GOP plans broad environmental, energy reforms in Legislature

I was expecting this.

The GOP is going to frame EVERYTHING in the context of “creating jobs” and of course folks are going to buy that line and everything that goes along with it. Naturally they won’t have to prove any of their plans or legislative actions will actually create jobs, they just have to say it and then the opposition is automatically silenced. After all, who’s going to stand in the way of creating jobs? And to hell with the long-term effects of what they do. The future doesn’t matter because no one will hold any present lawmaker accountable for that. Knee-jerk reactions to the present situation are the only thing that matters. Very sad.

I won’t say absolutely no to nuclear. I’m just saying there a big questions to be answered. Can catastrophe be prevented if the plants are attacked? Where does the waste go? Is there reason to think the history of cost overruns won’t continue? Resolve these, and I’m open to it.

Even at that, we can’t look at nuclear in isolation. Would the same money be better spent developing carbon capture technology for coal plants? Would the same money be better spent developing our own solar panel and wind turbine industries? Would the same money be better spent to invent controlled nuclear fusion? If the idea is to have more homegrown energy, we don’t have any coal or oil in Minnesota, but we don’t have uranium either.

Look, if the bleeping commies and the islamic nutcase countries can build nuclear power plants, the alleged civilized nations of the world should be able to also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

Dear reader,

“The bill also includes measures to improve air quality by requiring the state agency to promote methods of generating energy and disposing of waste that pollute as little as possible.

It allows the agency to adopt air quality and other environmental standards that vary across the state according to different criteria, such as whether an area is residential or industrial, and then prohibits local governments from setting standards that are more stringent, a measure that worries some municipal officials. Fabian says the measure is necessary to create a “uniform code” for the state, but adds that he’s open to compromise.”

–Did you notice the contradiction in this language? How is it possible to maximize air quality while at the same time a) actually prohibiting local governments from strengthening pollution controls, and b) allowing more pollution based on the area of the state?

These are real, legitimate, and important issues, and the reason we need intelligent, well informed, and hard working people elected to state office.

Anybody who’s familiar with what Carlson, Pawlenty and Ventura’s people in the agencies and the courts have done to environmental law will understand that they have so gutted the laws and regulations as to make “environmental review” a complete farce in this state. Everybody pays lip service to “protecting the environment” in Minnesota but not when it interferes with economic interests.

“[Fabian's] bill would allow developers to write Environmental Impact Statements, a role currently played by state agencies or local governments, and repeal state rules that prohibit construction before a project receives its water discharge permit.”

The agencies and courts allow developers to write the EIS’s or EAW’s already. It’s contrary to the rules and the law but it’s SOP. The number of impaired lakes and rivers in this state is testimony to how that’s working.

Kevin,
Good point about everything being about jobs, whether it is or not. It won’t surprise me to see the “Job creating outlawing abortion bill” and the “Making gays illegal in order to create jobs” and “Toxifying the environment job stimulus” and the “Throw people off health care in order to have money for more jobs”.

Brilliant:-)

For all the pro-nuclear folks, I just hope they understand that Nuclear doesn’t take big government, it takes Huge government. Either massive corporate welfare or direct government involvement. They cost billions and don’t take dime one of revenue for at least 3 years from the start of construction. Not to mention the decommissioning which costs a billion to stop making money.

As for “the bleeping commies …,” need I mention Chernobyl and the not-so-peaceful intents of nuclear programs in countries such as North Korea and Iran.

I also came across online accounts which I admit I have not established as credible in my mind, accounts of where the current lawlessness in Somalia is being taken advantage of by European-based entities to dump countless barrels of nuclear waste in Somali waters.

We still have NOT solved the problem of nuclear wastes. It makes far more sense to direct the billions and billions of dollars (taxpayer and rate payer) towards fostering the green energy industry here in the state and throughout America. Need I mention China already moving at break-neck speed in this vital area along with shutting down this or that coal mine or business that pollutes excessively.

I am all for job creation and retention, but to do so at the expense of our environment and/or our health – NOT!

The Republicans nearly wrecked the economy (and the country) with the same policy they are promoting, basically trickle down and less regulation. If those policies are so good at creating jobs (other than in China, yes Commie China) then why is unemployment so high right now? They have learned nothing from their failures, which is to be expected as their policy is based solely on ideology and not at all on evidence or logic.

While it appears that the MN GOP intends to make it easier for corporations to pollute in the state of MN, we can be sure they aren’t keeping track of research like this:

“Multiple chemicals, including some banned since the 1970s and others used in items such as nonstick cookware, furniture, processed foods and beauty products, were found in the blood and urine of pregnant U.S. women, according to a UCSF study being released today.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, marks the first time that the number of chemicals to which pregnant women are exposed has been counted, the authors said.

Of the 163 chemicals studied, 43 of them were found in virtually all 268 pregnant women in the study. They included polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, a prohibited chemical linked to cancer and other health problems; organochlorine pesticides; polybrominated diphenyl ethers, banned compounds used as flame retardants; and phthalates, which are shown to cause hormone disruption.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/13/MNN41GL1NQ.DTL#ixzz1B1caUSuz

MN could be an environmental leader in this is we wanted to. Using the best scientific research, we could reduce human exposure to these chemicals even further. But this would be a radical move in current MN Republican politics, since it would involve guv’mint regulation.

“Rollbacks” would be a better term than “reforms.” But whatever you call them, the proposed actions are bad news. There’s not an iota of evidence that encouraging businesses to pollute Minnesota would contribute to employment.

Another example of reps trying to surf on the wave of employment improvement. It has very little to do with green technologies. On the contrary, green technologies could be a way to lower unemployment. What about subsidies for solar panel manufacturers, and even better, big incentives for researchers and developers of such technology. I agree with Alan, polluting industries will not contribute to employment, that 19th century talk.

[...] Mark Dayton sealed a argumentative check into law on Thursday that would reform a environmental needing routine in Minnesota. Environmental groups had slammed a bill; though notwithstanding that, Dayton sealed an executive [...]