In an interview the other day, Ed Fallon stated “if coal interests want to research clean coal technology and carbon sequestration they, not the tax-payers, should fund the research.” This is a noble statement based on a belief in renewable energy and a green future. Unfortunately it’s not based on reality. The most ambitious goal for renewable energy involves Americans getting 20% from our energy from renewable sources in the next 20 years. So where do we get the remaining 80% of our energy? While natural gas is relatively clean, it is a commodity that cannot be transported across oceans. The U.S. currently gets about 25% of its energy from natural gas. This leaves 55% of our energy to be accounted for and three possibilities, coal, oil and nuclear energy. Fallon has expressed his opposition to coal and also is vehemently against nuclear energy, stating that “When all costs are factored in, nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. More nuclear power plants mean more plutonium, and reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. And there is no real solution to the problem of storing nuclear wastes.” So that leaves one source of energy acceptable to Ed Fallon to supply over half of America’s energy needs, imported foreign oil.
Relying on foreign oil is bad for the environment, bad for consumers already paying high gas prices and bad for the United States as a whole, as it forces our economy to continue to rely on oil imported from the Middle East. Fallon’s opposition to coal seems to be demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of environmentalists opposed to the Marshalltown coal plant, rather than real environmental policy. While no one can argue that coal is the best source of energy for the United States, unfortunately, compared to oil or nuclear, it is probably the least bad of the three. But with increased funding and emphasis on clean coal research, coal will become much more environmentally friendly. In fact, clean coal is a central part of Barack Obama’s energy plan.
Unlike oil, coal doesn’t have to be imported from Middle Eastern nations and unlike nuclear power, it doesn’t produce radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. In contrast, the United States has a plentiful supply of coal. In fact, Iowa’s third district is sitting on significant coal deposits and towns like Melcher-Dallas and Lucas used to be coal mining centers.
A lot of work and research still needs to be done to make clean coal a reality. Ed Fallon seems to think that this work should be left to private businesses, not the government. While this free market attitude is nice in theory, it is not based in reality. Without government funding over the past few decades, the United States has lagged far behind in research in solar energy and wind energy. Stripping government funding for clean coal research would be just as disastrous. In the meantime, Fallon would rather have us import oil instead. With an energy policy based on reliance on free markets and importing foreign oil, Fallon seems to want to continue the George Bush-Dick Cheney energy plan. Such a misguided attitude would be disastrous for our country and disastrous for our planet.
Dwayne Alons, Iowa’s resident climate change expert, pronounced today that global warming isn’t a problem because we have air conditioning. Alons opined that “we shouldn’t be as concerned, actually, about warming, especially now that we have modern refrigeration and air conditioning.” Unfortunately, unless we air condition the entire planet, we’re in trouble. Global warming means that the polar icecaps will melt and flood many coastal cities and islands. In fact, according to the National Resources Defense Council, 22,400 square miles of the United States, an area half the size of Iowa, will be underwater by the year 2100 as a result of global warming.
While Alons is on the record stating that global warming made the ancient Maya “giants - taller & stronger than modern men and women,” unless it gives future generations of Americans the ability to breath underwater, no amount of air conditioning will make global warming good for anyone.
Our friend Mark posted a little discussion of the work our state legislators are doing to combat global warming (and, in doing so, protect Iowa agriculture). Unfortunately, one Republican State Rep, Dwayne Alons of Hull, IA, has his own ideas about “growing” Iowa — literally! From Mark’s post (emphasis added):
Republicans have taken an extreme position on this particular bill. For example, during the committee meeting on the bill, Representative Duane Alons made a comparison between Iowa in 2007 and ancient Mayan cultures. He argued that global warming would be good for Iowa. He believes that ancient Mayans were giants - taller & stronger than modern men and women. He argues they were giants (and this is a good thing) because of warm temperatures. Ancient cyclical warming helped Mayans become giants!
Republicans are trotting out the same unscientific arguments against doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They argue that if we decrease CO2 emissions we will decrease crop yields in Iowa - ignoring the impact of insects, drought, and shifting rainfall patterns on crop yields. The scientific consensus is that CO2 induced warming will devastate agricultural production in Iowa - and around the world.
So let’s stop fighting global warming and start encouraging it! Maybe if we’re giants, it won’t matter that the earth is dying!
Today John Edwards announced that his presidential campaign will aim to be carbon neutral. As the email the campaign sent out explains, “In February, Governor Tom Vilsack announced he would be the first presidential candidate to plan a carbon neutral campaign. Edwards shares his commitment to protecting our environment and reducing our carbon footprint.”
Edwards is angling to fill the “Vilsack Vacuum,” only weeks after Vilsack announced he would drop out of the campaign. He is trying to recruit as many former Vilsack supporters as possible at this point, and this was one of the Vilsack campaign’s more novel ideas — although the Vilsack folks seemed to want to use it more for fund raising than anything else.
Exactly one week ago, the Edwards campaign sent out another press release claiming “more than 100 Iowa Democrats who were formerly supporting Governor Tom Vilsack’s presidential bid are now supporting Senator John Edwards for President” (it provides the list of 100 names to prove it). 100 activists isn’t exactly a lot considering Vilsack released the names of over 1,100 of his supporters a while back, but Edwards’s list does contain a few big names.
At this point, although other candidates have certainly paid lip service to Vilsack’s service as our governor, etc., Edwards is the only candidate making explicit attempts at recruiting former Vilsack supporters — at least through the press. Whether this will make much of a difference, I don’t know; but frankly I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more attempts at the same sort of thing from other candidates. Maybe outside Iowa few appreciate the level of support Vilsack had here. He has been our governor for a while, and even those Democrats who weren’t supporting his presidential campaign like him.
Wal-Mart occupies a special place in the demonology of the American Left–and with good reason. Its business practices lead to the exploitation of workers both at home and overseas and it has paved its path to success on the destruction of countless American small businesses, most of which were located in small towns like Grinnell. These sins have been extensively catagoried by organizations like Wake Up WalMart.
However, Wal-Mart seems to be taking steps to remediate these issues. Most notably, the front page of the New York Times today has an article that describes how Wal-Mart is using its power as the largest store in the nation to encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs. Compared to a traditional incandescent light bulb, a compact flourescent light bulb “uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.” This is part of an ongoing effort by Wal-Mart to become a better corporate citizen and address a lot of the criticism it’s received. In fact, its new chief lobbyist is a former official in the Clinton Adminstration.
So do these efforts mean Wal-Mart has changed its stripes? I don’t know but it does seem to have some interesting political ramifications. It puts John Edwards, who has taken an active part in the anti-Wal-Mart campaign as part of his attempt to reposition himself as the progressive candidate in 2008, in an interesting position. He’s now criticizing an environmental do-gooder. While Hillary Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board until her husband ran for President, doesn’t have to run so far from her past involvement with the largest company in Arkansas. While no Democrat will embrace Wal-Mart (after all, with enemies like SEIU and the UFCW, you’re not going to have a lot of Democrats who want to be your friends), how they address the issue will be important. It’s the difference between a nuanced position that won’t alienate corporate contributors and an all-out attack that will be a bid for support from organized labor.
The question is whether by word or by deed, Wal-Mart will be successful at changing its stripes so that an attack on its corporate practices is merely doing the bidding of labor unions rather than defending working Americans. The success of Wal-Mart’s efforts may not just determine its corporate image but the image of Presidential candidates as well.
As we draw closer to June 6th, primary day, Culver and Blouin continue to exchange accusations. Culver is now trying to paint Blouin with the same pro-Big Business, anti-farmer brush that Blouin, in his a TV ad spot, was able to color Culver with. It goes like this: first Blouin says that Culver worked as a paid lobbyist for a giant meat-packing firm. Then Culver does the classic I’m-rubber-and-you’re-glue counter by saying that actually it is Blouin who has promoted meat-packing interests in the state.
Earlier this week Culver, in his first attack ad, criticized Blouin for being against stem cell research. Then Blouin responded by saying that he would support a change in the stem cell law, a reversal on the position he held last year.
Fallon is getting marginalized even as he maintains the ‘higher ground.’ He has called for all of the candidates to run a positive campaign, but that is easy to do when no one is attacking him because he is not seen as a credible opponent. But I think Fallon is right. This is only the primary and we seem to be getting pretty heated here. Long about June 7th it seems like the Democrats might begin regretting these nasty campaign ads when Nussle drags out his war chest and begins buying up all of TV ad time he can get his hands on. After the primary it might be difficult if Culver or Blouin has to suck it up and endorse the other one, but that is what we are going to need to beat Nussle in November. Maybe it isn’t unprecedented to have negative primaries, but it seems like they are losing track of what really matters.
With gas prices soaring to above $3/gal in parts of the country it is no wonder that people are talking about alternative energy. Here in Iowa, of course, we like to talk a lot about ethanol, because we grow a lot of corn, one of the materials that can be turned into ethanol.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington are considering legislation that would mandate an increase in the amount of ethanol used for fuel. Both Democrats and Republicans from the Midwest are proposing legislation, and while they think that it is useful to both be working on similar proposals, it seems unlikely that any bills would actually pass as midterms approach. There is concern that mandating the use of ethanol might not be the wisest move right now:
“To say that we have to incorporate these huge volumes of ethanol into gas regardless of what they cost is not very good policy if you’re trying to moderate gasoline prices,” said Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
Furthermore, there is speculation that the dramatic increase in corn-derived ethanol costs may actually be contributing to high gas prices. So as a recap, so far we’ve got people saying high gas prices are driving up corn prices and other people saying that high corn prices are driving up gas prices. This economist though says that the only thing determining gas prices is good ol’ supply and demand.
So lets complicate things a little further: according to the same Register article there are also proposals in Congress to end the 54 cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Places like Brazil are big ethanol producers, but they make it from sugar cane, not corn. However, it is uncertain if this would really reduce gas prices. Not to mention,
Latham, a close ally of House Majority Leader John Boehner, said the tariff cut would be unlikely to pass the House.
Another question that is being debated is how useful ethanol really is. While the debate over gas prices is one thing, the larger issue here is renewable energy. Is ethanol really a viable energy resource? Recent studies coming out of Cornell University have found that ethanol actually takes more energy to make than it produces. Basically that is bad. So even if ethanol could replace a sizable chunk of our foreign oil imports we might be better off looking for ways to power our vehicles with natural gas or coal (the biggest electricity producers in the U.S.).
What a lot of people are depending on in the future of ethanol is that there will be some technology advances. However, those advances are expected to come from finding new sources for ethanol, like plant wastes and wood chips. So what does this all mean? I don’t really know either, but it seems like the benefits Iowa derives from the ethanol industry might not be there in the future. (Maybe we should be focusing on that other renewable energy resource that we have a lot of…wind!)
This is definitely a work in progress (pun intended), but Alec and I wanted to get this up as quickly as possible. This is the first installment of a hopefully-regular podcast about Iowa politics. This week, we talk about travelin’ Tom, Republican tax proposals, Fallon and Blouin visits (with audio), and more! Check it out and subscribe!
Note: I’m still working the RSS feed out, so until then, you’ll just have to listen or download from here.
I posted about this a few days ago: Nussle made the first TV buy of the 2006 gubernatorial election — and it only cost $500,000! The ad is now online, so watch it a few times (Quicktime, Windows Media). It’s short and incredibly empty of substance, but here’s what it claims (and why it’s flat-out wrong, line by line):
Nussle learned leadership “from the ground up.” That’s mostly just a stupid thing to say. I wonder whether they focus grouped to determine that the “from the ground up” leadership style was more appealing than other less creative, more conventional leadership styles. (The “don’t make a huge surplus into a huge deficit” style of leadership comes to mind as one potential alternative…)
Keep reading; the fun has just begun.
“In Congress, Jim is a leader in the fight to control spending and clean up the house ethics scandal.” I can’t believe he went there. My only guess why is that he knew the Democorats wouldn’t have the money to spend on response ads right now, so audiences wouldn’t hear about how he is as responsible as anyone in Washington for the devastating budget reversal that turned a $236 billion surplus into a $412 billion deficit.
And I’d like to see him try to prove the claim that he’s a leader in the fight to “clean up the house ethics scandal,” but I’m suspicious that the language here, too, is more “manipulative” than, say, “truthful.” The phrase “clean up the house ethics scandal” seems to achieve a number of marketing objectives: First, the language of “cleaning up a scandal” is a lot more favorable to Nussle than the language of “cleaning up a group of crooked politicians,” because Nussle is, on many accounts, a crooked politician. Second, calling it a “scandal” makes it sound like anyone who mentions it or tries to draw attention to it is just a gossip (a gossip who hates FREEDOM). And third, it makes Nussle’s position offensive rather than defensive. If his position were merely “I’m not scandalous,” it would be a weak, defensive position. “I fight scandal” is offense. And he has the money, so he can preempt us like that.
Nussle wants to “make Iowa’s schools the world’s best.” He should’ve thought about it before he co-sponsored the now-infamous No Child Left Behind Act, which attempted to force Iowa to model its education system after the bottom-of-the-barrel Texas system. You’d think that Nussle would at least realize that such a flawed un-funded mandate was a bad idea after the fact, but no, he still touts it on his generic, uninspired education flyer.
He also has his own plan, called “Empowering Parents With Choice in Education” (oh, so now he’s pro-choice). It is also just a tax credit, but it doubles as a creative backdoor into a school voucher program. Except, unlike the other places where school voucher programs have been proposed, this won’t be targeted towards the socioeconomically needy. He just wants to give away $1,500 in tax credits to anyone who wants to send a kid to private school. That’s per kid (maximum $6,000 for married couples or $3,000 for single filers). Iowa already ranks in the bottom half of the nation in per-pupil spending and is losing teachers to bordering states. Do we really need to make it worse? And is a tax credit alone really something Nussle has the right to call an education plan of any kind? I’m thinking not.
Nussle wants to promote “affordable health care.” He has no health care plan on his web site. He does have a PDF of his “record on health care”, though, and it ain’t pretty. The first vote listed is, well, see for yourself: “Nussle Fought for Iowa Hospitals to Ensure Fair Reimbursements, Extended Coverage and Greater Flexibility.” It made sure hospitals got more money, which Nussle thinks might have also meant employees got paid more. In particular, “providing higher payments for all physicians with a 5% bonus payment to physicians in rural areas.” Way to fight for the underdog.
The second “accomplishment” listed is merely that, as budget chairman, Nussle oversaw the passage of the 2006 budget, which, among about a bazillion other things, “resulted in continued funding for Medicare and Medicaid.”
The rest are generally pro-hospital and pro-doctor (including fighting against “frivolous law suits” and voting “to cut away needless paperwork”).
And finally, he claims that he’ll “energize Iowa’s future.” I don’t see that happening.
It seems these days that as candidates begin to gear up for 2008, Iowa becomes a revolving door for those with aspirations of presidential glory. To wit, just today our fine state was graced with the presence of none other than Bill Frist, everyone’s favorite ultra-conversative surgeon and part-time senate majority leader. Apparently, Frist is in town to tout health care legislature to be proposed in Congress, which though it isn’t “the complete answer,” will “shrink the number of uninsured Americans.” One might surmise that when a medically trained doctor attains the leadership of the senate, we might see more aggressive health care legislation, but it seems Dr. Frist is more preoccupied with pandering to the religious right.
In keeping with Iowa’s status as a revolving door for 2008 candidates, the Washington Post reports that in a week none other than Rudy Giuliani will be in Iowa raising money for republican gubernatorial candidate, Jim Nussle. Does this mean Rudy has a huge affinity for Nussle and just wants to see a local boy do good, or does Rudy have machinations on sitting pretty in the oval office one day soon? Giuliani recently went through Pennsylvania and raised money for Rick Santorum, and given Santorum’s sparkling personality and credentials, one might postulate that the only reason for Giuliani’s visits is to broaden his visibility nation-wide? Rudy in ‘08? We shall see.
Next, on this page on The Post’s website, called The Fix, one can find blog style entries about national politics. Of interest is that Friday’s entry handicaps Iowa as the number 3 most contested gubernatorial election happening in ‘06. Also of interest is the fact that while the blurb on Iowa mentions that Ed Fallon is polling equal to Mike Blouin with a laughable fraction of the money, Fallon has no candidate profile on the Post’s page regarding Iowa.
A couple more things of note. Today Jim Nussle proposed an energy bill in congress featuring a mandate to increase renewable energy. This sure seems like convenient timing after virtually every democratic candidate Nussle is likely to face in November has already come out strongly for renewable energy. As well, this bill doesn’t cover renewable energy for electricity, but only renewable energy as a gasoline replacement. Iowa has the ability to be energy independent, and it’s perhaps time to realize that ethanol85 may not be the answer. Nussle is trying to turn E85 into what amounts to a hotbutton issue for Iowa, not recognizing the fact that E85 is still dependent upon gasoline, and that Iowans are abroad and dying in a misguided war to secure the future of our gasoline-dependent state. Renewable for Iowa does not mean just ethanol, and this legislation is a smoke-screen to get Iowans to think that Nussle is an energy responsible candidate.
In local legislature, the budget talks remain deadlocked, the contentious issues being pay raises for teaches (how in anyone’s right mind can they oppose this?) and tax cuts for seniors.
Finally: All Iowans between 18 and 22 are now eligible for Mumps vaccinations, regardless of whether they are enrolled in college. If you don’t have it, I’d recommend looking into getting vaccinated.
