I Was Right About Koster After All - Darn It

I've been intending to do a "mea culpa" posting about my views on Chris Koster. In the primaries, I opposed him vehemently, and questioned his commitment to his new-found Democratic principles. Since then, I've wondered if I was, perhaps, mistaken about his sincerity.

It turns out I my fears were justified.

While others have rightfully complained about his "benign neglect" approach toward Sunshine Laws, I've been hopeful that Chris Koster is doing a good, if imperfect, job.

Unfortunately, Monday morning's paper shows that Koster is an anti-environmental leopard that has no interest in changing his spots. He is using his Attorney General position to actively work toward polluting Missouri's history, coincidentally in alignment with the financial interests of his campaign funders.

Back during the campaign, I wrote about CAFOs and Koster's support of them. CAFOs are Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, more commonly known as factory farms. Koster has chosen to side with the corporate interests rather than the environment, and I wrote about this ugly failure at least twice; it was and remains an important issue of local people not wanting to be subjected to stomach turning stench in the name of corporate profits.

Now Chris Koster is using his office to try to put a factory farm within stench distance of the Arrow Rock State Park.

For a while there, I thought Koster was truly a Democrat, and that my opposition to his candidacy was mistaken. Unfortunately, Koster is choosing corporate interests over local concerns, and profits over the environment. I was right, darn it.

His actions hurt worse because they are the actions of a Democratic office holder.

Are Electric Cars Useless in Missouri? Change the Law!

Sammy Hagar famously claimed he couldn't drive 55.

How does 25 sound?

Under Missouri law, a new breed of electric vehicles will be condemned to go no faster than 25 miles per hour, and must remain on streets with a speed limit of 35 or under, even though the cars are capable of driving at 45 miles per hour.

Personally, I would enjoy the opportunity to handle my 5 mile commute in a noiseless vehicle that doesn't produce emissions, but not if I am going to get pulled over for doing 30 on Gillham or Southwest Trafficway. Such a low speed would be dangerous and obnoxious to my fellow commuters. The laws made sense when electric vehicles were modified golf carts that were incapable of going over 25 anyhow, but Missouri needs to update its laws now so that its citizens are able to take early advantage of emerging automotive technologies.

I Want This for My Next Car

Back in the day, I wanted a 1968 Camaro. Best looking car ever.

But now I'm middle-aged and balding. I still want to drive a '68 Camaro, but middle-aged, balding men cannot drive a convertible like that one without looking like somebody in the throes of a midlife crisis. Guys like me driving sports car convertibles might as well don gold chains and polyester shirts - they are the lounge lizards of the road. (I feel okay driving my wife's Beetle convertible, because that just makes me look like a good-humored gay man, which doesn't really bother me.)

So, now that my opportunity to look cool in a Camaro ragtop has swirled down time's relentless drain, this is what I want. The BG C100 has received Department of Transportation approval to begin distribution of an all-electric car that can drive at 35=45 miles per hour, and has a range of 60-120 miles. Unlike the much-ballyhooed Chevy Volt, this one will cost under $18,000 and will come "fully loaded with features such as air-conditioning, AM/FM stereo and CD player, front-wheel drive, power steering, power brakes and an onboard charger with a 30-foot cord that the consumer can plug into a standard 110V or 220V outlet. Additionally, each car has a free in-dash 8G i-Phone (an upgrade to 16G is available) for music, navigation and hands free telephone capabilities."

Seriously, my commute is under 5 miles, all on city streets. 98% of my driving is on city streets, with a maximum speed under the 45 mph top speed of this thing. Ideally, my '96 Volvo will last another couple years before a catastrophic breakdown, and I'll be able to pick up something similar to the C100 in the appliance department of Costco.

It may not be quite the same thrill as squealing tires in a muscle car, but it will have to do.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition C - Renewable Energy

Proposition C is not only a forward-thinking, inexpensive step in the right direction for Missouri, it is also a wonderful Rorschach ink blot test to uncover fundamental attitudes about the intersection of Government and the Free Market. Absolutists see Proposition C as a scary monster out to devour the Free Market, while realists see it as something positive and helpful.

Here is the language of the measure (and, while I'm at it, here is the link to the Kansas City sample ballot):

Shall Missouri law be amended to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower with the renewable energy sources equaling at least 2% of retail sales by 2011 increasing incrementally to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2% from solar energy; and restricting to no more than 1% any rate increase to consumers for this renewable energy?

The estimated direct cost to state governmental entities is $395,183. It is estimated there are no direct costs or savings to local governmental entities. However, indirect costs may be incurred by state and local governmental entities if the proposal results in increased electricity retail rates.

The question that voters ought to be pondering is whether we are "in" or "out" on breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. I believe now is the time to move forward and seize for Missouri some of the economic, ecological and societal benefits of renewable energy.

The arguments against helping Missouri take a leadership position in the new economy is that it represents an expensive and unjustified intrusion on the Free Market. If alternative energy is a viable option, they argue, the market will recognize and exploit that fact, and utility companies will move toward renewable energy on their own.

Those arguments, based on the fundamental immorality of Libertarianism, ignore the reality of the marketplace in the 21st Century. While it is nice to sit back and dream of the day when enlightened utility companies will embrace new technology, there are two main reasons they never will, and why we need Proposition C to help our state economy.

First, the marketplace is fundamentally conservative, and requires encouragement to adjust its approach on energy. The utility industry is simply not a nimble industry, and never will become one without encouragement. Billions of dollars in "sunk costs" have bound the industry to centralized production and fossil fuels. If I owned a fantastically expensive power plant that burned coal, I, too, would resent a movement toward wind energy, which could reduce the relative advantage I have in the marketplace for electricity. Just as wise saddlemakers and livery stables opposed governmental involvement in paving roads for those unproven cars, utility owners are fighting a rearguard battle against a shift toward renewable energies. Their self-interest does not reflect what is best for Missouri.

Second, Missourians are justified in this enhancement of the free market because the utility industry has so many hidden societal costs. In ways we never really stop to consider, we have been subsidizing fossil-based utilities since their birth. When a coal plant emits "acceptable levels" of pollution, Missourians are subsidizing the profits of the owner by absorbing that pollution. Similarly, when the Missouri National Guard sends troops to Iraq, we are subsidizing our dependence on fossil fuels. (I won't argue whether the Iraq War is a war for oil, but I will insist that our involvement in the Middle East is largely motivated by the region's petroleum.) On the positive side, we demand that our utilities provide us with energy, even after an ice storm, when it might be more economically efficient to wait until spring to repair the lines. The "free market" is a myth in the heavily-regulated and high-social-cost realm of power generation.

Proposition C represents an opportunity for Missouri, and one we should support enthusiastically. In demanding a move toward renewable energy, Missourians will be getting out in front of and supporting the next wave of industrial change. We will be helping the market work for us instead of against us by encouraging innovation and new thinking. If the beneficent boards of our utility companies really had Missouri's interest at heart instead of their own, we would have moved this way generations ago. They, of course, do not have our best interest at heart, so this Proposition C will serve to make our voices heard.

Vote for Proposition C so that Missouri can be at the front of the next industrial revolution.

Koster the Imposter Brought Home the Bacon

CAFO is a word that you'll hear a lot more as the AG race heats up. CAFO is an acronym for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, more commonly known as a factory farm. They replace the image of farms we all grew up with with super-sized concentrations of pigs, jammed together in hideous conditions. I'm no PETA member, but even I don't like the idea of eating something that has spent its entire life jammed in a stinky stall like the most crowded and flatulent elevator you have ever imagined.

Setting aside any porcine pity or tenderness for tenderloins, though, CAFOs are huge canker sores on the environment. They pollute ground water with unimaginable quantities of pig feces and urine. Their smell can make your eyes water, or worse - airborne micro-particles of pig feces can pollute entire zones of beautiful Missouri countrysides.

Economical disaster mirrors the impact on quality of life. Corporate farms don't drive the pick-up to the local feed mill for supplies - they import vast quantities of whatever they need on shiny 18 wheelers without contributing positively to the local economy. CAFOs drive family farmers out of business, and towns disappear when there are no people to shop on Main Street.

Not surprisingly, local communities have sought to protect their towns and the Missouri landscape from these destructive behemoths. Much like the zoning laws that protected Koster when he was living in Hallbrook or in wealthy St. Louis suburbs, local controls are ways for the people of Missouri's towns to preserve their way of life and the towns they have grown up in.

Also not surprisingly, corporate interests have the money to buy legislative protection. Also not surprisingly, Chris Koster was for sale when he was a Republican Senator. He became so enthusiastic about CAFO and the wealthy donors that control them that he actually sponsored SB 364, mockingly entitled the Missouri Farm and Food Preservation Act.

What would SB 364 have done? It would have loosened environmental controls on these factory farms. Not tightened the controls to prevent the spread of disease and environmental damage, but actually loosen those controls, to enhance profits. It also would have prevented counties from controlling their own jurisdictions, ripping local control away from the locals and insisting that only state or federal regulations could be applied to CAFOs.

This is not some act of ancient history I dug out of the vaults - this happened this year, during the 2007 legislative session, while Koster was supposedly becoming a Democrat! Mere months ago, Koster was siding with corporate hog farms against small town Missourians in a classic Republican power play. Now he wants us to trust him?

Personally, I think that stinks like . . . a hog farm.

By the way, both Democrats in the race, Jeff Harris and Margaret Donnelly, opposed the CAFO bill.

Some Look at Global Warming and Ask "Why?" I Look at Global Warming and Ask "Why Not?"

The Bush Regime continues to astound. Remember when NASA was a leader in science and technology - remember when it was THE dream job for high school kids who did well in physics?

Not surprisingly, the Bush Regime has dumbed things down a few notches.

Last week, NPR interviewed NASA administrator Michael Griffin - the man in charge of NASA. Here's what he has to say about the fact of global warming:

I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade.

So far, so good. Even a Bush appointee must face reality once in a while.

But what makes Griffin special is what he does with reality. To coin a phrase, while most of us look at anthropogenic global warming and ask "Why?", Bush appointee Michael Griffin looks at anthropogenic global warming and asks "Why not?".

When asked whether he has any doubt that this is a problem we need to wrestle with, Griffin envisions a world where Arkansas is on the Gulf Coast and Siberia grows pineapples:

And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Bravo, Mr. Griffin! Indeed, who are we to judge such things? If our activities cause Florida to flood, who are we to say that's a bad thing? If our activities cause Africa's drought and famine to spread, maybe that will all work out for the better.

In climate change, there will be winners and there will be losers. Conventional wisdom suggests that it is unwise to unleash forces we are able to neither control nor understand. Conventional wisdom says that starvation, flooding, and dislocation of millions of people will be a bad thing, but, really, isn't labelling them "bad" just an arrogant value judgment?

Blessed with Griffin's insight, I look back on other instances where man has sought to ameliorate man's impact on the world, and, released from my arrogance, I see things in a new light. Why did that arrogant bitch Rachel Carson assume we would want a world without DDT killing off our birds and fishes? Who was the arrogant ass who interfered with our pollution of Lake Erie, so that now we can't light it on fire anymore? Indeed, who are those arrogant anti-nuke wusses who prevent us from unleashing a nuclear winter on this warming planet?

It's time for the arrogant creeps who seek to minimize man's impact on the globe to step aside and let us play with the environment as much as we like. Why must we assume that catastrophic change will necessarily be a catastrophe?

Get Your Hummingbird Feeders Out!

I haven't seen any hummingbirds around yet, but according to this handy-dandy map, ruby throated hummingbirds have been in the area for a month already.

Last year, I didn't see any at my feeder until late June, but they were regular visitors after that . . .

Stupid Blogger Tricks - Attacking the Celebrities

The god of Irony gets a special chuckle when a blogger attacks a celebrity's qualifications for voicing an opinion.

I'm probably violating a union rule by pointing this out, but the fact that you have a blog doesn't make you any more qualified to voice an opinion on global warming than Leonardo DiCaprio.

And, if you're going to start throwing stones from the glass porch on your glass house, it might be helpful to pick a target that doesn't have 99% of the scientists on his side.

Polar Ice and Polarization

A couple months ago, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and thought it was excellent. It was a fact-based presentation on global warming, and it led to some frightening conclusions. Like much of the science surrounding global warming, you can quibble with a few details, but the evidence is overwhelming that something big is going on, and fossil fuels are at the heart of it.

Yesterday, NASA released data that shows a chunk of Antarctica the size of California melted in January of 2005. That's NASA, not some blogger with a vivid imagination.

Despite it all, the rightwing bloggers are almost unanimous in dismissing global warming as a fraud. Their hostility to the concept and to the science behind it is impressive in its baseless vehemence. Any contrary "evidence", even when it consists of a snowy afternoon, is trumpeted, and any outlying "scientist" who staggers out of a revival tent and rejects the scientific method becomes a leading voice. I swear I once heard Rush Limbaugh mocking global warming concerns because of a news story that the largest iceberg ever had been found floating off Antarctica - he completely mistook the import of that fact.

How did a scientific concern become a political schism? Is it because one of the leading voices of that concern happens to be a Democrat whose "loss" to W remains doubtful? It is because Bush happens to be in the White House now that concensus has formed, and action is required (if so, would it make any difference if I agreed that Clinton should have gotten on board with this, too)? Is it because contemporary rightwingers have lost their environmental way? Is it just a healthy cynicism toward scientific theory, to be expected from a group which is still struggling with the concept of evolution?

It doesn't have to be this way. It's not like global warming is a Republican phenomenon, to be blamed on the Bush Regime - it's been building even during the Golden Days of the Clinton Presidency of Peace and Prosperity. It's not like solutions to global warming are going to hurt the big business interests that control the Republicans - many of the more clever large businesses are already paying attention to how energy consumption hurts their bottom lines, and others are lining up to profit from the necessary changes. This could be as big a boon for business as the Iraqi quagmire has been for Halliburton.

In this case, the left is pretty obviously on the correct side of the science. We're listening to real scientists, not pundits. We're looking at evidence, and it's mounting.

It's time for the rightwingers drop the anti-scientific knee-jerk cynicism and join us. Come on in, the water's (disturbingly) warm.