Burlington and Brattleboro Rallies Today for Climate Activist Facing 10 years in Federal Prison

For Immediate Release

Contact: Joe Solomon

Phone: 516-232-3072

Email: joe@350.org

6/23/2011 – BURLINGTON, VT Demonstrations to shed light on unjust prosecution of activist and danger of climate change.

What:  Live music, a reading of Tim DeChristopher’s courthouse speech, a group photo with a banner all the way from Salt Lake City, and fresh calls to step it up with a number of Vermont’s grassroots climate justice campaigns.

Where: Burlington Federal Court House

11 Elmwood Ave (Corner of Elmwood and Pearl St.)

Burlington, VT

When: Thursday, June 23 · 6:30pm – 7:30pm

Burlingtonians have organized to demonstrate solidarity with climate justice activist Tim DeChristopher, a Utah resident who was scheduled to be sentenced to up to ten years in federal prison on June 23rd for his nonviolent protest that precluded an illegal BLM auction that would have rushed pristine public lands into the hands of oil and gas companies. DeChristopher’s original sentencing date marks the 23rd anniversary of Dr. James Hansen’s landmark testimony to Congress regarding the threat of atmospheric carbon levels to a livable global climate. DeChristopher’s sentencing date has since been rescheduled for July 26th, but activists will proceed with demonstrations as scheduled, in order to commemorate Hansen’s testimony and encourage national solidarity among the climate justice movement.

Community organizer Jonathan Leavitt said “While the big polluting corporations of the world were just handed a major victory in the US Supreme Court Monday, climate hero Tim DeChristopher is facing ten years in US Federal Prison for standing up to these very same big polluters. In Pakistan, Australia and now the center of the North American continent, we’re getting a powerful taste of what global warming feels like in its early stages. It’s time to stop letting corporate power make the most important decisions our planet faces. It’s time for Americans to follow Tim DeChristopher’s example and stand up to the big polluting corporations, our world can’t wait.”

The rally in Burlington will be part of over 40 solidarity actions will be happening nationwide Thursday. Find our more about Tim’s story and the way its re-inspiring the climate change movement at peaceful www.peacefuluprising.org

Burlington Rally

https://www.facebook.com/event…

Brattleboro Rally

https://www.facebook.com/event…

Tired of troublesome facts? Blame the messenger.

For anyone who has been following Arnie Gunderson on Fairewinds’ videos since the Fukushima meltdowns it may be no surprise that they are attracting considerable attention. Not surprisingly the videos, produced on a shoestring, are straight forward and informative.

Pro nuclear power blogger Rod Adams has noticed too, and this isn’t the first time. Last March, Adams was taken to task by the Brattleboro Reformer for an unsuccessful effort to smear Gundersen’s reputation. He penned a letter to the editor attempting to blunt Gundersen’s critique of Vermont Yankee by attacking his reputation. The Reformer called out his methods in an editorial titled: If you can’t refute the message then try to discredit the messenger.

It’s archived unfortunately, but in it the Reformer noted the ongoing efforts at personal destruction:

That’s the tactic several Vermont Yankee advocates have taken to impugn the character and devalue the experience of Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear safety advocate who has been highly critical of the operation of the nuclear power plant in Vernon.

The writer [Rod Adams] of Atomic Insights (atomicinsights.blogspot.com) accused Gundersen of inflating his resume…,

Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, was once praised by the Chairman of the NRC for his congressional testimony about problems in the nuclear industry to the Committee on Governmental Affairs in 1993. Former NRC Chairman Selin said “Everything Mr. Gundersen said was absolutely right; he performed quite a service….”

Fast forward to the latest effort (here) where Adams pulls no punches and accuses Gundersen (not TEPCO) of causing fear, uncertainty and doubt. He confesses to being tired due to the effort required to respond and debunk what he says are false claims. Yet Adams marshals enough strength to author a long attack piece and at the close flatly explains he believes it is simply more effective to attack the messenger rather than argue the facts. His confessed tactic in simple and straight forward terms:

Several people have challenged me with regard to my efforts to expose Gundersen as having strong personal and financial motives to attack his former industry. [Note: Adams has had a business relationship with the French nuclear firm Areva currently contracted by TEPCO and is marketing small nuclear reactors] They do not like my efforts to show that he has not been completely forthcoming about his experience. They have told me that it is not fair to focus on the messenger; they say I should focus on countering his assertions instead.

My response is to remind people that it is often far more effective to aim at the archer than to aim at the arrows. (Of course, I am speaking figuratively here. My weapon is my keyboard.)

The Energy Collective blog is an energy industry (Siemens AG) sponsored site with a variety of bloggers that offers interesting information on all forms of power sources in that context. It is significant that Adams is readily taken to task in the comment section by a fellow Energy Collective diarist for his tone and destructive methods on what should be his home turf.

This [Adams’ diary] post doesn’t create the context that correctly illustrates the news reporting climate that’s shrouded Fukushima, in your article debunking Arnie. That includes those we would expect to hear from which includes TEPCO, the Japanese government and the IAEA. Gundersen has also been completely correct in many of his assertions from day one, but you haven’t pointed that out.

 

VY operators sue Vermont over their own poor career choice

Per Josh Stilts in today’s Brattleboro Reformer:

…operators… claimed that a closure of the nuclear plant infringes on their civil liberties because their operating licenses are specific to Vermont Yankee. To operate another facility, they would have to go through rigorous training,..

So let’s get this straight: they chose to take a job at a plant that was scheduled to close in 2012.  And now they’re suing Vermont because they don’t like that they may have to get training elsewhere to work at another plant.

Did Vermont make the regulations that require them to get training to work elsewhere?  

Did Vermont make them chose to work at a plant that was scheduled to close in 2012?

What exactly is their argument here?  We don’t wanna?  You can’t make us?

I’d say this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, but I’ve been following VY news for some time now.  Sadly, this doesn’t even come close.

LDI Part 2: Scoring the State Senate

( – promoted by odum)

For the second installment of my Vermont series, I want to illustrate one of the ways that LDI scores can be useful in non-electoral analysis.  One of the the biggest issues citizens face when it comes to state government is that they often know very little about what the people they are voting for support – especially in a state with districts as small as Vermont, where campaigns for state legislature aren’t high-spending ultra-partisan affairs.  While the recall will be the true barometer, if Wisconsin residents knew what the legislators they were electing really wanted to do with state government, would they have ever had the numbers to take such destructive acts?  

In order to combat this lack of information, third party groups often try to inform voters about candidate positions on their individual issues, and this is helpful, to a point.  Scorecard scores tend to be intentionally divisive, looking to paint one party as against their issues, and another for it – furthermore, on something like environmental issues, a Democrat with a far from perfect record on the environment might be a considerable improvement over someone who will vote against environmental interests 100% of the time.

By using these third-party scorecards, and plotting them against the District Index scores for the districts these legislators represent, we have better context to evaluate which legislators are pulling their weight on which issues, and to what degree a legislator might be deviating from the rest of his party.  

Below I have taken four scorecards that cover the 2009-2010 members of the Vermont Senate, and plotted them against the index score for the Senate district they represent.  

Chamber of Commerce scores tend to be balanced in favor of Republicans, with Democrats much more likely to receive lower scores. Unlike some below, these scores are just based on the 09/10 session, and the full list of bills included can be found on the Vermont Chamber of Commerce website.  The black line is a simple linear regression of the data.  The results speak to the amount of ideological diversity within the Democratic party.  Take the Chittenden Senate district (D+10) for example: Sen. Diane Snelling (50%) only receives the third highest score in the district, behind Doug Racine (56%), and Sen. Hinda Miller, whose 79% score is tied among Democrats only by Bob Starr, whose Essex-Orleans seat (R+16) is one of the most Republican districts in the entire state.

The VPIRG scores also only cover the last session, and are significantly less partisan, with all but five senators scoring 80% or higher.  The underachieving six? Democratic Senators Dick Sears and Dick Mazza, both just hovering above 50%, and then Republicans Randy Brock, Kevin Mullin, and then-Sen. Phil Scott, whose 44% is only higher than Peg Flory.  Sen. Flory’s score is artificially deflated however, as she did not have a full session’s worth of votes to be recorded on.

The League of Conservation Voters release lifetime scores, which are even better indicators to really get a grip on where legislators stand.  Again, Sen. Flory brings up the rear at 13%, but just as significant is the fact that the second lowest score again belong to Sen. Starr.  Also worth a mention is Sen. Alice Nitka’s score of 67%.  While it’s not as low as some other members of the Democratic caucus, it is notable for the fact that among the cluster of Democrats in districts comparable to her own, it is significantly lower than her colleagues.

Finally, the AFL-CIO also releases a lifetime scorecard.  The only word of caution I would give is that they are incredibly selective about what votes are counted, and as a result, for first-term senators, the only scored vote was their decision to close Vermont Yankee as planned, which they scored as a “bad” vote.  That is why someone like Progressive Senator Tim Ashe, who you would expect to see near the top of this graph, is instead on the bottom line.  It’s also worth noting the Republican scores on this one: Sen. Snelling’s score is 2nd in her Caucus to Sen. Vince Illuzzi.  Effectively, the two most pro-labor Republicans come from the two Republican Senators whose districts are farthest apart.

If this data is interesting to you, it is worth checking out a post I made on Green Mountain Daily a while back, looking at these same scores for members of the Vermont House. With Vermont behind us, I’ll have more states on the way shortly.

We Need You

Email I got from Progressive Majority:

Are you passionate about economic and social justice? Think you can do better than your elected officials?

Then Progressive Majority needs you to run for office!

If you have ever signed a petition or marched in a rally, you should consider running for office. Our team can help you decide if public service is right for you and if you'll make a strong candidate.

Let us help you decide where you'll make the biggest difference!

Progressive Majority is here to help if you agree to work hard for your own election. Our political team will give you complete support throughout your campaign:

  • Shape your overall campaign strategy
  • Develop a campaign plan, fundraising plan and message
  • Set clearly defined benchmarks to stay competitive and on track to win

Run for the school board.  Run for dogcatcher.  Run for something.  

Seriously.  That's how the conservative movement gained sway.

ntodd

Through a Glass Darkly: The Fox News Psychobubble

(li’l quickie HuffPo crosspost)

This is one of those things that really doesn’t need commentary, as it truly speaks for itself…

But really, how can one resist?

By now you’ve read plenty about the Chris Wallace interview with The Daily Show‘s Jon Stewart — probably you’ve watched at least a clip, if you’re a blog reader. But do you wonder how the Fox News crowd is responding to Wallace’s ineffectual rhetorical blitz against the impenetrable Stewart?

Here’s a glimpse from Fox News’s Fox Nation website, proudly borrowing from a piece on Andrew Breitbart’s website. The scribe is especially perturbed that Stewart repeated the finding that Fox News viewers are the most consistently “misinformed” of what’s actually going on in the world (emphasis added):

Does this sound misinformed to you?

•    91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

•    72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

•    72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

•    60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

Uh. Okay. This won’t take long:

1. According to sources such as IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created or saved at least 1.8 million to 2.5 million jobs (and the Congressional Budget Office considered that figure conservative).

2. Repealing the health care reform bill would increase the deficit by $230 billion over a ten-year period.

3. It’s hardly a recovery to brag on, but on the binary question of whether or not the economy is improving or getting worse, that’s not really debatable: it is gradually growing, even if the pace is “frustratingly slow.” The latest group to come to this conclusion based on the recent round of economic indicators is the Economic Advisory Committee of the American Bankers Association.

4. God help us.

Since the answer to the question from the Fox National (“Does this sound misinformed to you?”) is pretty self-evident, I’ll ask another question: What will it take to make Fox viewers look beyond their reactionary bubble and confront reality?

While riding from tee to tee …

Golf is in the headlines and in the deep thoughts of one Vermont Tiger. On what should have been a carefree charity golf tournament at the local country club one golf playing Vermont Tiger-blogger was suddenly seized by fear of a tax. It seems that “while riding from tee to tee,” he noticed that 16 of the 19 event sponsors were financial firms. Storm clouds of worry over burdensome regulations and related horrors rapidly formed. Troubling imaginary scenarios appeared on the horizon.

This begs the question: If these firms, and their owners, are the ones that continue to step forward to support their communities, even in a truly lousy economy, why would Vermont work so aggressively to penalize their success through onerous taxation, burdensome regulation, and constant muckraking?

More importantly, to what extent does every additional dollar of taxation, or page of regulation reduce their ability to make important community donations? How many actual cents of that taxation comes back directly to our communities after it has worked its way through the Vermont government bureaucracy?

Poor man, a good ride from tee to tee spoiled by fevered concerns. Concerns of constant muckraking? Can this chronic whining perhaps reach a peak?

Nationally at least the call may be going out to stop the whining. None other than Former Bush speechwriter David Frum went so far recently as to chide whining Wall Streeters and this week The Washington Post writes that mega level executive pay is reaching  unexpected places. Frum said this:

By the numbers, you may wonder what the rich have to complain about. Corporate profits are up, and the S&P 500 has surpassed 2008 levels. President Obama has signed a renewal of the Bush tax cuts. …Millions of Americans have lost jobs, homes, and savings in a financial crisis and recession caused by the recklessness and incompetence of some of this country’s most eminent and best-compensated financiers.

Maybe awareness of the growing gap between the very wealthy and the un-wealthy is at last drawing some needed attention. One indicator of economic inequality puts the US behind Cameroon and Ivory Coast and just ahead of Uganda and Jamaica. The Washington Post says that as the income gap widens it isn’t just executives in Wall Street firms that are getting rich but lesser ones from companies in even relatively mundane fields such as the milk business.  

Over the period from the ’70s until today, while pay for Dean Foods chief executives was rising 10 times over, wages for the unionized workers actually declined slightly. The hourly wage rate for the people who process, pasteurize and package the milk at the company’s dairies declined by 9 percent in real terms, according to union contract records.

 

Hollow Regulation

Thankfully, we still have an adversarial press that does its job on occasion:

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are “unnecessarily conservative.”

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.

“That's what they say for everything, whether that's the case or not,” said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. “Every time you turn around, they say `We have all this built-in conservatism.'”

Despite a radioactive cloud of security and safety concerns at our own Vermont Yankee, the state is barred from being involved with plant operations.  Fortunately we can still consider economic issues–the cost of storing spent fuel, how to create more jobs–when deciding whether to allow VY to continue operating past its expiration date.

Yet one has to wonder at the rhetoric that I heard a lot during the last campaign about leaving it all to the NRC.  If they say it's safe, then who are we to shut down the plant?  Well, we might not be able to look at plant reliability per se, but we can certainly have the veracity of its operator and the regulatory body who oversees Entergy in mind when we decide not to issue a Certificate.  At this point, their claims about anything related to Vermont Yankee's continued operation ring hollow.

ntodd

AP IMPACT: US nuke regulators weaken safety rules

UPDATE: Today the Free Press continues to run the AP IMPACT report. Today’s story: tritium leaks, like those found at Yankee, are present in 75% of all U.S. nuke plants.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

You have to wonder, though, how many of the plants lied about even having the pipes the way Vermont Yankee did.

If you've been following the stories about Vermont Yankee and Fukushima you will be interested in this story published in today's Burlington Free Press.  

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. – Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

We have no information on whether specific changes have been made to the standards for Vermont Yankee, but given the age of the plant it seems quite likely that they have.

Due to space limitations the full story didn’t appear in the Free Press, but you should read it. The article discloses a series of failures in virtually every operational or safety system in nuclear plants across the country.

What’s our experience in Vermont: collapsing and leaking cooling towers, valve failures, leaks from pipes that the management claimed didn’t even exist, yet we are told that state regulators have no authority to even look at the safety of the plant that directly imperils residents of Vermont and New Hampshire.

Read the story, think about what’s happening in Japan, and think about what you want to see here in Vermont.

LDI: Vermont, Part 1

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

(Cross-posted from The Legislative District Index.  Content is written for a national audience, so there are some basic Vermont things to skim over, but the data is what I figure people will be interested in.  Look for Part 2 Monday, where I’ll have some more data to share, including those legislative scorecards for the Vermont Senate).

Back in the fall of 2009, I was looking for some metric to evaluate the risk posed to legislators by their vote on marriage equality the previous session.  The result was the Vermont District Index, my first attempt at making any sort of metric for measuring partisanship in state legislatures.  Two years later, that project has turned into the Legislative District Index.

Because of the time I have had to work with Vermont’s data, today’s post is going to be a little different than the states that have come before – I want to illustrate the real potential of this data over a longer period of time.  For Vermont, I not only have 2010 data, but I also have data from 2008 and 2006, which I’ve made available for download here. For now though, we will just stick with the 2010 data – and I’ve included which party has held each seat for the past three sessions.

For those not familiar with the state, Vermont’s legislature has some interesting quirks.  The Vermont Constitution allows for house districts to be drawn for either one or two members, and makes no limit on how large a Senate district may be.  The result is a six-seat Senate district covering most of Chittenden County – which is quite frankly deserving of a post dedicated to itself.  Since I haven’t had to publish a state with different sized districts yet, I couldn’t figure out how I wanted to publish the Senate list, but the way I’ve done it below I think is the clearest to understand.  Just understand that senators are elected at-large from county-sized districts.

The other thing that stands out immediately is that the generic margin isn’t nearly as Democratic as some might expect.  On the national level, there is no question that Vermont is the safest of territory.  But when it comes to state politics, a relatively weak Republican party has managed to perform well on the back of a few public figures.  Consider this – a Democrat has not received over 50% of the gubernatorial vote since Howard Dean in 2000, when he captured 50.5% of the vote.  Republicans have held around 1/3 of the seats in the state house for most of the decade, nothing like the absolute shutouts we’ve seen in some of the more Republican chambers in the country.  That said, Vermont still comes in as the 2nd most Democratic state we’ve looked at so far, just behind Hawaii.  The graph below shows the raw 50/50 scores of all the states surveyed thus far, with the line stretching from both extremes, and the bar covering the middle 50% of districts.

If you read our Maine article, we talked about the importance of a relatively stable ideological continuum within a party.  If there are large ideological gaps, it becomes easy for the party to be either anchored to the safest of areas (Nebraska) or wind up promoting the growth of a third party (Maine).  With strongholds in Burlington and Brattleboro, the Vermont Progressive Party seems to fit very well into this framework.  Similar to the steep slopes we saw in the above states, there is a rather sharp drop off from the 8-10 most Democratic districts compared to the rest of the Democratic leaning territory. The below graph illustrates that, overlaying the distribution of VT-DI scores on top of the LDI scores of the other states surveyed.

Born out of Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign for Mayor of Burlington in the early 80’s, the Progressive party started with seats on the Burlington City Council, and grew to a statewide party that has held a handful of house seats, garnered a significant chunk of votes in heavily contested statewide elections, and naturally, been the source of plenty of tension amongst the Vermont Left.  With that in mind, 2010 was something of a unification of the Vermont Left, as Progressives chose to not nominate a candidate for governor, and former gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina ran as a D/P fusion candidate in his successful bid for Vermont State Senate.  Furthermore, a generic Vermont Democrat performs significantly better than Democrats in Maine, which has allowed for the party to maintain strong control over the legislature, despite having a successful third party contesting otherwise safe seats. Despite being home to a much wider range of ideological diversity than Hawaii, Democrats still maintain comparable supermajorities.  

In addition to doing my usual recap, I wanted to use my home state as an example of some of the other things we can think about using LDI data.  When redistricting seasons rolls around, suddenly people become a lot more interested in state legislatures, and while Congressional redistricting draws the most attention, there are plenty of major fights playing out over local district lines.  Vermont doesn’t draw districts until 2012, but all ready there have been very different proposals put forth by the tri-partisan redistricting committee.  But those plans have little meaning given the Democratic supermajority, and so any decision about new districts are likely to be made within the party.

As I mentioned before, Vermont’s current districts are highly irregular – I’m represented by more states senators (6) than anyone else in the country.  In a district that big, campaigns become incredibly expensive undertakings, even in a state as small as Vermont.  Additionally, there is considerable scholarship that shows the notion that different sized districts with the number of legislators they elect proportionate to the number of voters within the district does not make for equal representation.  Rather, a voter in a large district has a much smaller chance that their vote will be decisive in an election compared to a voter in a regular single-member district.  Couple all this with the fact that population growth means Chittenden is in store for another Senate seat, and it becomes clear that something has to change.

The problem for Democrats is that virtually any solution weakens the strong position the six-seat district puts them in.  The most common “solution” is to take the town of Milton (R+25), and add it to the Grand Isle/Colchester Senate District, upping the number of senators elected to 2, and maintaining 6 in the rest of the Chittenden County district.  In that plan, Democrats in the six-seat district remain safe, and the Grand Isle district becomes slightly more conservative.  Someone like Republican House Minority Leader Don Turner, who has been a visible presence lately, might be inclined to run for the seat, and it would certainly prove a close contest.  But that solution still leaves you with a six-seat district.

Below I’ve put together a chart of two possible alternatives to the status-quo plan from above, which will illustrate exactly why Democrats have their hands tied.  First is a plan that would divide the six-seat district into two three-seat districts – one containing Burlington and South Burlington, the other containing the rest of Chittenden County.  In the second plan, only the city of Burlington is in a two-member district, with South Burlington as part of a larger four-seat district with the rest of the county.  Using 2010 State Senate election results, I’ve estimated who would be elected from these hypothetical new districts.

While the Burlington based districts will be strengthened (a result Progressives would likely prefer), the district covering the rest of the county becomes toss-up territory, with a LDI score similar to Washington County, where all three parties have found success.  The only way Democrats could break up the six-seat district and retain their advantage would be to split Burlington in half, which goes against the entire reason Vermont has multi-member districts to begin with – maintaining full communities (and in the Senate’s case, counties) as best as possible.  

I think I’ve all ready hit you all with a lot of content for one update, but I’m not quite done with Vermont.  Check in soon for Part 2 of my Vermont coverage, where I’ll illustrate some other calculations we can look at through the lens of VDI: measuring legislators issue positions relative to the ideology of their district.