When Alberta Environment Minister Diana McQueen brought her “Sunshine ‘n Tar Sands Tour” to Montpelier on Tuesday, she brought these glossy brochures, chronicling the benefits of carbon-heavy tar sands oil and the devout environmentalism of her government. The brochure is slick and well-designed; but when you read it, you start getting a vague sensation in the back of your mind — the same one you get while deleting Nigerian e-mails from your spam folder. (Photo: Two disembodied work gloves cradling some dark, uninviting tar sands. This is the welcoming sight at the top of page 1. Mmmmm.)

(Anyone wishing a different view of tar sands oil would be advised to visit the website of the Pembina Institute, a Canadian think tank that advocates for clean energy. It has extensive information on tar sands oil that’s, well, a little tiny bit different than Alberta’s shiny happy presentation.)

The trouble starts with the very first sentence: “Experts say the world will be dependent on carbon-based fuel for the foreseeable future.”

Which “experts” are those, exactly? ExxonMobil’s? All the experts I trust say the opposite: we have to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuel as quickly as possible to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.

The next sentences promise “sustainable and responsible extraction,” and offer the reassurance that “Alberta is working with industry and other partners to ensure we continue to develop the oil sands resource responsibly…”

First of all, I like how “industry” gets top billing there. Alberta and industry, sittin’ in a tree, K-I-L-L-I-N-G the planet. Second, “other partners”? What, scientists? Public relations firms? Political cronies?

Next we come to Misleading Chart no. 1: “Foreign Company Access to Proven Oil Reserves 2010.”

Please note that it’s not “Proven Oil Reserves,” but “Foreign Company Access.” The countries in red  control their own reserves, having thrown off the shackles of colonialism. (Ingrates.) The countries in yellow permit “restricted” access to foreign companies. The friendly green bar, third from the left? Canada’s abundant resources, mainly in Alberta, which are available for corporate exploitation by all comers.

But all those countries in red and yellow have dealt successfully with foreign corporations for decades, to the profit of all concerned.  Just because a country chooses to exercise some measure of (often nominal) control over its own resources doesn’t mean we don’t get to use them. Often on insanely favorable (to us) terms. Alberta’s engaging in some “little brown people” and “Muslim” dog-whistling here, to convince us that we can’t possibly afford to pass up Canadian sources.  

Next, we get another dog-whistle chorus in a section on “Benefits to the United States.” Here’s another chart, “Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (2011)”. Just look at that list, and tremble in fear at where our oil comes from. Never mind, first of all, that this is “oil imports” only, leaving out domestic US production. Right from the start, this chart is designed to overemphasize our dependence on unreliable brown people.

Now, let’s run down the list of foreign suppliers in order of percentage, and ask the question: “Who do YOU trust?”

Alberta: Friendly white people next door

Saudi Arabia: Brown people! and MUSLIMS!!!

Mexico: Brown people!

Venezuela: Brown people! Who like CASTRO!!!

Rest of Canada: Friendly white people next door

Nigeria: Black people!

Iraq: Brown people! and MUSLIMS!!!

Columbia: Brown people!

My friends, when you look at this list, I think you’ll agree that our duty is clear. Tar sands oil may be dirty, it may imperil the very planet we call home, but at least it comes from white people.

Well, I believe that’s enough RACE PANIC for now. Let’s move on to irrelevant misdirection, shall we?

This is an inspired bit of graphic mischief, which implies a connection between the amount of money we spend on Canadian oil, with the amount of money Canada spends on American good and services. Problem is, there ain’t no such thing. Canada spent gobs of money on American products long before anyone ever shouted “Eureka!” in an Albertan field, and Canada’s US imports would still be very strong if there was no oil in Alberta. This chart relates two things that are, in fact, unrelated. Our primary export markets got that way for reasons that have nothing to do with their oil reserves.

But at first glance, the message appears to be “Hey, look — if we buy more Canadian oil, we’ll get practically all our money back! Whereas, if we buy Arabian oil, they’ll take our money and laugh at us!”

Next in this Glossy Brochure of Doom is a section devoted to “Climate Change.” Here, Alberta can’t help but reveal some bad news about its contribution to global warming.

It admits, for example, that “Alberta produces about one third of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.” Hmm, Alberta’s population is about 12% of Canada’s total. Which means… Alberta is Canada’s big fat carbon pig! There’s some good news.

The brochure then goes on to admit that oil sands extraction accounts for 21% of Alberta’s greenhouse gas enissions, or 7% of Canada’s total. I think they mean this to be reassuring, but it has the opposite effect on me.

Much of the “Climate Change” section trumpets Alberta’s development of “carbon capture and storage” (CCS), which is a nice theory but it’s been a complete failure in reality so far. I have more on this in my previous diary, “Never trust the glossy brochure, pt. 1”. But here’s a chart showing the effect of Alberta’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Please note that it takes the province until roughly the year 2035 just to get carbon emissions back down to 2005 levels; it then achieves very modest reductions.

And here’s some very bad news. These reductions, modest though they are, depend on significant development of CCS as a viable technology. See the gap between the blue line and the dismayingly rising dotted line at the top? 70% of Alberta’s plan depends on CCS — an untested and troubled technology. Without CCS, y its own admission, Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions will dramatically increase over the next four decades.

And remember the words of Alberta Premier Allison Redford, who continues to promote CCS in her “placate the Americans” work, even while cutting back on CCS R&D back home:

Redford let it slip to Alberta journalists in 2011 that she’d prefer to see “better initiatives and opportunities” than CCS to reduce CO2 emissions, although she still hasn’t said what those “better initiatives” would be.

In other words, Alberta will soon become a greenhouse gas nightmare barring a miraculous turnaround in CCS development or the sudden adoption of a now-unknown technology.

The next section of the brochure is about water quality in and around the massive tar-sands mining sites, where extraction operations use large quantities of water. I don’t know enough about Alberta’s environment to offer comment, but based on the brochure’s reliability so far, I’ll emit a sardonic snicker and move on.

And now — oh boy, oh boy — we come to the section on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), largely discussed in part 1 of this two-part series. I’ll just remind you here that Alberta has funded a total of four CCS projects; it has canceled two of them so far, and even the pro-oil Premier has  serious doubts about CCS’ viability, even as she continues to tout the concept in the US.

The next section is called “Air,” and addresses air quality issues. It begins with an admission that tar-sands development produces “greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, ozone, and fine particulate matter.” Well, that’s a bummer.

But wait, Alberta has good news! It’s continuously monitoring air quality, and is pleased to report that

Annual average concentrations of common air pollutants indicate that the region’s air quality is not deteriorating despite an increase in emissions-related activities and population growth.

Three points. First, there’s a lot of wiggle room in “annual average concentrations,” because I’m sure the mining operations don’t continue 24/7. The impact of periodic toxic blasts can be largely masked by reference to “annual average.”  And second, Alberta is one of Canada’s plains provinces: open, flat topography for hundreds of miles. That tends to produce very strong winds, which quickly carry the toxins away. And third, Alberta’s population may be growing, but it’s still a huge area with relatively few people in it.

How few? Well, Vermont has 625,000 people in 9600 square miles. Alberta has 3.8 million people in 255,000 square miles. (All numbers rounded.) Vermont has a population density of 65 people per square mile; Alberta has 15 people per square mile.

Put it another way, Alberta is the size of Texas and has roughly the same population as Connecticut. Given those numbers, OF COURSE the air is relatively clean.

Now we come to WIldlife and Biodiversity, a section that includes a lovely photo of a blue heron. I think that’s just reflections in the water, but I swear it looks like an oil slick. Maybe coulda picked a different picture.

Speaking of birds, Alberta lets slip another inconvenient factoid here: “Nearly half the species of birds in North America use the [Albertan] boreal forest each year.” Oh yeah, that’s where I want massive mining and fuel-processing operations — in a part of the continent that helps support “nearly half” of our bird species. If you’re trying to convince me to change my mind about tar sands, don’t tell me your province is an ecological paradise! Lie to me! Tell me it’s a vast, barren wasteland that no one will miss when it’s gone!

Up next, Reclamation. That’s a big problem in tar-sands mining, which causes massive disruption to vast areas. For instance, this photo of a blasted landscape devoid of life:

Yeah, that’ll take a bit of “reclamation.” But don’t worry, Alberta is on the case! They have 71 square kilometers “under active reclamation.”

That’s a lot, isn’t it? Well… compared to your backyard, yes. But the same page tells us that 715 square kilometers has been surface-mined already — out of a total surface mining area of 4800 square kilometers. This handy-dandy chart illustrates the extent of the problem; the extremely narrow bands at the top represent areas fully or partially reclaimed, while the vast majority (blue and pink bands) is still a complete wreck.

The brochure also tells us that “it can take 15 or more years to effectively establish a successful ecosystem” in a surface-mined area. That’s the optimistic estimate for lands where reclamation is actually completed. It also boasts that Alberta has given $4.5 million to the University of Alberta to support reclamation research. Which says two things to me, both bad: (1) compared to the size of the industry, $4.5 million is a drop in the bucket, and (2) they’re still doing research, which means they don’t really know how to do reclamation yet. Comforting.

And then there are the deposits accessible by in-situ methods — 80% of the oil sands. An in-situ operation, they tell us, disturbs merely 10-15% as much land as a surface mine.  That’s still a hell of a lot of land. I wonder how much of their profits the oil companies are setting aside for reclamation work?

But if you think reclamation is a tough job, wait ’till you get to the next chapter: Tailings. This section helpfully starts by informing us that “Tailings management remains one of the most difficult environmental challenges for the oil sands mining sector. There are currently more than 170 square kilometers of tailings ponds in Alberta.”

According to the Pembina Institute, a Canadian nonprofit that studies energy issues, tailings are a toxic waste byproduct of tar sands extraction, and more than 200 million liters of fine tailings are produced each day. Here’s a photo of that “production” in process:

Yuck!

More good news: The brochure has a photo of a tailings pond that’s been successfully reclaimed. A full 15 years after it was closed.

And it’s the first tailings pond to be fully reclaimed.

The first one.

Out of  “more than 170 square miles of tailings ponds.”

Bear in mind, this is the happy side of the equation — the stuff that Alberta is willing to admit in a PR document aimed at convincing skeptics that tar-sands oil is peachy keen.

I’m now going to skip a couple of sections and move on to “Economic Benefits,” which promotes the incredible bonanza created by tar sands oil. And it includes a chart that reveals another little problem: the fact that tar-sands investment in Alberta is growing rapidly, even as it’s already contributing substantially to global warming and the destruction of the boreal forest environment.

The scale is in billions of dollars. As you can see, tar-sands investment accounted for perhaps one-third of Alberta’s total through 2006. But from 2008 onward, it was more than half. What this tells me is that tar sands is already an environmental disaster, and the industry is at the beginning of a rapid growth curve.  

There’s more, there’s more. There’s a two-page whitewash of the industry’s impact on aboriginal peoples — their rights, their health, their lands. There’s a section on meeting the challenges of rapid growth fueled (sorry) by the expansion of tar sands. And finally, Alberta welcomes you to find even more slanted, biased “facts” through its Information Portal. Which, frankly, I’m afraid to enter; sounds too much like that time-travel thingy in “Star Trek” that sent Kirk and Spock back to the 1930s and their fateful encounter with a very young Joan Collins.

Besides, after wading through these 30 pages, I’ve had quite enough of Alberta’s happy-face approach to tar sands oil.

Is anyone still reading this?

Well, then, here’s my simple conclusion.

Vermont has an extremely small role to play in this drama; we could conceivably see tar-sands oil crossing a small portion of the Northeast Kingdom. But after all I’ve heard and read this week, I don’t want to have the slightest role in promulgating this multifaceted calamity.  

Oh, I almost forgot. There’s a comforting message in the margins of this brochure — a message certain to assuage the bruised and battered sensibilities of anyone who gives a tinker’s damn about the earth:

This fact sheet is printed with vegetable-based inks on chlorine-free paper made with post-consumer recycled fibre.

Well, okay then.

The fifth and sixth deliberation meetings of the Governor’s Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission will take place on:

Dates:

Tuesday, March 12

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Time:

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Location:

Giga Conference Room, 3rdfloor, Vermont Public Service Department, 112 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont.  

More below the jump…

Meeting Purpose

The Commissioners will continue to deliberate upon options to address their charges, some of which are presented in the Draft Options Paper available at sitingcommission.vermont.gov/publications, in the Deliberative Session #3 materials.

Public Comments Period

The Siting Commission continues to welcome comments on the Draft Options Paper.  Comments should be submitted no later than, and preferably before, April 5, 2013.

Comments can be made using the Open Comment Form at sitingcommission.vermont.gov/public_involvement.

Dates, times, and locations of Commission meetings and public hearings are subject to change. Interested parties are encouraged to consult the Siting Commission’s website, sitingcommission.vermont.gov, for any updates.

All meetings of the Commission are open to the public. Any member of the public who requires reasonable accommodation for the March 12 meeting should make his or her request by 4 p.m. Wednesday, March 6; requests for accommodation for the March 20 meeting should be made by 4 p.m. on Friday, March 15. Requests should be made to Michelle Hughes at (802) 828-3065.

The Public Service Department is an agency within the executive branch of Vermont state government. Its charge is to represent the public interest in matters regarding energy, telecommunications, water and wastewater.

When Alberta’s Environment Minister, Diana McQueen, dropped by the State House this week to promote tar sands oil, she brought along a 30-page, full-color brochure touting the myriad benefits of her province’s most lucrative — and notorious — export.

It’s a slick document. Problem is, it’s chock full of little white lies, deceptive statements, and deliberately misleading visuals. But there’s one Big Lie, repeated frequently, that deserves special attention: that Alberta is a pioneer in the fight against global warming — in spite of its carbon-heavy oil industry — through its development of “carbon capture and storage” (CCS) — in which CO2 is captured from industrial operations, converted to a liquid, and pumped deep underground, filling spaces in the porous rock that were vacated by fossil fuel extraction.  

It’s a technological miracle, see? We can keep on burning fossil fuel to our heart’s content, and just dispose of the carbon deep in the earth. No fuss, no muss.

Except…

Alberta’s own experiments with CCS have been going seriously awry. The province has canceled two major projects in the past year, one of them just this week. Let’s turn to a February 27 piece by Graham Thompson, political columnist for the Edmonton Journal:

Officially, the government remains committed to the carbon capture and storage experiments as a way to reduce Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions. But unofficially, Premier Alison Redford has displayed no great confidence in the experiments’ ability to deliver as promised.

Her skepticism is understandable. Carbon capture and storage is a troubled, and unproven, experiment…

… Redford let it slip to Alberta journalists in 2011 that she’d prefer to see “better initiatives and opportunities” than CCS to reduce CO2 emissions, although she still hasn’t said what those “better initiatives” would be.

At the same time, Thompson reports, Redford has no problem with touting CCS “as a way to convince American politicians that her government takes climate change seriously.”

She talked about CCS again this past weekend while in Washington, D.C. However, in a move that was positively Orwellian, at the same time she was touting Alberta’s carbon capture and storage experiments, her government was putting the final touches on a news release announcing the death of one of those experiments.

That experiment, Swan Hills Synfuels, was killed on Monday. It’s proudly promoted in the brochure that Diana McQueen was handing around Montpelier on Tuesday. Oopsie.

The entire brochure is worthy of closer examination, but I thought the CCS Lie deserved its own diary. Expect another Alberta post in the near future.  

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign renews call for legislature to move forward, not backward, on healthcare reform

The Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign calls on our legislators to fulfil their obligation to protect access to healthcare for all people in Vermont. “First, do no harm” should guide our legislators’ actions at a time when low-income people are forced into the federally-mandated health insurance “exchange” marketplace. Nobody should have to suffer from reduced access to healthcare because of the federal reform requirements.

We are deeply disappointed that the House Health Care Committee has failed to improve on the Governor’s inadequate health insurance subsidies proposal, which will reduce access to care for low-income people. The failure to protect people who are forced into the exchange violates human rights standards in two ways.

First, it violates the responsibility of government to make continuous progress toward improving the human rights of all people in Vermont. Forcing people into a private marketplace where they have to pay even more for healthcare than they do now is a step backward not forward in the transition to universal healthcare. It puts people’s health at risk.

Second, the failure to provide adequate support to low-income people violates the principle of equity, because it increases obstacles to low-income people receiving the healthcare that they need, and it fails to ensure payment levels that are based on ability to pay. When forced from Catamount or VHAP into the exchange, low-income people will face sharp cost increases – especially in their deductibles and co-pays – which will make it harder for them to get the care they need. At the same time as people with low incomes have to pay more, businesses and insurance companies will pay less under the House Health Care Committee’s proposal, while payments to healthcare providers will increase.

The effect of these decisions is that this stage of healthcare “reform” will be funded on the backs of the most vulnerable among us and will reduce their access to care – which is not reform at all. The Committee lets employers off the hook for financing our healthcare system and protects insurance companies from tax increases, yet it imposes a regressive soda tax, which patronizes and punishes poor people.

For these reasons, the Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign rejects the proposed funding changes to healthcare, which will shift costs from businesses, insurance companies and providers to people with low incomes and to those who get sick. We call on our elected representatives to reverse the disturbing trend of raising revenue in an inequitable way that burdens poor and low-income people the most.

Vermont already has the money needed to protect people’s access in the exchange. Catamount and VHAP are fully funded, and there is no reason not to continue supporting access to care for low-income people. Channeling money away from Catamount and VHAP participants to businesses and providers puts special interests above people’s needs. This redirection of funds decreases equity and threatens people’s dignity, in violation of the intent of Vermont statute, which calls for a state budget that advances dignity and equity.

Finally, the Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign strongly objects to the Governor’s and House Health Care Committee’s neglect of the impact of deductibles and co-pays on access to care. In order to maximize federal matching funds, they have prioritized the subsidizing of premiums while allowing user fees to increase dramatically. This decision forces people to purchase health insurance that they may not be able to use once they get sick – in effect subsidizing insurance companies, rather than providing healthcare to those who need it. Instead of more corporate subsidies, what Vermont needs is support for people’s access to healthcare when they need it, and that means eliminating user fees. We need health care not health insurance. Coverage is not care.

We call on our elected representatives to stop shifting costs to sick and low-income people and move forward, not backward, on the path toward realizing our human right to healthcare.

James Haslam is the Executive Director at the Vermont Workers’ Center which coordinates the Healthcare Is A Human Right Campaign. Learn more: www.workerscenter.org/healthcare

I think Deb Markowitz nailed this one.

After the meeting, Markowitz said that it was interesting that within two weeks the Statehouse had been visited by the president of the Portland-Montreal pipeline and Alberta officials.

“It just shows that the pipeline matters,” she said.

The subject is this week’s visit to Montpelier by Alberta’s environmental minister Diana McQueen. She stopped by to deliver some reassuring words, and glossy brochures, about her province’s abundant and carbon-heavy tar sands oil, whose producers are desperately seeking an outlet to the ocean — any ocean will do — so they can export the stuff. One possible route, as we know, is the existing Portland-Montreal Pipeline, whose CEO Larry WIlson has twice visited Montpelier to tout his company’s safety record.

For an important executive who travels with a sharp-suited posse, WIlson outwardly displayed great patience as he waited through legislative delays and other people’s testimony to deliver his message. So yes, as our Natural Resources Secretary noted, this parade of the high and mighty to the nation’s smallest state capitol is a clear display of their desire for a route to the sea. And, it should be noted, McQueen’s delegation also made a stop in Portland on its “Sunshine and Tar Sands” tour. Which followed a weekend in Washington, D.C., buttonholing members of the National Governors Association on behalf of pipeline proposals through America. But no, they’re not desperate for a pipeline, not at all.

After the jump: inept attempts at reassurance.

McQueen, representing the conservative government of Canada’s most conservative province (often referred to as “the Texas of the north,” with its low taxes, oil-based economy, and rumblings of separatism), delivered her message of comfort with a tinge of condescension. (Photo: Still shot from a kinda creepy TV ad featuring McQueen’s talking head superimposed on a highway billboard.)

“We know that it’s an emotional issue as well, but we’re here just to let people know here’s the facts on it, here’s the data, and if you have questions we’re more than happy now or in the future to answer any of those,” she said.

Yeah, thanks, Diana, for dismissing concerns about toxic spills and global warming as “emotional.” Too bad we’re not all as rational as you are.

Although many of us do have a firmer grasp of the English language:

“Our oil will be having many markets,” said McQueen. “Certainly into the United States, the West Coast as well, Alaska’s another route that we’re working on, the East Coast, as well. We know that there will be many different routes and they’ll be over many different time frames, but we will develop our resource.”

Yogi Berra couldn’t have said it any plainer.

Now, let’s check in on the Albertans’ visit to Portland, whose port would be the terminus of a reversed pipeline carrying tar sands oil.

At a breakfast meeting Monday at the Portland Regency Hotel, McQueen said Alberta tar sands account for only a tiny percentage of greenhouse gas, and that the province has stringent industry regulations and monitoring protocols to minimize the danger of pipeline leaks.

Gosh, that’s nice. Completely irrelevant to concerns about pipeline spills outside Alberta, but nice.

[Portland City Councilor Dave] Marshall mentioned a much-publicized 2010 pipeline burst that spilled millions of gallons of tar-sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. But that spill was unique and largely the result of operator error, said Tristan Sangret, another Alberta official at the meeting.

So, it was “unique” because “operator errors” never, ever happen. Except this once.

This is Alberta’s idea of reassurance?

Sangret also pooh-poohed concerns about the heavy, toxic nature of tar sands oil, which requires high temperatures and extra pressure to pump through a pipeline. He pointed out that the oil is diluted before it’s piped, so it’s the same viscosity as any heavy crude oil and well within the capability of, say, the Portland-Montreal Pipeline.

Which might be reassuring in terms of extra wear and tear on pipelines. But, as one environmental lobbyist pointed out to me, it doesn’t change the fact that when tar-sands oil is spilled, the diluting agents evaporate. What’s left is heavy, globby stuff that tends to sink. That’s why the 2010 Kalamazoo River spill has yet to be fully remediated, and likely never will be.

I have a feeling that the “Sunshine and Tar Sands” tour will turn out to have as little effect as Pipeline CEO Larry WIlson’s smug reassurances. I think our lawmakers are smart enough to take everything these oil advocates say with a few tons of salt. If anything, their all-out offensive may —  adding a sense of urgency to the drive to pass H.27, the bill that would make a tar-sands proposal for the Portland-Montreal Pipeline subject to the Act 250 process.

Note: I intended to explore the Albertans’s shiny happy brochure as part of this diary, but it’s already plenty long. So the brochure review will come as a separate post in the near future. Stay tooned!

Oh goody. The State Senate’s leading Windies, Bob Hartwell and the Slummin’ Solon Peter Galbraith, fresh off their smugtastic performance in passing the anti-wind S.30 through committee yesterday, will be taking a victory lap Friday evening in Grafton. They’ll be joined by fellow Senate Windy, Joe Benning.

The event is billed as “a public information meeting,” but naturally the stage will be filled by Windies promulgating their misinformation.

And I would ask Senator Hartwell, who is generally known as a reliable environmental voice in the Legislature, to consider the company he’ll be keeping. Specifically, one Lisa Linowes, ardent Windy and head of the Industrial Wind Action Group (IWAG). See, there are some things the Senator — and everyone else — should know about Linowes. (I reported some of this on GMD last year, after Linowes had spoken at another stacked “information meeting” in Lowell.)

In the Grafton event press release, Linowes is described as “an expert on the impacts of industrial-scale wind energy development on the natural environment, communities, and the regional grid systems.” However, trustworthy independent sources have described her work in far different terms. For instance…

Last August, the Sierra Club documented the increasing attacks on renewable energy in its report, “Clean Energy Under Siege.”  The report described IWAG as one of a growing network of anti-renewable groups promoting fossil fuel-funded “research” at odds with mainstream science. The report also documented her ties to notorious anti-renewable advocates, which can be seen at the “free-market energy blog” MasterResource, which is vociferously critical of all types of renewable energy. And she was one of the attendees at a February 2012 gathering of “wind warriors” — free-marketeers, many of whom with ties to fossil fuel barons like the Koch Brothers, who met to develop anti-renewable strategies.  

The Sierra Club describes IWAG as “run by husband-and-wife team Jonathan and Lisa Linowes. Jonathan is a politically active Tea Party member and the listed owner of the IWAG website. Lisa is the face of the organization…”

Speaking of Jonathan, here’s a picture of him playing dress-up at a Tea Party rally and blowing the ever-popular “OBAMA MUSLIN” dog-whistle. Jonathan’s got some interesting political views, including: “children have been brainwashed by public education,” and “Obama is so anti-capitalist I’m stabbed in the heart by him.” He also believes we don’t need the Postal Service because FedEx and UPS “giv[e] us reliable mail service.” Also, the social “safety net” should be purely a matter of private charity, and it’s unnatural for people to be governed.

Oh, and he’s a climate change denier. The evidence, he claims, has been falsified by “agenda-driven” scientists who have been lavishly funded for their alleged fakery.

I realize that you can’t judge a person by their spouse’s political beliefs. But it’s clear that Jonathan Linowes is a (silent) partner in IWAG, and Lisa Linowes should, at the very least, be questioned about her beliefs on climate change.

Next, we have the Checks and Balances Project, an independent watchdog on corporate lobbying. It reports that IWAG…

“…routinely promotes discredited problems and messengers instead of credible sources. On their website, the Industrial Wind Action Group links to articles and information from sources whose work is unscientific or has been linked to the fossil fuel industry – rather than objective sources that could help residents and government officials make informed decisions.  According to our investigative research, the Industrial Wind Action Group continues to hype anti-wind rhetoric above reality.”

Checks and Balances found that IWAG relies heavily on the work of “experts” employed at “think tanks” heavily funded by fossil fuel interests, including Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. This ain’t penny-ante stuff, either; the Kochs and Exxon Mobil have spent at least $85 billion on anti-climate change propaganda in the last 15 years.

Lisa Linowes is clearly part of this anti-science, anti-planet “astroturf” campaign. Senators Hartwell and Galbraith, who claim that (1) they are devoted to combating climate change and (2) their pet bill, S.30, is “not an anti-wind bill,” should be embarrassed to appear alongside her at a “public information meeting.”

If they do go ahead with the event, they should at least have the decency to question Linowes’ motives, her funding, and her views on climate change. But I’m not holding my breath.  

UPDATE:  Thanks to our legacy media colleagues Paul Heintz at Seven Days and Joel Banner Baird at the Burlington Free Press for linking to this diary.

(Facebook wall, that is.) 

I just noticed some interesting developments in the Burlington City Council race coming up next week. In Ward Two, Democrat Emily Lee is running against longtime Progressive council member Jane Knodell. Jane Knodell is an old line Prog who held a seat for fourteen years, while Lee is a young newcomer to city politics.

If you've been watching the election on Facebook you might be excused for a bit of confusion about which of these candidats has the endorsement of Mayor Weinberger.

For instance, if you go to Knodell's campaign Facebook page you will see a photo of Senator Tim Ashe with the message encouraging you to vote for Knodell “If you want to see Mayor Weinberger succeed with his initiatives.”

Then, if you go to Lee's campaign page you will see this picture:

So wait a minute: who actually gts the mayor's endorsement? 

I put that question to the Knodell campaign, and here's the response I got:

 No it's an observation from Senator Ashe regarding the importance of having experience on the Council

As I say, one might be excused for thinking that Weinberger is supporting Knodell, or at least that the Knodell campaign wants you to think that Weinberger is supporting her. The fact, though, is that Weinberger has endorsed Emily Lee, no matter what you might have otherwise inferred from Facebook.

And if you're just curious about who will help advance Miro Weinberger's initiative, well, Miro thinks it's Emily Lee. 

A couple of days ago in this space, I reflected on the Department of Public Safety* audit, which was widely reported as good news for DPS — no big fraudsters aside from Jim Deeghan, and relatively few staffers showing significant risk for fraud. I saw it quite differently: the audit revealed remarkably slipshod processes for reporting and monitoring overtime by DPS employees.

*Correction: I originally wrote “Department of Public Service,” which was a mistake. Stand down, Chris Recchia!

Well, big ups to frequent GMD commenter “inigma,” for digging up a two-year-old story in the Burlington Free Press that links very nicely to the new DPS audit. The two, taken together, tell a tale of widespread — but modestly-scaled — overtime abuse and pension padding among Vermont’s Finest.

And it’s a tale that I’m very surprised the Freeploid isn’t telling itself. For one thing, the ‘Loid usually loves these kind of stories — public employees feeding at the trough. For another, the 2011 story and this week’s rather forgiving account of the DPS audit were both written by the same guy — transparency maven Mike Donoghue. I’m sure he’s written a lot of stuff in the last two years, but did he miss the myriad reflections of his own 2011 reporting in this new audit?

In 2011, the Freeps (wasn’t the Freeploid at the time) listed the top 100 pensioners among state retirees, and found that the top of the list was packed with former judges — but a large majority of the top 100 were former State Police. 78 of the top 100, in fact. The article opened with the story of Bruce Lang, who became a state trooper in 1977 at age 18, and retired in 2007 with an $84,522 annual pension.

He retired, it should be noted, at age 48. He’s likely to keep pulling down that $85K for as many years as he was an active trooper. Or more.

If he does live to be 77, he will have taken home $2.5 million in pension. Not counting benefits, presumably including health insurance. (After age 65, his state pension will be reduced by the approximately $24,000 he will receive from Social Security. So some of that $2.5MM is federal money, not state. All public funds, in any event.)

I don’t know how much overtime Lang accrued as he approached retirement. But his case illustrates the problem when state troopers boost their pay in the years before retirement. Their pensions are based on their last few years’ pay, so we go on paying and paying and paying for every hour of overtime claimed by every senior state trooper. Even a “minor” abuse turns into big bucks after three decades or so.  

Not to say that troopers don’t deserve generous retirement benefits, after working long hours and routinely facing hazardous situations. But their pensions shouldn’t be perpetually inflated through improper overtime claims.

In 2010, the Legislature passed limits on how much overtime can count toward a pension. As a result, starting in July 2012, a maximum of 20% of a retiree’s pension can be based on overtime. (For teachers, the limit is 10%.)

However… excluded from the bill is overtime earned through federal grants for specific programs, such as drunk-driving checkpoints, seatbelt enforcement, and immigration patrols. Those grants were highlighted by the just-released DPS audit as “inherently vulnerable to abuse.”

The Freeps then described the practice of “spiking” — working extra overtime during the last few years before retirement in order to boost pensions. This relates to a couple of findings in the new audit. Auditors describe a “first-come, first-served” system for taking overtime hours — which allows troopers who value their downtime to limit extra duty, but also leaves the door open for senior troopers to load up the overtime and hence their pensions. The audit also indicated that senior DPS staffers, as a group, may be taking more overtime than warranted by the nature of the work.

Which could be interpreted as “pre-retirement guys soaking up the easy OT.” But perhaps I’m too cynical. In any case, the system is open to that kind of abuse.

There’s also that enticing item about how 88 DPS employees cut their reported overtime by at least 20% in the weeks after Governor Shumlin ordered the audit. This could be taken as a sign of widespread but low-level overtime padding. Which, when done by senior staffers, increases exponentially in pension costs.

When the Freeps published its 2011 article on the top 100 pensioners, VSP Director Tom L’Esperance sent an e-mail to troopers strongly defending their pension plan, celebrating “the countless sacrifices made during a trooper’s career,” and bemoaning the negative tone of the article.  

Again, I respect the hard work and sacrifices made by law enforcement personnel. They are entitled to pension benefits requisite to their service. They are not entitled to anything more than that. And L’Esperance’s ardent defense of his troops, well intentioned though it may have been, seem to indicate that a “lax organizational culture” is still alive and well.  

On a dreary, overcast day with very wet snow falling from the sky, the Governor’s weekly press conference was, naturally, held outdoors. It was originally supposed to be on the front lawn of the State House, where he would drive the ceremonial First Tap of the Mapling Season into a handy maple tree.

He did so as scheduled (purty pix for the teevee folks), but the presser itself was moved. But not indoors; instead, it was held on the portico of the Statehouse, between the giant pillars and the massive front doors.

Yeah, I guess the Governor of the State of Vermont couldn’t find a room inside. So instead, we all stood around a tiny lectern while he waxed rhapsodic about Vermont’s maple industry. (Photo: the good old Vermont boy quaffing a Mason jar of maple milk. Vermont syrup, of course, 2012 vintage.)

But then, we learned the method to the apparent siting madness. Shumlin announced that Vermont’s crisis-fuel fund is just about flat broke. He’s ordered his functionaries to find $900,000 (source as yet unclear) so the fuel fund would last another three weeks — long enough to top off recipients’ fuel tanks and get them through the remaining cold season.

And then it hit me. How better to drive home the message that Vermonters are suffering, than to make the press corps stand around outdoors for 45 minutes on a glum, cold, rainy/snowy day?  Brilliant stagecraft, right?

That’s the only explanation I can think of, for needlessly letting the state’s political media stand around getting thoroughly chilled.

Either that, or he hates us.

After the jump: hate.

The Gov had been provided with a teeny-tiny lectern for the event. Before the presser began, we dutifully piled our microphones and recorders onto every available inch of space.

A few minutes in, Shumlin invited a representative of the maple industry to say a few words. He settled behind the lectern, put down his notes, and BANG my recorder was knocked to the ground, batteries flying across the concrete.

Shumlin: “I’ve been wanting to do that for years.”

Nice.

Fortunately, my recorder still works.

p.s. The Governor offerred no explanation for the shortfall in the crisis fuel fund, which is quite substantial. According to VTDigger, the fund’s budget was $2.8 million. And it’s come up $900,000 short — so far. That’s a one-third overrun, and it may need even more emergency funding. Shumlin admitted the shortfall came as a surprise to his administration.

And it’s not good news, when we’re facing the prospect of more federal cuts in the future. Better get that weatherization program running pronto.  

I have to apologize to the good people of Vermont on behalf of Franklin County, for having sent Norm McAllister to sit with the big boys and girls in the Senate this year.

Mr. McAllister is clearly setting his sights on the curmudgeon-in-chief position at the Statehouse, because in a singularly ill-advised debut proposal, he has chosen to target bicyclists and tourists for a revenue shakedown.

He proposes a $20. annual registration fee for all those who wish to bicycle in the state of Vermont, whether they live here or not.

Mr. McAllister thinks those free-wheeling Canadians ought to pony-up for more than just goods and services while they are here!

The Freshman Senator is so put out by the enormous amount of money the state invests in wider lanes and bicycle paths that he is declaring pay-back time.

Nevermind that more bicycles translate to less automobiles, which means less wear-and-tear to conventional roadway infrastructure, less pollution and less demand on parking facilities; nevermind that bicycle tourism is one of the things that sustains an important Vermont industry even in years when the snow conditions disappoint.  

So, while other places are trying to find ways to encourage more people to abandon their cars for bicycle travel, Vermont…AKA, the greenest state in America…is supposed to take the road less travelled 😉 and, in effect, penalize cyclists for their eco-friendly mode of transport?

Does Mr. McAllister realize that some cities even provide fleets of bicycles that people may borrow for free?

You have to understand that Mr. McAllister numbers among his constituents some pretty pedestrian-and-cycle unfriendly communities.  

The Selectboard of the Town of St. Albans (not to be confused with the City of St. Albans, where I live) is so fundamentally hostile to basic sidewalk maintenance (nevermind bicycle lanes!) that they have, for years, resisted the elected Planning Commission’s efforts to create a Town plan that would include such frivolous pedestrian amenities.

In fact, that same five-man Selectboard is now attempting a fundamental power grab that would permanently eliminate any opposition from the Planning Commission.  They have proposed a Town charter on the March ballot which, if adopted by voters, will eliminate the elected Planning Commission altogether and replace it with one conveniently appointed by the Selectboard.

And even though the proposed charter would include provision for both a local sales tax and the opportunity to impeach elected officials; there is, for instance, no inclination by the power block to expand the elected Selectboard or to introduce a ward system whereby the different areas of the town and their very different socio-economic demographics would be equally represented at the table.

Past elections have routinely returned the same reactionary slate to power time and time again.  Less than five-hundred people, or only about 12% of the population, have chosen these guys by their votes.  Poor voter turn-out would seem to be to blame for the stagnant situation in the Town.  

This is largely due to the fact that, with new housing development representing much of the population, the Town has become a bedroom community for people whose working lives play-out in other towns and even other counties.  It will be years before that bedroom community becomes sufficiently invested in what goes on politically close to home to actually make a difference in local elections.

Since the Town has the largest population in the county, similar dynamics of disengagement were largely responsible for sending Mr. McAllister to the Senate this year.