Even as we contemplate the grim prospect of a glow from the Connecticut River illuminating both our homes and our livers; even as the Vermont “brand” twists in the winds of VY indecision, there is at least one thing to celebrate about environmental initiative in Vermont.  The League of Conservation Voters just released the latest results from their National Environmental Scorecard, and our DC delegation came up smelling of roses:

Senator Leahy – 100%

Senator Sanders – 100%

Representative Welch – 93%

 From the Vermont League of Conservation Voters own press release:

Montpelier, VT – Today, the Vermont League of Conservation Voters joined the national League of Conservations Voters in releasing the 2009 National Environmental Scorecard, revealing scores for the Vermont delegation in the first session of the 111th Congress. For 30 years, the National Environmental Scorecard issued by LCV has been the nationally accepted yardstick used to rate members of Congress on environmental, public health and energy issues.

“We applaud those members of the Vermont delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, such as Senators Leahy and Sanders as well as Representative Welch ” said Vermont LCV Executive Director, Todd Bailey. “The 2009 Scorecard clearly exposes Vermont’s entire delegation for what they really are: willing to put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of a cleaner, more secure energy future for Vermont.”

The 2009 Scorecard includes 11 Senate and 13 House votes dominated by clean energy and climate but also encompassing other environmental issues such as public lands, water and wildlife conservation.  In Vermont, both Senator Leahy and Sanders earned a perfect 100 percent score in 2009. Representative Welch, Vermont’s lone House member, score in 2009 was 93 percent with an average Senate score of 100 percent.

“The 2009 National Environmental Scorecard illustrates the extent to which the Obama administration and the 111th Congress began to move our nation towards a clean energy future that will create new jobs, make America more energy independent and curb global warming pollution,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski.   “However, it also makes clear that there is still much work to be done, first and foremost to finish the work started in the House by swiftly passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in the Senate.”

Representative Welch voted for the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would help bring more than 4,270 clean energy jobs to Vermont.*

Compiling latest press releases, rumors, information and reactions:

• RUMOR: Democratic Senator and gubernatorial candidate Susan Bartlett may have as many as 14 votes for delaying any Senate vote on relicensing VY,although one insider puts the count at 10-12.
  
  • If she forces a tie, Republican Lt. Governor and anointed Douglas successor Brian Dubie will get tie breaker vote. No points for guessing correctly which way he’d vote.
    

  • Dubie would then get a huge headline for his vote, and likely Bartlett will lose the Democratic base and the primary (unless many R’s jump party lines to vote in the D primary).
    

• PRESS RELEASE: Senate Majority Leader John Campbell, considered one of the more conservative Democrats in the legislature, accused “Entergy officials and lobbyists” of “distorting the truth” regarding a forthcoming report characterized as “commissioned by the Joint Fiscal Office.” It is one of the reports that proponents of delaying the vote suggest is “imperative” to review before voting. Campbell says the report was “commissioned and paid for by Vermont’s two largest utilities.”
  
  • The JFC agreed to let its economist and its economic consultant work with the utilities’ report writers.
    

  • “This is not a legislative initiative and the legislature did not pay for this report.”
    

  • The legislature’s report was on “electricity price forecasts” and “was delivered to the legislature on January 7, 2010.”
    

  More on the flip

It's barely a month ago, but the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United could have a bearing on tomorrow's vote on letting Vermont Yankee's operating license expire on time.

Or maybe I should say that considerations of Citizens United should have a tremendous bearing on the vote, and here's why. You probably know what the Supreme Court did in Citizens United, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that they opened the floodgates to unlimited spending by corporations in political campaigns.

Corporations like Enexus, or Entergy, or whatever they're calling themselves to stay ahead of state scrutiny these days.

You probably get campaign solicitations from political parties every week. In fact, I just got one while I was writing this. If you're like me, whenever you get these calls you think about how important the cause is, what your budget happens to look like that week, and you decide how much you can afford to spend.

If you're Entergy, what's potentially at stake in November's election is whether they get to keep running their plant, so let's take a look at the numbers. On average, Vermont Yankee sells the electricity it generates at about a nickel a kwh, or $50 per Megawatt hour, so every hour their sales are about $31,500, and every day they're running it's about $756,000. In a year that puts their sales at about $276,000,000. Kind of a lot of money, huh?

Now, we have a state Senate (maybe) and five Democratic candidates for governor who are saying they should be required to shut down in 2012, which means shutting off the $276 million spigot. One might think it's worth a lot of money to them to stop that from happening. That's why they're buying all the full-page ads in the paper, running all the TV spots, flying their PR flack up from New Orleansto glad-hand the locals, and offering a sweetheart deal (what? Did you say bribe? I'm shocked!) if we let them keep running.

And their message? The same as Douglas's message: do nothing. They know that Douglas won't be around to carry their heavy water next year, but they can hope that Brian Dubie will follow in Douglas's footsteps, if only they can sit on the ball until November. That's why they are doing what they can to stall a legislative vote this year.

But remember Citizens United? That's the game changer in this fight. Say the Democratic candidate is Peter Shumlin, who has come out strong against relicensing. Or, for that matter, any other D, all of whom favor closing VY. And just say, just for the hell of it, that Dubie has come out in favor of relicensing. (He can't hide forever, right?)

Thanks to Citizens United, if the election in November is between a Democrat who favors shutting down VY and a Republican who favors keeping it open, how much is it worth it to Entergy to keep the plant running? Obviously not three quarters of a million a day, because that's their total sales, but definitely in the millions, right? Tens of millions? What does it cost to pay for a governor and sixteen senators?

If it's still an open question in November, we can expect to see possibly the most expensive election in Vermont history.

The vote's tomorrow, and the Senate should vote No and let VY close.

Compiling latest press releases, rumors, information and reactions:

• RUMOR: Democratic Senator and gubernatorial candidate Susan Bartlett may have as many as 14 votes for delaying any Senate vote on relicensing VY,although one insider puts the count at 10-12.
  
  • If she forces a tie, Republican Lt. Governor and anointed Douglas successor Brian Dubie will get tie breaker vote. No points for guessing correctly which way he’d vote.
    

  • Dubie would then get a huge headline for his vote, and likely Bartlett will lose the Democratic base and the primary (unless many R’s jump party lines to vote in the D primary).
    

• PRESS RELEASE: Senate Majority Leader John Campbell, considered one of the more conservative Democrats in the legislature, accused “Entergy officials and lobbyists” of “distorting the truth” regarding a forthcoming report characterized as “commissioned by the Joint Fiscal Office.” It is one of the reports that proponents of delaying the vote suggest is “imperative” to review before voting. Campbell says the report was “commissioned and paid for by Vermont’s two largest utilities.”
  
  • The JFC agreed to let its economist and its economic consultant work with the utilities’ report writers.
    

  • “This is not a legislative initiative and the legislature did not pay for this report.”
    

  • The legislature’s report was on “electricity price forecasts” and “was delivered to the legislature on January 7, 2010.”
    

  more on the flip

( – promoted by odum)

and also the plunge. I invited the four Democratic gubernatorial candidates whom I have seen post on GMD to come on VTblogosphereTV to discuss the internet and the issues. Big thanks to Amy Schollenberger, Racine’s Field Director, for responding the next day with a positive response and a suggested date and time to shoot. Having a Governor who surrounds him or herself with a competent responsive staff could take some getting used to.  

A reason I thought candidates may not want to come on such a show is the negative perception that public access tv production values can be quite amateurish. And of course, in fulfillment of my worst possible nightmare, an incomplete version of the program went to air last week while I was on vacation. Apologies to anyone who may have seen it, but it is fixed now and is airing for the next few weeks on access stations throughout the state. Thanks to the Racine campaign for showing the leadership to plunge in first and utilize the community resource that is public access TV.   Also, they were extremely gracious and patient as post-production issues were worked out, and I think now we have a decent enough version on air (green screen shadows haunt my dreams), though I do not believe the quality of the production rises to meet the quality of the candidate. But the interview itself went great and was a lot of fun.

And now the pledge: I’d like to see candidates agree that they will not engage in any anonymous internet sketchiness that was so well exemplified by Rich Tarrant’s 2006 Senate bid. If you do not recall that storied campaign and its enactment of “Not the Vermont Way,” you can read David Waldman’s (Kagro X’s) post GOP candidate bankrolls fake blog. That campaign also accused the Sanders campaign of buying the domain name “Tarrantsucks.com” and using it to redirect traffic to “Bernie.org.” No really.

If candidates pledge that neither they nor their staff will engage in anonymous internet tactics, then we will be much better able to trust the election season dialogue that will occur in the blogosphere. Of course candidates can not control all their supporters, but they can certainly control their staff and strategy. And once we head into the general election, with Democratic candidates clearly on the high road, we will be better able to figure out the source if anonymous internet sketchiness rears its head.

Stay tuned for Parts 2 and 3 of the Doug Racine interview

Doug Racine’s website

Volunteer

Contribute

This is the first in a series of blogs where we’ll be asking policy makers, politicians, non-profit and organizational leaders, journalists, celebrities, chefs, musicians, and farmers to share their thoughts-and hopes-for agricultural development in Africa. Cross posted from Nourishing the Planet.

Last week, I had the privilege of meeting with the new U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, Charles Ray. Ambassador Ray was gracious enough to take the time to answer my questions about agricultural development in a country facing political turmoil, high unemployment, and high food prices.

What do you think is needed in Zimbabwe to both improve food security and farmers incomes?

Over the past decade, Zimbabwean small holder farmers have endured a litany of economic, political, and social shocks as well as several droughts and floods resulting in the loss of their livelihoods and food security. Poverty for small holder farmers has greatly increased throughout the country.

In order to restore farmers’ livelihoods they need to be supported in a process of sustainable private sector-driven agricultural recovery to achieve tangible household-level impact in food security and generate more household income, as well to promote more rural employment.

The U.S. government through USAID is doing this by supporting programs that provide effective rural extension, trainings and demonstration farms in order to improve farm management by small holder producers. The programs also include support for inputs and market linkages between the farmers and agro-processers, exporters and buyers. These programs are broad-based and cover all communal small holder farmers throughout the country.

The result of this work is increased production, and productivity, lowered crop production costs and losses, improved product quality, and production mix and increasing on-farm value-adding. Together these programs are increasing food security and farmer’s incomes as well as generating more farmer income and rural employment of agro-business.

At present, the U.S. is the largest provider of direct food aid in Zimbabwe. We are working with our partners to move from food aid to food security assistance which will use more market oriented approaches and combine livelihoods programs as noted above, which will reduce the need for food distribution.

Do you think Zimbabwe needs more private sector investment? If so, what are ways the U.S. government and other donors can help encourage both domestic and foreign investment?

Zimbabwe certainly needs more foreign direct investment. There is little chance that the country can internally generate the investments required to promote the economic growth it needs without it. But it is the government of Zimbabwe that is responsible for creating the business enabling environment to attract investment including both foreign and national.

At present, much more needs to be done in policy and the legal and regulatory framework and in the rhetoric and actions by the government in order to create the environment conducive to attract investment. Without the clear will of the government to be FDI-friendly there is not much that the donors can do.

Hey … weasel Welch … the attacks from your buddies in the whacko political right and you on a group dedicated to politically and financially empowering those in the lower economic classes is bearing some fruit!

The embattled liberal group ACORN is in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the underfunded, controversial national group, an official close to the group confirmed.

(ACORN ‘dissolved as a national structure’, Politico, 02/22/10)

Of course “controversial”, as weasel Welch heartily agrees, means “supports the political and economic empowerment of folks from the lower part of the economic ladder”.

Hey weasel … did I say thanks?

For those of you unfamiliar with the short-lived Joss Whedon series “Firefly,” there is an episode in which the main character gets snagged in the middle of a burglary.  After some complicated maneuvering and attempts to present it as something other than it is, his partner in crime turns on him, and pulls a gun on both him and the victim of the burglary, at which point he owns up and tells the guy, actually we were trying to steal your priceless artifact.  At this point the victim responds.  “Well, I appreciate your honesty.  You know… not… a lot.”  

I think that’s a fairly good summary of my reaction to a story that popped up in papers throughout Vermont today.  Specifically that the NRC is now confirming that there was a 2005 tritium leak at Vermont Yankee.

So yes, NRC, I appreciate your honesty.  Just… not… a lot.

Quick update: most of the pieces on this are simple bullet point AP stories, but the Rutland Herald actually did some journalism with this.  I strongly recommend reading the entire piece.

Gubernatorial candidate Deb Markowitz last October:

“To resolve this deficit it’s likely everyone will have to give something. We may need to reduce (unemployment) benefits and we may need to rquire [sic] employers to pay in a little more to get us through – hopefully there will be additional money coming from Washington to help out.”

Gubernatorial candidate Deb Markowitz last Saturday at a candidate forum sponsored by the Vermont Grocers’ Association and the Vermont Retailers Association:

On the issue of unemployment taxes, Markowitz said she rejects current legislative proposals that seek to replenish the bankrupt fund through a combination of higher taxes on businesses and decreased payments to beneficiaries.

“This is not a time we want to take money from people who are unemployed or raise taxes on businesses,” Markowitz said.

She said borrowing from the federal government – which would result in heavy penalties for businesses and potentially large interest payments from the General Fund – is preferable to current proposals. Once the state regains its economic footing, she said, “we can revisit how not to get in this situation ever again.”

Things are looking up. Man I love primaries.

Doug Hoffer’s promoted diary on the AHS budget is the bigger picture, and here’s just one piece of the inhumane priorities promulgated by the Dubie-Douglas-Lunderville Administration. We could easily call it the “Death by Budget” plan for low-income Vermonters with AIDS/HIV.

As proposed by Agency of Human Services Secretary Rob Hoffman from Health Department Commissioner Wendy Davis, M.D., the Health Department’s budget will:

* eliminate medication subsidies for AIDS/HIV drugs entirely (a 100% cut).

* cut funding for support services for Vermonters with HIV/AIDS by 40%,  $135k.

* cut funding for syringe exchanges by 50%, gutting an important prevention program.

The total damage amounts to a 57% cut in funding for AIDS/HIV-related programs. Meanwhile the rest of the Health Department’s budget is being cut an average of 4%. Nearly half the total cuts from the Health Department’s budget (excluding federal funding) came from the AIDS/HIV programs.

Figures like those might make a Vermonter wonder – or perhaps choke – on reading some of the goals of the Health Department, such as these [emphasis added]:

The Health Department’s many programs and initiatives help Vermonters live fuller, healthier lives from birth through old age.

* We focus on prevention, which is perhaps the best investment that can be made in health.

[…]

* We promote and improve access to immunizations, mammograms, HIV/AIDS testing and care, treatment for mental disorders, and prenatal care.

The assumption behind the cuts appears to be that federal funding will pick up the slack. But according to Vermont Cares Executive Director Peter Jacobsen, that’s not realistic, and even if federal money does materialize for some of the cuts, it will take a long time to secure those funds. And in the meantime, clients would  be forced to go without medications and/or services.

Those Death by Budget cuts will also have a severe impact on AIDS/HIV service providers, mostly nonprofits like  CARES, which get part of their funding through the Health Department. If these cuts go through as proposed, Jacobsen is looking at laying off a third to half of his staff and seeing a cut of 17% in his agency’s budget.

AIDS is not over. Nor is it a ho-hum manageable disease, although we’ve made enough treatment progress that some PWAs are making it to Medicare, rather than dying in their early adulthood. But if the Dubie-Douglas-Lunderville Health Department budget passes without significant changes, the lives of some low-income people with AIDS/HIV will be at risk.