You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog
The GOAT Blog

Drill here, drill now: the music video

Rob Inglis | Oct 15, 2008 05:10 AM

Did you know that politicians don't pay for their gas? Well, now you do. You'll know even more -- no, you'll be a veritable expert in energy policy -- after you watch this music video, which Joe Romm of climateprogress.org describes as "the first (and hopefully last) song ever inspired by Newt Gingrich."


Wow. Just wow.

1 Comments

Plum Creek deal -- plumb wrong?

Jodi Peterson | Oct 14, 2008 06:59 AM

Since last spring, Plum Creek Timber Company and the Forest Service have claimed that thousands of miles of old logging roads in western Montana can automatically be turned into driveways for second homes and cabins. Such guaranteed access would make Plum Creek's 1.2 million acres in the state worth much more to buyers. The industry-friendly policy would also be applied to private timberlands across the country, most of which can be reached only by crossing Forest Service land.

But that road agreement, brokered by Ag Undersecretary Mark Rey, was made behind closed doors, without comment from the public or from the counties that would bear the burden of providing services and infrastructure for all those new homes springing up in the woods. And the blanket agreement contradicts Forest Service policy and precedent, which for decades has held that easements granted for timber-hauling do not automatically provide residential access (see our earlier story "Easing into development"). County commissioners and Montana Sen. Jon Tester, D, demanded an investigation of the shady deal-brokering. They've also repeatedly requested that the Forest Service supply copies of all of the affected easements, a demand the agency has not met.

Now, the Government Accountability Office has released a letter saying that the deal may well be illegal, despite  Rey's assertion that the old easements allow any kind of use. From the Missoulian's story:

... the GAO concluded Rey's plan “may effect a substantial change” in the minimal access Congress intended. And because it would apply to all boilerplate Road and Trails Act easements, and not just Plum Creek easements, “this provision could have a nationwide impact,” the report said.
The GAO's report faulted Rey for failing to address "this highly complicated matter in a systematic public way.”
"As I've said from the get-go,” Tester said Friday, “public decisions like this need public input. And I'll make darn sure we get all concerns ironed out.

“This report sounds all sorts of alarms about the way the Forest Service is doing business. It tells me Montana is getting a bum deal on Forest Service's road access plan, and that's exactly why I wanted the GAO to look into it.”

Depending on the response -- or lack thereof -- from Forest Service and Plum Creek, Tester may request a full investigation.

Discuss this post

Politics + water = mud

Rob Inglis | Oct 13, 2008 10:39 AM

The League of Conservation voters has compiled a whole list of reasons not to vote for John McCain, some of which are nuanced and good. But they didn't see fit to use any of them in their new anti-McCain ad that just started running in Colorado. Their attack is a lot more basic: McCain wants to take your water. The evidence for this claim lies in McCain's ill-thought-out -- and quickly repudiated -- remark to the Pueblo Chieftain that the Colorado Compact, which governs the Colorado River's allocation between the seven states that make up its watershed, "obviously needs to be renegotiated."

 

"My opponent wants to steal your water" has become a popular line of attack this fall in Colorado, with Bob Schaffer getting into the act by accusing Mark Udall of having a nefarious water-grabbing agenda when he voted to protect the Clean Water Act. Even by the standards of political attacks, it's a pretty asinine accusation. Water issues are incredibly complex -- and are only going to get more so as climate change makes the West drier. They demand nuance and -- yes -- compromise. The last thing we need is for water to become so politically radioactive that politicians refuse to touch it.

Discuss this post

GOP's Acorn fixation is downright nutty

Rob Inglis | Oct 13, 2008 10:45 AM

The McCain campaign -- by now looking for any dirt they can get their hands on -- has just released a web ad  attacking Obama for his ties to Acorn, the progressive community organizing group. The ad tries to link Acorn to the mortgage crisis and accuses it of trying to steal the election by submitting fraudulent voter registrations. On this point, the ad has a Western back story. Acorn's Las Vegas offices were raided last week by state officials who accused the organization of trying to register people who didn't exist or didn't live in Nevada, including some members of the Dallas Cowboys.


But here's where the story gets a little more complex. Acorn actually told state officials about many of the allegedly fraudulent voter registration forms. They were submitted by hired canvassers who had fallen behind on meeting their voter-registration quotas, and apparently got desperate enough to start filling in registration forms themselves. But third-party voter registration drives are required by law to turn in each registration form they receive -- even if that form attempts to register Donald Duck.


Nobody's disputing that some of the registration forms Acorn submitted were fraudulently filled out. What's less clear is whether these fraudulent forms reflect badly on the organization itself, or just on some rogue canvassers. What's abundantly clear is that it would be hard for these fraudulent voter registrations to have any impact on the election. Fraudulent registrations are the easy part of vote fraud. The harder part is having someone go to the polls, claim to be Donald Duck or Terrell Owens, and get shown to a voting booth before some election worker catches on. It seems that the McCain campaign and its talk-show proxies don't think that Nevada's election volunteers are very smart.

4 Comments

A guidebook we might use

Ed Quillen | Oct 13, 2008 03:40 AM

We've got a tight U.S. Senate race in Colorado. The incumbent Republican, Wayne Allard, is stepping out after two terms. Competing to replace him are Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer.

Udall's environmental credentials seem pretty solid, given his voting record in the House, where he has represented Colorado's second congressional district for the past decade. Schaffer represented Colorado's fourth district for three terms from 1997 to 2003, and he supported the Spanish Peaks Wilderness bill.

Go to Schaffer's campaign and you see a picture of the family standing in an aspen grove. We are told there that "the family enjoys skiing, snowboarding, backpacking, and biking in the Colorado Rockies." His campaign commercials have shown wind turbines generating clean electricity.

But then again, the League of Conservation Voters recently named Schaffer to its "Dirty Dozen" list, and after he left Congress, he went to work for an energy company. At his campaign appearances, you sometimes hear chants of "Drill here. Drill now. Pay less."

And that may not be a contradiction. Just think of the abundance of outdoor guidebooks -- to flowers, trees, animal tracks and scat, rocks, etc. -- you find on bookstore shelves, and imagine a new one, something like "Bob Schaffer's Guide to the Colorado Outdoors."

Then envision a couple -- let's call them Bill and Betty -- out for a walk.

"Betty, what's making that noise over there?"

"I don't know. I can't see it because it's behind the mancamp."

"A mancamp? I thought it was just some big trailer houses."

Read More ...
Discuss this post

Power to the people

Emily Steinmetz | Oct 09, 2008 05:30 AM

The burning question in Sevier County, Utah, to build or not to build a new 270-megawatt coal-fired power plant, will be answered by voters in November.  Sevier County citizens collected enough signatures to place Proposition 1, which would amend the county's land use ordinance to require a vote before approving any permits for coal-fired plants, on the ballot.  However, the measure was bounced off the ballot following a District Court decision in September.  But yesterday, the state Supreme Court overturned that decision, giving citizens some direct power over development in their communities.

Earlier this year, Utah's state legislature passed a bill that prohibited the use of ballot initiatives to create or change land-use and zoning ordinances.  The Supreme Court's ruling, which has not yet been released, will likely strike the law down as unconstitutional. 

According to a Salt Lake Tribune article, 175 absentee ballots have already been mailed to voters -- without Proposition 1.  Every vote will count in this rural county (which has fewer than 19,000 residents), where a seven-year-long battle has pitted those hoping for the new jobs promised by Sevier Power Co. against those who fear the negative environmental impacts. 

Discuss this post

When spines aren't enough

Andrea Appleton | Oct 08, 2008 09:55 AM

SaguaroIf you've ever tried to fondle a saguaro, you know they feature a pretty effective deterrent against such behavior. But spines, it appears, are now passé.

To combat cactus rustlers -- who can sell the saguaros to landscapers -- the National Park Service is planning to imbed microchips into Arizona's most enticing specimens. Once past the planning stages, officials at Saguaro National Park will begin injecting the cacti with dime-sized chips. Rangers will be equipped with magic microchip wands. Wave one over a marked saguaro -- be it in the back of a truck or in a plant nursery -- and bingo, the wand will pick up that plant's unique code.

Saguaros can live to be more than 200 years old. The microchip manufacturer claims its chips can last about half that time.

It's somehow sad that these wild old symbols of the Southwest will now be searchable in a database. But the price just one swiped saguaro can bring -- over $1,000 -- means that the plant's built-in bristling anti-theft devices are no longer adequate. Another case of codifying the wild in order to save it.

 

Discuss this post

Bureau of Land Ravagement?

Sarah Gilman | Oct 08, 2008 08:25 AM

Just days after the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation raised serious concerns about the Bureau of Land Management's plan to open up rock art-rich Nine Mile Canyon to 800 more gas wells, the agency is under the scrutiny of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office for its extensive use of categorical exclusions to permit energy projects  in Wyoming and Utah without environmental review, according to the Associated Press.

The practice, authorized by the 2005 Energy Act, has been used thousands of times at field offices in Price and Vernal, Utah; Farmington, N.M.; and Pinedale, Wyo., said GAO officials, citing the bureau's own figures. Agency officials say they were just doing their job, and that they don't set policy.

In Vernal,  the BLM field office waived environmental review of  oil and gas projects 491 times during the 2007 fiscal year alone, GAO officials told the AP.

With the BLM rushing to open much of Utah's red rock country  to motorized recreation and oil and gas development, and permitting 3,700 new wells on Wyoming's Pinedale Anticline in the midst of ozone spikes and precipitous declines of mule deer and sage grouse populations, the scrutiny probably couldn't come at a better time.

But the information is not exactly a revelation: It's no secret that the Bush administration has worked hard to fast track the development of domestic natural gas and oil supplies at the expense of wildlife habitat, air quality, recreation, and cultural resources.

More important is what will be done with these numbers. Given that Democrats and Republicans are pushing for more domestic drilling, with both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain hammering that point in their energy platforms (albeit in different ways), it will be interesting to see if a new administration of either stripe will make any attempt to slow the natural gas rush on the West's public lands.

1 Comments

Why Western Wildfires are getting larger

Felice Pace | Oct 07, 2008 07:05 AM

The October 1st edition of the radio science show “Earth and Sky” featured a US Forest Service official asserting that the acreage of individual wildfires has increased dramatically in just a decade. The Deschutes National Forest in Oregon was provided as an example and climate change was held up as the cause for the dramatic change.

These Forest Service assertions were – at best - half truths. The size of Western wildfires has also increased dramatically because:

  • As research and experience on the ground have documented, logging usually increases the rate of spread of fire for up to 30 or more years after the area is logged and the extent of logged forests on public and private land has increased over time;
  • The Forest Service regularly increases the size of wildfires with huge burn outs, which they then do not distinguish (subtract) from fire acreage statistics;
  • The Bush Administration put Forest Service fire spending on a budget; since then some FS managers have used large burn outs to increase burned acreage in order to get larger future fire fighting budgets.

Most Forest Service managers – and most press outlets - are in denial concerning the connection between logging and fire. While there is a body of research on the connection between logging and fire intensity, rate of fire spread, etc., this research is rarely if ever mentioned in connection with fire risk. Instead, the timber industry exploits climate change and Western wildfires year after year to argue – often through surrogates - that more logging is need to reduce fire risk. This fire season we have seen a flood of such propaganda in the editorial pages of the regions large and small newspapers.

Read More ...
6 Comments

What the election means for the Interior Department

Rob Inglis | Oct 06, 2008 05:50 AM

The scandal-plagued Interior Department has certainly provided plenty of material for journalists during the seven-plus years of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the tabloid-style headlines have come at a price: the pervasive mismanagement of the nation's natural resources, from endangered species and clean water to federally-owned oil and gas reserves. Are things likely to be any different under a McCain or an Obama administration? CQ Politics has tried to answer this question by publishing a list of each candidate's likely picks for Secretary of the Interior. If the list is accurate, it lends real credibility to the Obama camp's contention that a McCain presidency would mean more of the same.

According to CQ, McCain's top picks would be Wayne Allard, Steve Pearce, and current Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. Allard is the retiring Colorado senator who earned a 20% rating from the League of Conservation voters during the 107th Congress. Pearce, a U.S. House member from New Mexico who looks likely to lose his ongoing Senate race to Democrat Tom Udall, owns an oilfield services company and has received more donations from oil companies than from any other industry. His lifetime LCV rating is 1%. He has voted for bills designed to scale back the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Policy Act, and wrote in the Albuquerque Journal that "Inflexible environmental extremists create a tremendous problem for our environment."

CQ's Obama shortlist, on the other hand, contains Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana, and two U.S. House members: Mark Udall and Jay Inslee. Udall would get picked only if he loses his race for the Colorado U.S. Senate seat that Allard is vacating. Schweitzer's support for "clean coal" might rankle some environmentalists, but he is a Western populist who might be able to win grassroots support for more environmentally-friendly Interior Department policies. Inslee, a member of House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been a strong proponent of action on climate change -- he was, for a time, a guest blogger at climateprogress.org -- and was the House sponsor of the Roadless Area Conservation Act, a bill that would make permanent the Clinton-era rule protecting National Forest roadless areas.

With 79% of Americans now convinced the country is on the wrong track, both presidential candidates are trying to lay claim to the mantle of "change." But when it comes to the Interior Department, it's becoming more and more evident that one of them is just posturing.

2 Comments

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. The death of backpacking? | Younger people don’t seem interested in this out...
  2. A graceful gazelle becomes a pest | Inrroducing an African gazelle called the oryx for...
  3. What's killing the Yukon's salmon? | An ecological mystery in Alaska has scientists and...
  4. Plains sense | Ten years after Frank and Deborah Popper first pro...
  5. North Dakota wrestles with radioactive oilfield waste | Regulators look at raising the limit for radiation...
 
© 2014 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone