Category Archives: Environment

The Midnight Ride of the Wiz: Green Diamond is coming!

The project formerly known as Green Diamond may have caught its opposition napping when it struck like a thunderbolt with its latest, wildest plan — which actually involves Cayce doing a sort of Anschluss across the river, seizing part of Richland County — but it’s waking up now.

Like a latter-day Paul Revere, Bob Wislinksi has apparently run hither and yon, and is preparing his ramparts as we speak. He seems to have roused the yeomanry of Riverland Park to take a stand tomorrow:

Media Advisory                  Thursday, Dec. 6, 11 AM
Contact: Bob Wislinski          Riverland Park Neighborhood Center
                                      (corner of Riverland & Brookcliff Drives)

*Riverland Park neighborhood leaders and concerned Cayce citizens will
hold Thursday news conference to voice opposition to Cayce’s proposed
annexation of Green Diamond property*

A group of leaders from the Riverland Park neighborhood in Cayce and
other concerned citizens in the community will hold a news conference at
11:00 am at the Riverland Park Neighborhood Center (also known as the
Riverland Park Police Sub-station) located at the corner of Riverland
Drive and Brookcliff Drive in Cayce.

At the news conference, Riverland Park residents and other Cayce
community leaders will discuss their opposition to Cayce City Council’s
recently announced plans to annex the controversial Green Diamond
development into Cayce.

The Riverland Park neighborhood has been identified by FEMA as the Cayce
neighborhood most likely to be flooded by Green Diamonds levees, should
they ever be constructed.

Besides Riverland Park’s vulnerability, other participating neighborhood
and community leaders will discuss additional financial, infrastructure
and public liability reasons why the preliminary annexation should be
opposed by every Cayce citizen, regardless of where they live. The group
will lay out a general plan to beat the ill-begotten annexation plan.

            ###

I have the distinct feeling that all of this is going to get more interesting before it gets dull again.

Alive, alive… IT IS ALIVE!

One of my interlocutors wants to discuss the resurrected Green Diamond plan. Have at it. This thing is coming from so far out of left field, and without any warning whatsoever, to the point that I can’t even start thinking about it on a Friday (especially when my Sunday column’s already due, and I haven’t picked a topic). Right now, my only reaction to the news is, "Say what?" But here’s the story, and here’s an excerpt:

    Developers who for a decade have pushed to build a $1 billion community south of the capital city have launched a third attempt — this time by leapfrogging a river and trying to be annexed into the city of Cayce.
    Columbia Venture petitioned Cayce within the last week to annex 3,000 acres in Richland County.
    Cayce Mayor Avery Wilkerson said Thursday the city is poised to do just that.

So have at it. I’ll wait until I’ve been "taken up in the spaceship," and have the opportunity to ask some questions about it. You know, like "Before, we were worried about it flooding Cayce across the river. Whom might it flood now?" Things like that.

The spaceship thing is an old Green Diamond joke on the editorial board. Remember when this thing was first brought up, and it was something like a year or so before we saw any diagrams or heard any details? Well, for months during that period, former S.C. Agriculture Commissioner Les Tindal was going around saying he had seen the plans, that they had been spread out before him on a table, and he examined them. We kept saying Mr. Tindal had been "taken up in the spaceship," and we thought it pretty weird that if there were detailed plans, why was Mr. Tindal the only one who had seen them?

Midlands environmentalists gird for battle

This just in from Bob Wislinski:

Conservation organizations from
across the state will gather in Columbia Thursday, October 25, 11 AM in the SC Wildlife Federation conference room at Middleburg
Office Plaza (Kittrell Bldg. –
directions attached)
to announce opposition to Santee Cooper’s proposed coal plant in
Kingsburg.

Several weeks ago, the SC Electric
Cooperatives released new studies showing conservation and renewable energy
savings possible within their systems over the next 10 years. The Electric Coops
are state-owned utility Santee Cooper’s largest customers. Last week and in the
face of mounting criticism of their Pee
Dee
coal plant proposal, Santee-Cooper
announced new internal long-term energy conservation programs too.

Yet Santee-Cooper still insists that
its controversial 1320 MW Pee Dee pulverized coal plant is needed.

The
studies by the cooperatives contradict Santee-Cooper’s assertions about the
essential need for the coal plant. This comparative and statistically valid case
against the coal plant has never been publicly presented in this
fashion.

Groups represented at the Conference
will include: Coastal Conservation League, Environmental Defense, Conservation
Voters of South Carolina, SC Sierra Club, SC Wildlife Federation,
Southern
Alliance
for Clean Energy and Southern
Environmental Law Center.

… which reminds me. The co-ops came in to see us Monday about their studies, and I haven’t posted anything yet, because it was a lot of stuff to digest. I’ll get to it soon.

 

I don’t deserve the credit

Gas1

After noting that one or two of my correspondents were — and I’m sure they were doing it for convenience’s sake — referring to the gasoline tax hike as "Brad’s taxing scheme," or using similar terms, I thought I’d better set the record straight.

I deserve neither the credit nor the blame. In fact, before I embraced the idea, I went through all the objections that y’all raise — disproportionate burden on the working class, cooling effect on the economy, etc. But I believe this is the best, clearest way to:

  • Spread the burden of fighting terror among ALL of us; it’s obscene that we’re not asked to do a thing beyond being inconvenienced at airports. (And while I worry about the poor as well, it’s interesting that David Brooks seems to think that raising the gas tax is more progressive than the SCHIP program. He must be correlating SUV ownership to wealth, or something.)
  • Cut off funding to some of the worst enemies we have in this world, who are made a little richerGas3
    every time we top off the tank.
  • Push us toward alternative fuels that are not only strategically smarter, in terms of making us less dependent, but much, much friendlier to this endangered orb. It would do this partly by making gasoline less marketable, but it would also…
  • Provide a lucrative new revenue stream to — take your pick — pay for the war, fund our neglected infrastructure, build public transportation (I’ll take light rail, please) and develop better fuels. My pick would be all of the above, if the stream were big enough.

I did not arrive there by myself. I was influenced by an array of other writers, who have hit this theme again and again over the last couple of years.

To answer the question asked by Jimmy Rabbite of prospective band members in "The Commitments," here are my influences, and links to their works:

Robert J. Samuelson
As the economist in the bunch, he presents the idea most credibly, thoroughly and convincingly. If a guy like Samuelson were against the idea, I’d be worried. His being for it gives me confidence in something that I arrive at in a more intuitive manner.

  • An Oil Habit America Cannot Break — October 18, 2006 —…Our main energy problem is our huge dependence on imported oil. For years, some remedies have been obvious: Tax oil heavily to spur Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and to drive a bit less, raise sharply the government’s fuel economy standards so those vehicles are available, and allow more oil and gas drilling. In recent years, we’ve done none of these things. It’s doubtful we will anytime soon…
  • Greenhouse Guessing — November 10, 2006 — …In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionallyGas2
    "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won’t materialize for decades, probably after they’re dead. For example, we could adopt a steep gasoline tax and much tougher fuel economy standards for vehicles. In time, that might limit emissions (personally, I favor this on national security grounds). Absent some crisis, politicians usually won’t impose — and the public won’t accept — burdens without corresponding benefits…
  • Seven Tough Choices We Will Not Make — January 17, 2007 — …Enact an energy tax equivalent to $2 a gallon on gasoline — introduced over six years, or about 33 cents annually. The purpose: to increase tax revenue and induce Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles….
  • Blindness on Biofuels — January 24, 2007 — …The great danger of the biofuels craze is that it will divert us from stronger steps to limit dependence on foreign oil: higher fuel taxes to prod Americans to buy more gasoline-efficient vehicles and tougher federal fuel economy standards to force auto companies to produce them. True, Bush supports tougher — but unspecified — fuel economy standards. But the implied increase above today’s 27.5 miles per gallon for cars is modest, because the administration expects gasoline savings from biofuels to be triple those from higher fuel economy standards….
  • A Full Tank of Hypocrisy — May 30, 2007 — …Today’s higher gasoline prices mostly reflect supply and demand. "Holiday travelers ignoring fuel costs," headlined USA Today before the Memorial Day weekend. Gasoline demand is up almost 2 percent from 2006 levels. Meanwhile, gasoline supplies have tightened. More refineries than usual shut this spring for repairs — some outages planned, some not (from accidents or dangerous conditions). In April and May, refineries normally operate well above 90 percent of capacity; in 2007, the operating rate was about 89 percent. Imports also declined for many reasons: higher demand in Europe; refinery problems in Venezuela; more gasoline demand from Nigeria. It’s true that oil companies will reap eye-popping profits from high prices. Still, the logic that steep prices, imposed by the market or by taxes, will encourage energy conservation is irrefutable. At the least, high prices would curb the growth of greenhouse gases and oil imports….
  • Prius Politics — July 25, 2007 — …But we’ve got to start somewhere

Up where that ol’ demon lives

A reader, apparently doubting the Energy Party axiom that sharply increasing the price of gasoline via a tax increase would lower consumption, defund our enemies, clean our air, prevent catastrophic climate change and help the Cubs win the World Series, raised this point on my last post:

Hasn’t the price of gas gone up about $1 over the past 2-3 years?
People were saying in 2005 that a $1 increase in the gas tax would
reduce consumption. Did it?

Posted by: Gary | Oct 9, 2007 1:39:59 PM

Yes, it did (go up a dollar) and no it didn’t (depress demand). But I believe that’s because the price was so low to start with — near historic lows, adjusted for inflation.

I’m sort of reminded of one of my favorite books and movies, "The Right Stuff." The filmmakers had the brilliant stroke of having Levon Helm narrate the film, enabling him to say such things as (and you have to hear it in that gravelly Arkansas accent):

There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged
him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would
buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1
on the meter, seven hundred and fifty miles an hour, where the air
could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through
which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound
barrier.

Well, as it turned out that, to paraphrase Sam Shepard as Yeager, the damned thing didn’t even exist. At least, it didn’t exist in the sense of being something that would rip your ears off if you tried to go through it. So test pilots kept pushing the limit back. When Scott Crossfield actually passed Mach 2, Jack Ridley (also portrayed by Levon Helm), assures Yeager et al. that there are still frontiers to be challenged:

The real test wasn’t Mach 2. That demon lives at about 2.3 on your machmeter.

So it is that I find myself saying that ol’ demon that’ll kill the SUV wasn’t really to be found at $3 a gallon. That demon lives more at about $4 or $5 on your gas pump.

Kidding aside, I think an immediate, all-at-once increase of a dollar or even two — something that can only be achieved with a tax increase — would have a shock effect that gradual increase would not. The debate leading up to such an increase would be filled with such emotion, such doomsday moaning and crying, that when it actually happened, it would have a tremendous psychological effect.

Admittedly, that effect might wear off if that was then the permanent price, as others have suggested and I have endorsed. But even if consumption crept back up, less of the money would be going to the petrodictators, and more would be going into paying for research for ways to become independent of those sources for good.

Mercury

Checking in with Emile, picking up some pork and other good stuff

With my wife back in town, and what with her missing buying fresh local produce from the Amish up in PA, we took Emile DeFelice up on his invitation to head downtown for the alternative farmer’s market at Gervais and Vine.

We got there sort of late, and some of the vendors were shutting down, but we bought some pork chops, Italian sausage and breakfast links from Emile, and some okra from somebody else — nice little tender ones, too, none of your stringy gigantic pods you tend to get late in the growth cycle. Oh, yeah — and a couple of pounds of ground Angus beef.

It was a little pricey — to which my wife, an organic gardener since college days, says it’s better this way because when she goes to the supermarket she’s tempted to buy stuff she doesn’t need. I also find it hard to reconcile the ideas of "local" and "fresh" with frozen meat. But as Juanita says, if you’re not going to do hormones and preservatives and all that garbage, you have to freeze it. She says that with one of those looks and tones like she can’t believe she married, and bore 5 children for, such an idiot.

Hey, but I’m down with the whole Mr. Natural thing, and always have been. When she and I were first married, and living in what had been her grandparents’ house in Jackson, TN, we were really into that stuff. So much so, in fact, that right after we started living there, a natural-foods store called The Pumpkin Seed opened in a tiny space at the back of what had been her grandfather’s drug store across the little side street the house was on. It was run by a couple a little older than we were who had dropped out and had a dairy farm up in Carroll County. They would give us free manure for our garden — which was about 30 feet from the door of their shop. Since dairy products are deadly to me, I never had any of their milk, but they said it was really good except for the taste of the onion grass the cows ate.

Which sort of brings us back to Emile’s farm, where the hogs graze on whatever they want, and lie around and do whatever they want, except, presumably, watch TV, because that would make them get all flabby.

Emile’s a political guy and sure enough, there’s a political statement in this farmer’s market, which is a deliberate alternative to the State Farmers Market, which caters to a lot of out-of-state vendors and products, and which is subsidized by a lot of tax money, which Emile is against. (So are we, for that matter — we’ve fought unsuccessfully to keep state money from being wasted on the new one out at the end of Shop Road.)

And seeing as how it’s such a political farmer’s market and all, it was fitting that Emile said our own Doug Ross had dropped by earlier, which sort of blew his mind, meeting somebody he’d previously known only virtually in the flesh. And while we were there, Bud Ferillo came by and got himself a late breakfast of fresh strawberry crepes. So it was a happening place.

Emile says he’s going to send us some more info on where to buy local and natural on a regular basis, and I’ll post it here when I get it.

I ain’t gonna work on Emile’s farm no more… hang on, I gotta get my ax, cuz I’ve got another one comin’ on…

Slap 55 mph on our ‘friends’ the Saudis

My friend and sometime Energy Party think-tanker Samuel Tenenbaum sees justification for a true, enforced, 55-mph speed limit in many things — including this latest outrage from Saudi Arabia: The Jerusalem Post reports that our good friends over at the house of Saud are threatening to confiscate Christian and Jewish tourists’ Bibles.

Quoth Samuel:

Now why are we sending hundred of millions of dollars to them when they have no respect for any of us? Time for 55mph and deny them petrodollars to teach hate, fund terrorists, and deny all of humanity  our equality! Wake up !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let’s stop all the other bromides that much of our establishment is putting out about the war on terror and energy conservation !We are funding our own executioners. Lenin said we would sell the rope that they would hang us with. He is right but he was with the wrong crowd ! Do we have any organization that will stand up? Do we have any leaders out there? Are they so afraid of their own shadow? I am one disgusted human being!

Samuel Tenenbaum

He gets like that, and it’s one of the things I like about the guy.

Anyone for a bigger, badder ‘Green’ Diamond?

Attention, Austin Powers: Dr. Evil has assumed control of the beach development conglomerate Burroughs & Chapin, and he plans to use it to rule the world! Which means B&C hired a new top guy who wants to do what they’ve always wanted to do.

OK, maybe I’m exaggerating a tad. Actually, I’ve never been one of the reflexive, anti-Green Diamond, B&C haters. I had serious doubts about the floodplain project, but did not consider the company to be Eee-ville (like the Fru-its of the De-ville) for proposing such a plan.

But I sort of soured on them when they carried out their diabolical plan to tear down the Pavilion. Really,Drevil
think about it — for those of us who grew up going to the Grand Strand in the summer, is that not like some sort of Bond-villain plot? I mean, it’s not the Golden Mosque, but can’t you just see a guy with a shaved head (like the one in the picture) holding his pinky to his mouth and delighting in saying, I will blow up your seaside Sanctum Sanctorum unless you send me … one hundred billion dollars!

Well, the actual name of the guy in the picture is Jim Rosenberg, which is why I restrained myself from headlining this post, "Lebensraum." He’s the newly unveiled head of Burroughs & Chapin, and down here at the beach, that is major news. Those of us in the rest of the state might want to pay attention, too, since the new guy wants to grow the company. Yeah, I know, all new CEOs say they want to grow the business, even the ones hired to tear it down and sell off the pieces. But when Burroughs & Chapin says it, believe it:

"If you think the last 14 years was high growth, fasten your seat belt," Rosenberg told the crowd.

The headline in the story that led the Sun News this morning was "New president pledges growth." Here in Horry County, you don’t even have to ask, "the president of what?" I was particularly touched by this passage:

One of the first things he did when arriving on the Grand Strand was visit the former site of The Myrtle Beach Pavilion Amusement Park. But he said it’s too soon to determine what will happen there or at the empty 60-acre site that used to be Myrtle Square Mall.

I wondered whether he laid a wreath while there. If so, the story doesn’t mention it. But at least he paid his respects.

Sure, it’s easy to be nostalgic about something you don’t have to deal with, and I recall being told by the former editor of The Sun News that the Pavilion area had become seriously blighted, a magnet for drugs and crime, etc. But I guess my image of the place will never go much beyond the one in the movie. And now that it’s gone, it sort of reinforces that — even though that image came from before my own time, and own experiences.

Oh, well — gotta pack the car and head back to Cola town.

Puttin’ on the heat

We’re hearing a lot from groups that are using the wide-open presidential race to try to twistRamsburgh_2 candidates’ arms (gently, but insistently) to talk seriously about the issues that have been most assiduously avoided in this
country: health care, education, and the like.

Today, it was a group pushing the issue dearest to our hearts here at Energy Party
HQ.

Visiting more or less under the auspices of Conservation Voters of South Carolina were the following:

Their message about the need for a rational, comprehensive energy policy is a most timely one, in three ways:

  1. Voters across the spectrum are ready to demand real answers from candidates.
  2. You can’t win the War on Terror without it.
  3. It’s necessary to save the planet.

Read more about their movement here.

NayakParticularly with Democrats Obama and Dodd starting to say some things that make sense (although Dodd’s "Corporate Carbon Tax" is a ideological copout — everybody needs to pay more for wasting energy, or you accomplish nothing), while Biden
long has done so, and McCain has been trying to do something for some time in the Senate, and even Bush (who’s he) getting on board, I’ll be listening with some anxiety to hear what some of these other folks who actually could be president have to say tonight.Timberlake

The conservation groups are not putting their collective imprimatur on anybody’s plan, much less endorsing candidates. They’re just insisting that candidates have a plan so we can have a real discussion for once, extending beyond ideological platitudes.

Here’s what I think: We’ll have to do every practical thing that any of theseChamblee candidates are talking about, and then a whole lot more, just to begin to get real and have the necessary effect to win the war, save the planet and other important stuff.

And yes, we should start with the plan Tom Friedman and other pundits keep pushing: A big ol’ honking tax to bring the price of oil up permanently. Most of the rest of a get-real energy plan would flow from, or at least be encouraged by, that essential move. Here’s a taste of his latest on that subject:

Everyone has an energy plan for 2020. But we need one for 2007 that will start to have an impact by 2008 — and there is only one way to do that: get the price of oil right. Either tax gasoline by another 50 cents to $1 a gallon at the pump, or set a $50 floor price per barrel of oil sold in America. Once energy entrepreneurs know they will never again be undercut by cheap oil, you’ll see an explosion of innovation in alternatives.

For the rest of the column, you’ll have to read the paper tomorrow.

Keeping us safe from common sense

Vigilant S.C. lawmakers keep
us safe from common sense

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
IF YOU THINK lawmakers are going to do the sensible thing and ban smoking in restaurants statewide, you must not have lived in South Carolina very long.
    OK, but surely they’ll at least get out of the way of local governments and let them respond to the great majority of voters who want to dine smoke-free, and deliver waitresses, cooks and bottle-washers from having poisonous gases crammed down their lungs in their workplaces?
    You think they’d at least do that much, right?
    Where are you from, boy? Russia? London? New York City? I never heard such innocent foolishness. Let me lay some facts of life and slow, lingering death on you. I should start by debunking a myth or two.
    First, this absolute refusal to use common sense and protect the public from a ubiquitous carcinogen is not a Southern thing. It’s a South Carolina thing.
    I discovered this detective-style, which is always the best way. I went into a Longhorn Steakhouse in Savannah last month and asked for a seat in the nonsmoking section. The hostess brushed off my request with a dismissive, “There’s no smoking in Georgia, silly.” All right, she didn’t actually say “silly,” but she was probably just too busy, or trying to be nice, or something.
    It seems that back in 2005, Georgia lawmakers decided that kids who get dragged to restaurants by their parents, which for kids is enough of a bummer, shouldn’t also have to die of lung disease. So the state banned smoking in public venues that serve children. (At least one joint responded by banning children, but you’ll always have a few like that.)
    The proposal was introduced by a state senator who also happened to be a family physician, and he told everybody breathing smoke was bad for kids’ health. That seemed to do the trick.
    That would never sway our lawmakers, who are made of sterner stuff. Secession was bad for kids’ health, too, but what was that compared to our iron determination that nobody was going to tell a South Carolina white man what he could do with his property. No sir, not ever.
    FYI, you can’t smoke in restaurants in Arkansas, Florida or Kentucky, either, or in 18 other states, according to the Web site of Smoke Free USA.
    Our lawmakers aren’t going to let that happen here, though — not even on the micro level. They made sure of that more than a decade ago, when Spartanburg had the temerity to ban smoking in its restaurants.
    They knew they would never give in to common sense, but with the Spartanburg example out there, those other weak-kneed local governments, being so close to the people and all, would start caving left and right, giving votgers what they wanted.
    So they passed a law that said henceforth cities would not be allowed to ban smoking. Stupid and evil as it may be, you’ve got to admit this move was forward-looking, given the rash of attempted bans recently.
    Why don’t they want people to be allowed to ban smoking in their own communities? Is it self-interest; is it greed for the tobacco lobby’s money or anything like that? No, that’s another myth.
    Rep. Ralph Davenport, R-Spartanburg, showed how selfless backers of the pre-emption were when he indicated at the time (1995) that even though his asthmatic daughter was “crippled” any time she so much as walked through smoke, he saw no reason to be “eroding the free enterprise system.”
    You see, in South Carolina, smokers and business owners have rights; employees and other nonsmokers don’t. Never mind that there are a lot more employees than business owners, and three times as many nonsmokers as smokers. Think about it: If South Carolina started handing out rights to just anybody — such as duly elected local governments trying to protect the public health — there’s no telling where it would stop.
    But prophetic vision isn’t quite enough if one is going to keep protecting the prerogatives of a privileged minority — and if the Legislature knows how to do anything, it knows how to do that. You also need eternal vigilance.
    A couple of weeks back, a really wild and crazy thing happened — wild and crazy by Palmetto State standards, I mean. Sen. Vincent Sheheen, an idealist who, despite his youth, has been around enough to know the futility of such gestures, nevertheless proposed to revoke pre-emption. He proposed, as an amendment to a bill banning smoking on school grounds, the following:

    Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, a county or municipality may enact ordinances prohibiting or restricting smoking in businesses or establishments open to the general public.

    It didn’t ban smoking, or tell anybody to ban smoking. It merely got state government out of the way so that Greenville, Columbia, Sullivan’s Island and all those other communities could do what they have been trying so hard to do in response to demand from their citizens.
    The wild and crazy thing was that the amendment actually passed. But that was a moment of weakness by the rank and file. Before final passage of the overall bill, Senate leaders — and we call them that without a shred of irony, because the rest of the state follows where they lead — let it be known that the overall bill would be doomed if the amendment stayed. So it went away.
    What do you do with people like this? They not only won’t act in the public interest; they take extraordinary steps to make sure nobody else does so.
    In South Carolina, what we do with them is keep electing them. But I can’t tell you why.

Who resurrected the electric car?


A
s part of my continuing quest to stay within shouting distance of at least a passing acquaintance with recent film, I watched the following three (on DVD of course):

  • "All the King’s Men."
    Fairly entertaining, but bizarre. I don’t
    think there was a single Southerner in it, much less a Louisianan, and
    the accents were all over the place. Why couldn’t they have gotten
    James Carville to play Sugarboy? Of course, Stark’s boys wouldn’t have been Cajun. He could have been Tiny Duffy, then, instead of Tony Soprano filling that part. It didn’t really disappoint, but my expectations weren’t high.
  • My expectations were very high for "The Departed," and I’m happy to report that they were exceeded. This may be Scorcese’s best, and that’s say a LOT. Yeah, it’s another gangster film, but it’s as different from "Goodfellas" as "Goodfellas" was from "Mean Streets." And it completely deserves to be mentioned alongside them. I’ll say no more about it; I don’t want to spoil anything. See it.
  • "Who Killed the Electric Car." Maybe not as great esthetically as "The Departed," but still a must-see. The conspiracy of interested parties that together ended California’s experiment in creating a market for electric cars is enough to turn the most sensible person into Oliver Stone. To see the wonderful vehicles GM and other major automakers created to meet that demand, then to see them crush the movement, then round up every one of the vehicles for destruction — even though the leaseholders (they never let anybody buy one) desperately wanted to keep them — is pretty powerful stuff.

But imagine my surprise, after seeing that, to go down to party on St. Patrick’s Day in Five Points and find — an electric car.

Not a mere hybrid, mind you, but a car that you can plug in anywhere, a car that uses NO fossil fuels whatsoever. (At least, not unless your electricity is provided by coal, which is too often the case.) Hybrids have their advantages, of course, with their unlimited range. But there’s such an inspiring purity about the electric car. If we could all drive those, with electricity provided by nukes, the Energy Party dream would be here.

In case you’re interested: The vehicle is called a Zap car (ZAP stands for Zero Air Pollution), and are being promoted locally by Dr. F. Steven Isom. His Website is EVCarolina.com, and the phone number on his business card — which proclaims "Electric Vehicles NOW!" — is (803) 233-1700.

Cool stuff.

Energy Video III: Bill Barnet


B
ill Barnet is the former business leader who helped start the education accountability movement before he ran a write-in campaign at the very last minute for mayor of Spartanburg … and won.

He’s one of those guys who doesn’t need his job, and in fact doesn’t need politics at all. He does it to try to make the world a better place. That’s why he came to see us with Joe Riley to talk about global warming.

Energy Video I: Lindsey Graham


T
his is the first of three videos I’m highlighting from recent interviews with politicians who would be excellent candidates for the Energy Party, talking about our No. 1 issue.

This interview was largely, but not entirely, the basis for my column of Feb. 25.

Best line:

"The French — 80 percent of the power needs of France are met by the nuclear power industry. They are the model. I never thought I’d hear myself say this. They are the model; we should follow the French when it comes to nuclear power."

S.C. mayors thinking globally, acting locally

Joe_riley2

The great thing about democracy is, that in time the people get it where they want it to go, you know, and I think this movement is… we’re gonna see that happen…. The movement is HERE.

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley,
on rising public demand
to address global warming

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
Everyone from South Carolina’s governor to the U.S. House speaker to the president talks about how important it is to do something about global warming. But will they?
    The Economist, the British newsweekly, took note of how both Nancy Pelosi and George W. Bush have been resonating to public concern over the issue:

    “But this common interest in environmental issues will not necessarily translate into resolute action.” Why? “Neither the pressure groups nor the Democrats who control Congress have much interest in defusing an issue that might stir up voters and their money before the next election. Instead, they are likely to push for small, symbolic measures that underline their concern for the environment without jeopardising their future plans.”

    In other words, in Washington, the politics come before the Earth. Nothing personal about the Earth, of course. This pattern plays out on one critical issue after another. Take health care.
    Patients know we’re getting to where we can’t afford our health care, with or without insurance. Business executives certainly know it. And increasingly, physicians are thinking they’d like to get to where they can hire a couple of nurses instead of 10 accountants to run their offices.
    But let one presidential candidate say “single-payer,” and within minutes an opponent or an interest group will cry “socialized medicine.” Before the 24-hour news cycle is over, the candidate is spending all his time fielding questions about whether he once said that Marx’s Das Kapital was “a real page-turner.”
    Our republic is dysfunctional — and the higher you go, the more fouled up it is. We want to solve our problems in this country, but our politics keep getting in the way.
    It’s not just Washington. Consider our own State House, which increasingly yearns to emulate the D.C. model. Gov. Mark Sanford authored a Feb. 23 op-ed piece — which, appropriately enough, appeared in The Washington Post — advocating quick action on global warming. Not to save the Earth, mind you, but to keep the “far left” from using government to do anything about it.

    “(I)t’s vital,” he wrote, “that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction.”

    Government, he warned, “will gladly spread its regulatory reach,” even unto lightbulbs! And automobiles!
    Meanwhile, the rest of us worry about Columbia becoming the next Myrtle Beach. It’s not so much that I would mind surfing in the Vista, but all those souvenir shops are just so tacky.
    So who’s listening to us? The mayors — the leaders closest to the people, the ones who know what we want and are determined to provide it. The kind of elected officials who get up in the morning thinking, I’d better get that pothole filled, not What can I do today to stir up my base?
    When we got fed up with choking to death in restaurants, who responded? Mayors and city councils, all across South Carolina. Meanwhile, you can’t get the Legislature to lift a finger on that point — even to remove its gratuitous, inexcusable statute forbidding local communities to make such decisions.
    So what can mayors do about global warming? Well, when Mayor Riley and Spartanburg Mayor Bill Barnet came to see us about this last week, they spoke of things larger than potholes:
    “The U.S. Conference of Mayors has now close to 500 mayors who have signed a commitment to meet or beat the Kyoto accord, which is a 7 percent reduction in 1990 CO2 emission levels by the year 2012 — in our communities,” said Mayor Riley. Charleston is already reaching for that goal —  using less wasteful vehicles and more efficient streetlights, designing new buildings to conserve more energy.
    For Mayor Barnet, it’s about economic development, about building the kinds of communities that people want to live in. It’s about “the values that will attract human beings to come and live in our environment.”
    But the mayors also hope to set an example for the state and federal levels. They are careful not to criticize the holders of larger offices. They praise the governor for appointing an advisory committee on “Climate, Energy and Commerce” to study the issues and make recommendations (preferably ones “consistent with the administration’s conservative philosophy and commitment to market principles,” as he specified in his executive order setting up the panel).
    And indeed, there are reasons to hope. It’s not just the Bushes and Pelosis talking climate in Washington; it’s also the less partisan likes of Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman (see last week’s column).
    On the state level, Sen. Jim Ritchie, R-Spartanburg, is heading up an impressive bipartisan group pushing energy independence. They want to require the state to make its future schools and other buildings more efficient, and to shop for hybrid and biodiesel when it buys vehicles.
    So maybe the movement is on, finally. Maybe the time has come when the people get democracy to go where they want it to. If so, it needs to hurry. Like the man says, that window’s closing fast.

Bill_barnet

Pontificating Putin piece

Graham_032

Pontificating Putin pushes Graham

toward energy platform

“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations — military force…. Primarily the United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every area…. They bring us to the abyss ….”
                    — Vladimir Putin

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
VLADIMIR PUTIN is pushing Lindsey Graham toward the Energy Party, and I feel fine.
    Sure, that anti-American diatribe at the Munich security conference on Feb. 10 was the biggest step back toward Cold War since Nikita K. took off his shoe, but I like to look at the bright side.
Putin_munich
    “The biggest threat to everybody in the room wasn’t al-Qaida, or Chechen rebels, it was the United States,” our senior senator said in an interview last week, marveling at the neo-Stalinist’s international demagoguery. “It was a blatant pitch at trying to divide Europe and the United States, because he sees us as weak.”
    “Which takes us to energy independence,” I said.
    “Which takes us to energy independence,” he nodded.
    I like the way this guy thinks.
    As regular readers know, I recently called for the creation of a new political party, one that would get serious about our greatest strategic vulnerability, while saving the world from global warming at the same time.
    Sen. Graham’s still a Republican, but we might have to nominate him anyway.
    He had thought plenty about this stuff before Munich, but that one intemperate speech (followed immediately by an Iranian dissertation on democracy that seemed to come from some other planet) jacked up his resolve. “Whatever doubts I had about us being energy-independent were put away,” he said. “I don’t think he ever made that speech unless he sensed weakness.”
    So how do we get strong?
    He says the United States government must use economic incentives to encourage hybrid technology, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear power — pretty much any viable alternatives that we can embrace that neither strengthen the worst bad guys in the world nor pump out more greenhouse-promoting carbon dioxide.
    He would promote the transition to hybrid cars — and eventually hydrogen — on three levels:

  1. Research. Grants for improving the technology.
  2. Wholesale. Tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to make the new vehicles.
  3. Retail. More tax incentives for individuals to buy them.

    He makes sure to point out that South Carolina can play a pivotal role in all this. We’re well positioned to help develop the technologies for a hydrogen economy. Meanwhile, we can grow and process switchgrass and other plants for biofuels.
    He sees “a whole economy in energy-efficiency,” one that South Carolina could help lead.
Beyond that home-team advantage is the bigger picture: “It is in our long-term national security interest to get people thinking about alternatives.”
    It’s not just cars. We need to make more efficient, cleaner refrigerators, computers and every other item that uses electricity.
    As for that, “Most of our power comes from coal-fired plants.” We need to “give nuclear power the same tax advantage we give solar and wind.” Like those usual green suspects, nukes don’t emit CO2, either.
    Expensive, yes, but he’s convinced that the economic cost of global warming is far greater than the 1 percent of gross domestic product that a full transition away from emitters would cost.
    So how do we pay for it?
    Well, he said, we can’t do it by “cutting waste” in the discretionary budget — what most people think of when they say “federal spending.” There’s just not enough there.
    You have to go where the  real money is: entitlements. “Change the structure of our debt,” he said. “Give people like me and Joe Lieberman and others some breathing room on Social Security,” room to do the kinds of politically unpalatable things that are necessary to save it without pulling us further into the fiscal black hole.
    Can we produce our way out? No. “Yes, there’s gas and oil, but it’s a drop in the bucket,” he said, no matter how deep you drill in the ANWR or offshore. “They’re sort of just one more drink” for the hopeless alcoholic.
    What about increasing the gas tax, to promote conservation and raise money for incentives? No. “Gas taxes will put some businesses at a competitive disadvantage with China and India.” Besides, “it’s not progressive.” It hurts the poor.
    “The next president of the United States should declare a war of energy independence,” he said, evoking the usual metaphors such as the Manhattan and Apollo projects. We had such a war once against a king. Now we should “declare a war of independence from the dictators and sheiks.”
    The next president? So he’s given up on this one? He didn’t say that, but I will. He said President Bush has addressed the issue, but only in a “piecemeal” fashion.
    As for Lindsey Graham, he says he’s doing what he can, such as working “with McCain and Lieberman to strengthen the conservation part of their global warming bill.”
    But ultimately, he’s just one of 100. “The real megaphone is for the person who’s going to be president.” Does that mean John McCain, his preferred candidate for the GOP nomination? Yes, partly: “He’s led on global warming like no other Republican.” But “I’m urging all the candidates.”
    OK, so I didn’t start this discussion. Mr. Putin did. But that doesn’t mean the Energy Party’s not going to grab the opportunity thus created to strengthen national security and save the Earth.
Neither should you. So go ahead. Jump right in.

Graham_002

Romney out-ideologues Sanford

Romney_sunburst
M
itt Romney, apparently struck with a fit of envy when he read Mark Sanford’s op-ed in the WashPost, shifted his Hummer into high gear in order to outrun our governor in speeding in the wrong direction.

He succeeded.

Folks, this is the time to be finding common ground on a problem that we finally have a consensus about. It is definitely NOT the time to try to outdo each other in appealing to extremes.

Me and my environment

At the beginning of his op-ed piece that ran in The Washington Post and which he did not offer to us (but no, he has no further political ambitions; perish the thought), Gov. Mark Sanford offers hope that he wishes to reconcile "conservatives" to those who wish to conserve the Earth.

That would be a worthwhile goal.

Unfortunately, no. It reads much more like a partisan battle cry meant to muster the libertarian right to capture the high ground on global warming before those "far-left" nutballs like Al Gore actually go out and do something about it.

Truly a missed opportunity to find common ground on a critical issue. Sure, it’s just another one among thousands, but it’s still very sad.

A footnote: There’s an element in this piece that is highly relevant to the core of Mark Sanford as a political, or perhaps I should say apolitical, creature. It’s in this paragraph, explaining why a dyed-in-the-wool "conservative" such as he would care about conserving:

For the past 20 years, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising sea levels at our farm on the South Carolina coast. I’ve had to watch once-thriving pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marshes. I know the climate change debate isn’t over, but I believe human activity is having a measurable effect on the environment.

Nothing remarkable about that to you? There wouldn’t be to me, either, if I hadn’t seen a certain trend over time — just a standard rhetorical device of bringing a personal anecdote to bear on a much-broader issue.

But it’s more than that. It’s not a rhetorical device. It’s actually the center of what motivates Mark Sanford. When he said over and over in the 2002 campaign that he wanted to build a South Carolina in which his four boys could have a good future, many misunderstood that to mean he wanted all S.C. children to have a better future.

But it was really, in a fundamental sense, about his four boys. He has pursued policies ever since that appeal to people who think the very same way — MY kids, MY land, MY money. There is no OUR. Whether the subject is school "choice" or cutting the already-low income tax, it’s about people who see themselves and their families and households as islands, not as an integral part of a community with a shared destiny.

It’s about appealing to voters as consumers, not as citizens. It’s about rights without responsibilities. Oh, but they’ll protest, we’re all about Individual responsibility, just not social responsibility. People who think in such terms are the least responsible of all, and a tremendous threat to representative democracy.

Well, duh. But good.

This pretty much goes under the "well, duh" category — the idea that architects can have a big impact on our energy uses and global warming…

An interactive national Web cast will educate Upstate architects on the correlation between building designs and global warming.

    Local
LEED-certified architect Bob Bourguignon said the event, called the
2010 Imperative, is intended to show the need to decrease greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.
    "Architects hold the key to starting to
reduce greenhouse gases," Bourguignon said. "From the charts I’ve seen,
approximately 50 percent of air pollution is produced by the
electricity demands of buildings."
    The goal of the series is to
challenge the industry to focus on creating environmentally conscious
architectural designs to decrease dependence on fossil fuels.

But at least this means that, just in case some architects were unaware of that fact, or (far more likely) weren’t motivated to do anything about it, having this webinar helps eliminate the "didn’t know" excuse.

Doing what we CAN do…

Note that today’s op-ed page
deals entirely with issues of central concern to the Energy Party. (MikeOped_page
was out yesterday, so I picked the content and put that page together myself. Therefore it reflects my obsessions.) It also provides an opportunity to say again what our platform is, and what is isn’t.

Someone who doesn’t think long enough about it might say the two pieces are at odds. Jim Ritchie sets forth his excellent set of initiatives for our state to do its part in promoting energy-efficient buildings, hybrid cars, and such, and Robert Samuelson says beware of politicians announcing grand plans to save the Earth from global warming.

But they actually support each other, and together sort of explain why I take the approach I do in proposing this party.

True, proposals such as "cap and trade" that politicians are likely to get behind (because they see the parade marching that way) will not stop or reverse global warming. Even if you do all the "politically unrealistic" things I propose, the trend will likely merely slow down, and surely not reverse in our lifetimes. Of course, that’s all the reason to do everything we can (and NOT just what we want to do, or think we can afford) to put the brakes on the trend. Otherwise, things get worse, and at a faster rate.

But as Sen. Ritchie makes clear, what we CAN do is grab hold of our energy destiny. What he proposes won’t completely solve the problem, but it’s a damned good start from the perspective of what state government can do. And the broad coalition he’s got behind it is extremely encouraging — not only in terms of Energy issues, but others where we’ve been stymied by partisanship and ideology.

Pragmatism is on the march. Let’s all join. Except, let’s get at the head of the parade and start a new, double-time pace. Otherwise, the battle will be over before this rapidly coalescing army gets to the field — and we all will have lost.