from underwriting the same stocks. In the aftermath of the dot-com bust, Congress narrowly cracked down on these two abuses with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act but simply ignored others -- such as the role of bond-rating agencies and the habit of basing executive bonuses on stock prices that could easily be manipulated by the same executives.

Sin Six: Failing to Regulate Hedge Funds and Private Equity. When Roosevelt's New Deal acted to rein in the abuses in financial markets, it regulated the major players -- commercial banks, investment banks, stock brokers, holding companies, and stock exchanges. But two of the biggest purveyors of risk today -- hedge funds and private-equity firms -- simply did not exist. Today, private-equity firms and hedge funds do most of the things banks and investment banks do. They basically create credit by making markets in exotic securities. They buy and sell firms. They speculate in financial markets with borrowed money, taking much bigger risks than regulated banks. According to House Banking Committee Chair Barney Frank, more than half the credit created in recent years has been created by essentially unregulated institutions. The people in charge of the government -- conservative Republicans -- took the view that these new-wave financial players offered transactions between consenting adults who needed no special consumer protection. But they were oblivious to the risks to the larger system.

Sin Seven: Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. This action, in 1999, was one of two major cases when a cornerstone of New Deal regulation was explicitly repealed. (The other was the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, and if your utility rates are sky-high, you can thank Congress for that, too.) Glass-Steagall provided that if you wanted to speculate as an investment bank, good luck to you. But commercial banks were part of the banking system. They created credit. They were regulated, supervised, usually enjoyed FDIC insurance, and had access to advances from the Fed in emergencies. So commercial banks and investment banks were two different creatures that should stay out of each other's knitting.

But beginning in the 1980s, regulators who didn't believe in regulation either allowed explicit waivers of some aspects of Glass-Steagall or looked the other way as commercial banks and investment banks became more alike. By 1999, when Citigroup had jumped the gun and assembled a supermarket that included a commercial bank, investment bank, stock brokerage, and insurance company, Glass Steagall was so hollowed out that it was effectively dead. The coup de grace was its official repeal, in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. That's Gramm as in former Sen. Phil Gramm, a deregulation zealot and top adviser to John McCain.

Three Basic Reforms

What all of these sins had in common was that they led financial markets to misprice assets. In plain English, that means buyers were purchasing securities based on bad information, often with borrowed money. When firms started losing money on sub-prime in mid-2007 and other owners decided it was time to get their money out, the whole miracle of leverage went into reverse. And it spilled over into other securities that had been mispriced thanks to all the conflicts of interest tolerated by regulators.

That's why, no matter how much taxpayer money the Federal Reserve and the Treasury keep pumping in, they can't turn dross back into gold. The next administration and the Congress need to return the financial economy to its historic task of supplying capital to the real economy -- of connecting investors to entrepreneurs -- and shut down the purely casino aspects of the system that have only enriched middlemen and passed along huge risks to everyone else.

Reform One: If it Quacks Like a Bank, Regulate it Like a Bank. Barack Obama said it well in his historic speech on the financial emergency last March 27 in New York. "We need to regulate financial institutions for what they do, not what they are." Increasingly, different kinds of financial firms do the same kinds of things, and they are all capable of infusing toxic products into the nation's financial bloodstream. That's why Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has had to extend the government's financial safety net to all kinds of large financial firms like A.I.G. that have no technical right to the aid and no regulation to keep them from taking outlandish risks. Going forward, all financial firms that buy and sell products in money markets need the same regulation and examination. That will be the essence of the 2009 version of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Reform Two: Limit Leverage. At the very heart of the financial meltdown was extreme speculation with esoteric financial securities, using astronomical rates of leverage. Commercial banks are limited to something like 10 to one, or less, depending on their conditions. These leverage limits need to be extended to all financial players, as part of the same 2009 banking reform.

Reform Three: Police Conflicts of Interest. The conflicts of interest at the core of bond-raising agencies are only one of the conflicts that have been permitted to pervade financial markets. Bond-rating agencies should probably become public institutions. Other conflicts of interest should be made explicitly illegal. Yes, financial markets keep "innovating." But some innovations are good, and some are abusive subterfuges. And if regulators who actually believe in regulation are empowered to examine all financial institutions, they can issue cease-and-desist orders when they encounter dangerous conflicts.

We're talking about a Roosevelt-scale counterrevolution here. But nothing less will prevent the financial collapse from cascading into Great Depression II. And the public should never again forget that this needless collapse was brought to us by free-market extremists.

Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine, as well as a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the think tank Demos. He was a longtime columnist for Business Week, and continues to write columns in the Boston Globe. He is the author of Obama's Challenge and other books.
© 2008 The American Prospect All rights reserved.

Urgent: Save Coal River Mountain

Posted by mslaurel at 04:27 AM on September 12, 2008 Comments comments (0)
You never thought that mountains could become an "endangered species," did you?

After mountain-top-removal mining happens, the mountain is no longer a mountain. Furthermore, the surrounding lakes, streams, rivers and woods become buried in what used to be the mountain: The land is destroyed. Fish and animals die. Water becomes unsafe, all because a corporation wants to hoard and sell what they think is inside that mountain. How many mountains would you guess have no valuable minerals inside them?

With mountain-top-mining, who needs Al-Queda?


Coal River Mountain is one of the few undamaged mountains left in the Coal River Valley of West Virginia. Massey Coal Company wants to perform "mountain-top-removal" mining on Coal River Mountain. In fact, Massey Coal wants this so badly that they ignored laws and scheduled blasting to begin on September 10th, and the only reason that blasting did not commence was 1) Massey did not receive a permit in time, and 2) Governor Manchin of West Virginia sent his own inspectors to the site to ensure that no blasting would take place.

Governor Manchin had received many e-mails from across the country, urging him to save Coal River Mountain for the site of a future wind-farm that would generate energy and revenue and jobs for the people of West Virginia --in perpetuity! Mountains make excellent wind-farms. My own state has a wind-farm project about to begin.

When West Virginia builds their wind-farm, they will become the 29th state (plus DC) to have a thriving renewable-energy program. Moreover, they will be creating jobs for the West Virginians who will build and maintain the wind-farm, and their utility bills will decrease. Without Coal River Mountain, there can be no wind-farm.

West Virginians want their wind-farm, and they want to save Coal River Mountain:

From CoalRiverWind.org:

Coal River Mountain is one of the last mountains left intact in the beautiful Coal River Valley of West Virginia. However, Massey Energy has plans to mine 6,000+ acres of the mountain - or almost 10 square miles.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to mountaintop removal mining on Coal River Mountain ? wind power. This is a unique opportunity to move our nation and the state of West Virginia toward the production of clean energy, and to preserve our nation?s mountains for generations to come.

But first, we need your help! Citizens from the Coal River Valley and across the United States are working together to create healthy jobs for Southern West Virginia, and clean, affordable energy for Appalachia. Let West Virginia officials know that we have a healthier choice for a diversified economy and safer communities in the Coal River Valley.

This wind farm would:

· Create Jobs 200 local employment opportunities during construction, and 50 permanent jobs during the life of the wind farm. It takes only 27 years for a wind farm to provide a greater number of one-year jobs than the four surface mines combined.

· Create Energy ? Provide 440MW of electricity - or enough energy for 150,000 homes ? indefinitely, as well as a sustained tax income that could be used for the construction of new schools for the county.

· Create Economic Potential ? Allow for concurrent uses of the mountain including harvesting of wild ginseng and valuable forest plants, sustainable forestry, and mountain tourism, as Coal River Mountain is one of West Virginia?s finest mountains.

. Preserve Heritage ? Coal River Mountain has provided for the people of the Coal River Valley for generations. A mountaintop removal mine would block residents from the mountain and destroy the lands ancestors once lived on, as well as the family cemeteries they rest in.

· Protect the Land and Community ? More than 500,000 acres in West Virginia alone have been destroyed by surface mining. Mountaintop Removal mining buries and poisons drinking water, increases flooding, damages homes and personal property, and devastates wildlife habitat.

On Palin: Kilkenney's Infamous E-Mail

Posted by mslaurel at 03:11 PM on September 08, 2008 Comments comments (0)
(This e-mail has been making the rounds.  Here it is, as it appears in Crosscut, a Seattle on-line newspaper.  My conclusion:  Like Bush and McCain, Palin says one thing for the benefit of the media and then does the opposite. Furthermore, those who oppose her machinations lose their jobs. Those who help her --lose their jobs. Her persona is fake. Destruction --of morale, environment and economy --is what Palin creates).

Crosscut

About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla

A suburban Anchorage homemaker and activist ? who once did battle with the Alaska governor when Palin was mayor ? recounts what she knows of Palin's history.

By Anne Kilkenny
Posted on September 2, 2008. Printed on September 8, 2008.
http://www.crosscut.com/2008-election/17341/

Editor's note: The writer is a homemaker and education advocate in Wasilla, Alaska. Late last week, Anne Kilkenny penned an e-mail for her friends about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whom she personally knows, that has since circulated across comment forums and blogs nationwide. Here is her e-mail in its entirety, posted with her permission.

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Gov. Sarah Palin since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first-name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99 percent of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice for vice president and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe."

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life." She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her lifestyle ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time) and less than two years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration, most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings, which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by more than 33 percent. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38 percent. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefitted large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenue during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list, though ? borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt but left it with indebtedness of more than $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library? No. $1 million for a park. $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex, which she rushed through, on a piece of property that the city didn't even have clear title to. That was still in litigation seven years later ? to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in five to seven years without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as governor Sarah proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenue: Spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was mayor of Wasilla, she tried to fire our highly respected city librarian because the librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the city librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys." Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the city and as governor, she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal ? loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the state's top cop.

As mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's police chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a state trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than two dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town, introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal city administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Gov. Frank Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ? one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil and gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job, which paid $122,400 a year, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this commission (who was also the state chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club," when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Sen. Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects ? which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance ? but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork."

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The state party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla, there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would have either protected salmon streams from pollution from mines or tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on whom you listen to). She has pushed the state's lawsuit against the Department of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as a threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for president; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being president.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there are a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

Claim vs. Fact

  • "Hockey mom": True for a few years
  • "PTA mom": True years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
  • "NRA supporter": Absolutely true
  • Social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, but vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
  • Pro-creationism: Mixed. Supports it, but did nothing as governor to promote it.
  • "Pro-life": Mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby but declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation.
  • "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
  • Political maverick: Not at all.
  • Gutsy: Absolutely!
  • Open and transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
  • Has a developed philosophy of public policy: No.
  • "A Greenie": No. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
  • Fiscal conservative: Not by my definition!
  • Pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
  • Pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
  • Pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla's history.
  • Pro-labor/pro-union: No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

Why am I writing this?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name, you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "bad things happen when good people stay silent." Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that's life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the city librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

Caveats: I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending and taxation two years ago (when Palin was running for governor) from information supplied to me by the finance director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: Did I adjust for inflation? For population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall ? they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000" up to 9,000. The day Palin's selection was announced, a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-1990s.

Anne Kilkenny is a homemaker and education advocate in Wasilla, Alaska.

© 2008 Crosscut LLC. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.crosscut.com/2008-election/17341/
postamble();

Sarah Palin Lied to Alaskans About Renewable Energy

Posted by mslaurel at 07:34 PM on September 02, 2008 Comments comments (0)

Sarah Palin was either lying or abysmally ignorant when she said that renewable energy would not be ready for years: Non-profit, 100% renewable energy (New England GreenStart) has been available in my state since 2004. That's two years before Palin became Goverrnor of Alaska on Dec 4, 2006, and my state was not the first.

Sarah Palin is not merely one more Republican politician pandering to Big Oil; Palin is willing to lie to the people of Alaska to promote Big Oil:

According to MoveOn.Org: "She's solidly in line with John McCain's 'Big Oil first' energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species ?she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska." (Big Oil, however, possesses a pre-existing Alaskan land-lease that is four times the size of --and adjacent to-- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where the polar bears live.)

"McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-2881118-JSt0tox&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-2881118-JSt0tox&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-2881118-JSt0tox&t=7


Nevermind the fact that 100% of my own electricity has come from 100% renewable sources for the past 2 years: As of 2007, long before Palin declared her oil-promoting position on energy, twenty-eight states had renewable energy programs:

"Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia require power companies to produce at least some of their electricity from renewable sources such as sunlight, wind or animal waste:

"Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.

"Three other states have voluntary goals: Illinois, Missouri,Virginia." --USA Today

Twenty-eight states as of 2007, how could Sarah Palin have missed this movement within our country?

Since the above article was written, West Virginia is now "going green," rather than allowing mountain-top-removal coal-mining to poison rivers and lakes and blanket homes in coal-dust. With West Virginia on-board, that makes 29 states and DC.

That's more than half of the U.S., using some form of renewable energy. Just think what will happen when The Obama Administration gives renewable energy the enthusiastic support that it needs on a national level. (Sarah Palin would rather lie to you.)

For more details on our nationwide Green Energy Movement, I leave you with an excellent report from Worldwatch Institute, based in none other than Washington, DC. (Sarah Palin, you may want to read this before you visit our nation's capital, which has a renewable energy program of its own.)
Worldwatch Institute

2007: A Banner Year for Renewables in the U.S.

by Janet L. Sawin , a senior researcher and director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental research organization.

March 13, 2008

Last year was a banner year for renewable energy in the United States, especially for the wind industry. As the recent REN21 Renewables 2007 Global Status Report highlights, the industry broke all past global records, installing 5,244 megawatts (MW) of new wind energy capacity in 2007, or 30 percent of all new U.S. capacity added. This brings the cumulative national total close to 17,000 MW?enough to power more than 4.5 million U.S. homes.

The United States continues to lead the world in production and use of ethanol as well, with most of this coming from corn. The industry had about 6.9 billion gallons (more than 26 billion liters) of annual production capacity in 2007?a 60 percent increase over 2005?and most gasoline in the United States is now blended with ethanol.

In addition, the nation is helping to lead a resurgence of concentrating solar power, with two new parabolic trough plants completed during the past two years, for a total of 65 MW of new capacity. And more than 2,000 MW of additional capacity are now planned or under construction.

In the United States, and increasingly around the world, investing in renewables is no longer just about doing the right thing and being green. It?s also about making green, and investment trends reflect that thinking. The United States invested more than $10 billion in new renewable capacity in 2007, coming in third behind Germany and China. Most of this went to new wind power installations.

There was also a huge surge in U.S. venture capital investment in renewables in 2007, greatly due to increased investment in solar energy. Other major recipients of venture capital money were wind power and biofuels?particularly work on next generation fuels, which are expected to be more sustainable than the current food-based biofuels. The United States ranks first in venture capital investment in renewables, accounting for more than 60 percent of the global total in 2006. And U.S. levels will only rise in coming years with new efforts like Google?s program to make renewables cheaper than coal.

Much of this investment is driven by government policy, as well as speculation that the United States will soon put a price on carbon.

At the federal level, support for renewable energy has been inconsistent. The most important policy, the Production Tax Credit (PTC), has helped drive development, particularly of wind power. But the PTC has expired and been extended numerous times since it first came into effect in 1994, creating cycles of boom and bust. It is set to expire again at the end of this year, but is likely to be extended before the year is out.

The federal Renewable Fuels Standard, the only national long-term policy for renewable energy, was just extended and expanded late last year, calling for production of 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) of biofuels by 2022.

The states have really been the biggest drivers of renewables, with many now competing to be the new hubs for clean energy industries and green jobs. Twenty-five states plus Washington, D.C., now have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)?or mandated targets?for electricity generation; an additional four have voluntary policy goals. During the past two years, five states added RPS laws, and at least nine states strengthened existing targets.

Several states have adopted other policies to support renewables as well, with some now considering feed-in laws. Feed-in laws guarantee renewable energy generators?whether farmers who install wind turbines, homeowners who put photovoltaics (PV) on their rooftops, or large utilities that develop large-scale renewable energy projects?a guaranteed market with priority access to the electric grid and long-term fixed payments. They have been extremely successful in Germany and elsewhere, and are now used in nearly 40 countries around the world, including 18 EU countries. Over just the past six months, feed-laws have been introduced into the legislatures in several U.S. states, beginning with Michigan last September. In addition, many states are now part of regional carbon cap and trade programs that could also lead to significant increases in renewable energy use.

California, one of the top states for renewable electric capacity, captured 70 percent of the nation?s PV market in 2006. Thanks to a new Solar Initiative, the state is set to rival Germany, the world leader, in solar PV over the next several years. California aims to install 3,000 MW of new solar electric capacity by 2017, with a state budget of $3.3 billion.

And cities are getting in on the act as well. From San Francisco and Portland in the West Coast to New York City on the East Coast, and from Chicago in the North to Austin in the South, U.S. cities are competing to be green, adopting renewable energy targets and incentives. They are doing so because of a growing recognition that renewables can help them to meet a number of goals: new jobs, carbon emissions reductions, a more secure and stable energy supply, a cleaner environment, and better health for their citizens.

Overall, the United States has enormous potential for renewable energy, particularly in combination with energy efficiency improvements. Only a small share of these resources has been tapped to date. Renewables technologies are available today and can be scaled up rapidly to meet our rising energy demand and to get the country on track to make needed reductions in carbon emissions by mid-century. We can expect even stronger growth in renewables in the United States over the coming years, particularly if strong, consistent, and long-term policies are in place at all levels of government.

Janet L. Sawin is a senior researcher and director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental research organization.

Sarah Palin is MORE OF THE SAME --in pantyhose!

Posted by mslaurel at 02:25 PM on September 02, 2008 Comments comments (0)
Riding in a helicopter and gunning-down wolves with a semi-automatic rifle, so sport-hunters can have the elk and caribou; suing to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge when Big Oil has land-leases 3 times that size right next door to it; no abortions for girls raped by their fathers or others, no health-care for their children, and no equal pay either; whatever Sarah Palin may be, she is not fit to carry Hillary Clinton's briefcase.

Sarah Palin is MORE OF THE SAME --in pantyhose!

The only lives Palin cares about are the Big Oil Low-Lives, and the only green Palin cares about is the kind that will buy her next fur coat. But don't take my word for it; here is an excerpt from the original article written by John Dolan of Defenders of Wildlife:

AlterNet
Sarah Palinā??s Big, Sleazy Safari
By John Dolan
Posted on September 2, 2008, Printed on September 2, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/97207/


Most people had never heard of Sarah Palin when she was named the Republican VP nominee. But I'd been hearing her name all too often, because I belong to a group called Defenders of Wildlife -- and in her time as governor of Alaska, Palin has used her position as governor of Alaska to ruin the Alaskan wilderness in every way she could.

Her most recent "victory" came on Aug. 26, when Alaska's voters defeated Measure 2, an initiative that would have banned hunting wolves from airplanes for sport.

Palin organized a campaign against Measure 2 and funded it with $400,000 of state money. For most of us, the idea of zooming around in a private airplane over snowbound wilderness just for the chance to spot a terrified wild dog and blow it apart with a high-powered rifle is insane. But there's a whole culture out there in love with the idea. Palin did her part by playing the tired old Alaskan pioneer card, saying that lower-48 naysayers who dared to object to the idea of dive-bombing wildlife didn't "understand rural Alaska."

Alaska isn't really very hard to understand. It consists of a minority that loves the wilderness and an overwhelmingly Republican majority that wants to squeeze all the cash it can get out of the state before the oil dries up, the fish die out and the wildlife disappears. Nowhere else does the Republican formula of manipulating the suckers by playing on their silly hatreds and even sillier vanities play out more clearly than in Alaska.

To get an idea of Palin's core constituency, just go to the home page of Safari Club International, one of the groups that fought hardest against Measure 2 -- and is now gloating loudest over this proud victory.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

John Dolan is an editor of the Moscow-based English-language alternative paper, The eXile. He is the author of, most recently, Pleasant Hell (Capricorn, 2005).
Ā© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/97207/




Green Energy Stimulates Economy, Creates Millions of Jobs; Watch Colorado, West Virginia:

Posted by mslaurel at 04:59 PM on August 29, 2008 Comments comments (0)
According to The Washington Post, Colorado has had greater and faster success than expected with implementing their renewable energy plan, despite resistance and propaganda from the oil/gas industry. The people wanted it. They got it, and it works (just like here, in New England). According to The Sierra Club, West Virginia is about to try, so express your moral support :

"The residents of the Coal River Valley of West Virginia, with the support of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, are proposing the development of a 440-megawatt wind farm as an economically viable alternative to a planned mountaintop-removal coal-mining operation. If the mountaintop-removal coal-mining proceeds as planned, it will destroy ten square miles of the mountain, pollute waterways, devastate the surrounding communities, and eliminate the vast wind potential the mountain now holds.
Add your signature to the petition asking West Virginia Governor Manchin to protect Coal River Mountain and bring clean energy and green jobs to West Virginia! "


Renewable Power's Growth in Colorado Presages National Debate
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 18, 2008; A01

DENVER -- When Colorado voters were deciding whether to require that 10 percent of the state's electricity come from renewable fuels, the state's largest utility fought the proposal, warning that any shift from coal and natural gas would be costly, uncertain and unwise.

Then a funny thing happened. The ballot initiative passed, and Xcel Energy met the requirement eight years ahead of schedule. And at the government's urging, its executives quickly agreed to double the target, to 20 percent.

In Colorado -- a state historically known for natural gas and fights over drilling -- wind and solar power are fast becoming prominent parts of the energy mix. Wind capacity has quadrupled in the past 18 months, according to Gov. Bill Ritter (D), and Xcel has become the largest provider of wind power in the nation.

The politics and economics of energy are shifting here in ways that foretell debates across the country as states create renewable-energy mandates and the federal government moves toward limiting carbon emissions. One advocate calls Colorado "ground zero" for the looming battle over energy.

Despite a continuing boom, oil and gas companies here are on the defensive. They are spending heavily as they try to prevent the repeal of as much as $300 million in annual tax breaks that would be shifted to investment in renewables and other projects. . . .

"As goes Colorado, so goes the West, as far as this energy policy debate." . . .

Here are a few million more reasons to want renewable energy in your state:

From EndOil.org:

A Clean Energy Economy is Good for American Workers

Fighting global warming and creating a new economy based on the efficient use of existing energy, reducing polluting emissions, and the conversion to renewable sources of power will be a boon to the American economy and workers. Millions of new ?green? jobs will be created in implementing global warming solutions and creating a new renewable energy economy. Even better, the vast majority of those jobs are in the same areas of employment that people already work in today.

For example, constructing wind farms requires sheet metal workers, machinists and truck drivers. Increasing the energy efficiency of buildings relies on roofers, insulators and building inspectors. Expanding mass transit systems employs civil engineers, electricians, and dispatchers.

Although the exact number of ?green-collar jobs??those that are tied to a renewable energy economy and those which provide high enough wages and benefits to support a family, and long-term opportunity for advancement-- is hard to determine. Here are some estimates:

· A $300 billion investment in America?s economic and energy future over 10 years is estimated to produce 3.3 million jobs and a $1.43 trillion gain in GDP.
Source: Apollo Alliance, 2004 published report, New Energy for America

· 14 million workers in 45 different existing occupations -- nearly one-tenth of the US workforce ? will benefit from the transition to a new energy economy.
Source: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Job Opportunities for the Green Economy, 2008 http://www.umass.edu/economics/Green_Jobs_PERI.pdf

· Renewable energy creates 40% more jobs per dollar invested than coal fired plants.
Source:
Apollo Alliance, 2004 published report, New Energy for America

· If automakers are required to have a fleet-wide average of 35mpg by 2018, car manufacturers would gain 23,900 jobs, and nationwide there?d be an increase of a total of 241,000 jobs by 2020.
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, June 2007

· The solar energy industry employed over 20,000 people in 2001. That number is expected to increase 7.5 times -- to 150,000-- by 2026.
Source: United States Photovoltaic Industry, May 2001

· The U.S. has 18,000 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity. In 2006, the wind industry created 16,000 direct jobs.
Source: American Wind Energy Association, March 2007

· 50,000 megawatts of added wind capacity across 25 states will generate well over 100,000 jobs in manufacturing generators, rotors, towers and other turbine components.
Source: Renewable Energy Policy Project, 2004

For additional estimates of future job creations and actual numbers of those already implemented, please refer to the links provided.

http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/528
http://accounting.pro2net.com/x62825.xml


After all that, here is how John McCain handles the subject of renewable energy:


From MoveOn.org:

What if there was a vote to decide if $13.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies should go into oil alternatives, like solar and wind? What would you want your Senator to do?

Well, as you probably guessed, there was such a vote. We needed 60 votes to prevail, and 59 of them were in. But John McCain ducked the vote.1

As a result, instead of powering millions of homes with clean energy and building next-generation solar technology, we're giving ExxonMobil and other companies billions in tax breaks at a time when they're already making record profits.

The ad links Republican support for oil tax breaks with the campaign contributions they're taking from the oil companies. Exposing their favors for big oil can puncture Republican promises to help people hurting from high gas prices.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/dolead.html?id=13516-2881118-puSghIx&t=4

Thank you for all you do.

?Noah, Justin, Nita, Anna and the rest of the team

Source:
1. "Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007," U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote, December 13, 2007
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00425&long=1

View Older Posts »

Rss_feed