Why We Should Give Ukraine Free Wind Turbines (and Why We Won't)

Wind turbine, MA Military Reservation, Cape Cod

Russia holds much of its sway over Ukraine and other nations in Eastern Europe because it's a major supplier of natural gas for electricity and home heating.

We're spending $682 billion on fighter jets, bombs, and tanks that are virtually worthless in this situation and $75 billion more on spying that as The Rachel Maddow Show reports failed to warn us this crisis was coming.

What if instead we spent just $500 billion on that stuff that's not helping us and spent the other $250 billion on hiring Americans to build wind turbines, then giving them to Ukraine and other vulnerable nations in the region below cost or free? What if, instead of sending troops, we sent workers to install them? Ukraine already has a burgeoning wind energy industry and has the potential to get 100% of its electricity from wind, solar and biomass energy.

Our current enemy's muscle is reduced, our current allies' power grows. And unlike military aid, if those roles ever flip, Ukraine can't use those wind turbines to kill us.

I know it would never actually happen, because clean energy is silly and threatening to start World War III is serious. But it would be nice if Washington could look at the situation a little more strategically than Hacksaw Jim Duggan vs. The Iron Sheik. Do we punch 'em or hit 'em with the 2x4???

But just like Duggan and the Sheik would go to war in front of the fans then go off and get wasted together after the show, the US and Russia are motivated by the same polluting, climate-disrupting energy interests: Russia is #1 in the world in gas reserves, the US #6. The US is #1 in the world in coal reserves, Russia #2.

If we helped one nation break its addiction to polluting fuels, what's to stop all of them from doing it? What's to stop our own citizens from questioning our energy choices?

Better go back to talking about how Ukraine (and Iraq before that) are really about FREEEDOM and not at all about protecting the wealth and power of our dominant industries and the people who control them. The second one doesn't sound worth dying for.

Was a Mountain Lion Spotted in MA This Week?

Read my take on the sighting and what it says about our relationship with wildlife at the National Wildlife Federation blog.

Rep. Raul Grijalva Gets to the Heart of President Obama's Keystone XL Decision

President Obama talks a lot about standing up to the industrial carbon polluters disrupting our climate. So why does he act like the decision on Keystone XL tar sands pipeline - a carbon bomb & one he doesn't have to beg Congress to defuse - is so hard? Why are he and Secretary of State John Kerry standing by in silence as the State Department hires oil contractors to write the environmental review?

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-NM) has a must-read op-ed on KXL in today's New York Times:

The administration’s approach to the pipeline is a throwback to the time when endangered species were defenseless in the face of corporate moneymaking. It is a reminder that even though our environmental laws use science, not profits, as the basis of our environmental decisions, any company with bottomless pockets used to be able to game the system and get away with it.

That’s why Keystone is about more than one pipeline. It is about establishing once and for all whether we have moved on from the disastrous Bush-Cheney view of environmental policy. [...]

Depending on the outcome, I worry that the American public won’t just lose faith in Keystone. It will lose faith in the government’s ability to fund, carry out, understand and implement scientifically based environmental policy. President Obama doesn’t want that to be his legacy. Neither do I. And I am hardly alone.

Will President Obama and Secretary Kerry do the right thing, or will they be yes men for Washington's big money special interests? Ask them to say no to Keystone XL.

Plan to "Fix" High MA Natural Gas Prices: You Pay Twice

With New England once again wracked by high natural gas prices this winter, Massachusetts' plan to "fix" it involves building a new gas pipeline to deliver fracked gas from Appalachia (but not from the neighborhood of ExxonMobil's CEO).

Would it be built with the massive profits oil & gas companies are making off of charging us record prices? Nope. As Ariel Wittenberg reports in the New Bedford Standard-Times, you'll pay twice:

In January, the six New England governors sent a letter to ISO-NE with a plan to diversify the region's energy infrastructure. The plan has two parts, the first of which is to create more pipeline for natural gas with public funding.

"We want more people to switch to natural gas, and we want to be using natural gas for electricity," [Massachusetts Assistant Secretary for Energy Steven] Clarke said. "We want to gain access to affordable, cleaner energy. That's where the pipeline comes in."

Why would we subsidize fracked gas? There's more and more evidence that from a global warming perspective, fracked gas is just as bad as coal. We're just replacing one addiction to climate-disrupting high-carbon energy with another. If we're going to be investing public funding in new energy sources, why not go all out with clean energy, starting with Cape Wind?

[A]fter a particularly bad three-day cold snap in 2004 that strained electric generators, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources conducted a study of how Cape Wind would have helped the system.

Using meteorological data from Nantucket Sound, the study found that Cape Wind could have supplied 25,596 megawatt hours of energy during those three days. According to the study, had that energy come from Cape Wind and not natural gas at the time, 184.25 million standard cubic feet of gas would have been saved — enough to heat 1,600 homes for a year.

"Offshore wind would lessen some of the pressure on the pipeline that we have and would make a more secure electric grid," [Cape Wind spokesman Mark] Rodgers said. "Offshore wind can really provide utility-scale clean power to the East Coast at times when it is needed more."

Yes, clean energy will cost a little bit more up front. But how much will it save us in reduced carbon pollution? Superstorm Sandy alone caused $68 billion in damage on the East Coast. We're supposed to get freaked out that offshore wind and local solar will raise our bills by a couple of bucks a month? Please.

Snowy Owl at West Island in Fairhaven, MA (Video)

On my third try, I finally got to see one of the snowy owls spending the winter in southeastern New England.

Speculation is that more owls than usual are showing up in the U.S. this winter after an Arctic lemming population boom meant more snowy owl juveniles than usual survived and thrived enough to make the migration.

A snowstorm turned me away from Allens Pond Wildlife Sanctuary in Westport last weekend, and I went home empty-camera'd after a cold, windy Presidents Day walk on Fairhaven's West Island.

But on Saturday I got to West Island just after sunrise and finally saw this snowy owl. Raptors are great for bird watching because when not nesting they're fairly indifferent to people - I was able to walk right up to the tree where the owl was perched (good luck walking up to a jittery songbird). It did seem mildly annoyed when I made noise, kind of like, "Do you mind? I'm hunting here."



One more photo from when I first arrived at West Island. As I walked up from the beach and looked across the salt marsh, I spotted this coyote in the distance running towards the woods. It must've seen, heard, or smelled me well before I saw it, and by the time I got my camera out he was a quarter of a mile away. But it stopped every 100 yards or so and shot a look back at me like "thanks for ruining my morning, jerk":

Meet the Press Explains Why Policy Priority Polls are Pointless

On Sunday's edition of Meet The Press, host David Gregory put up this graphic of a Pew poll to question whether climate action should be a top priority in Washington:

But the item directly below global warming on the list - global trade issues, ranked dead last - shows why the entire poll is pointless.

Guess what Washington is about to focus intensely on? Yup: Global trade issues. The Obama administration is pressing Congress to ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) calls "the largest corporate power grab you never heard of."

What about jobs, which has been a top priority for years? Republicans have held the House for 1,141 days and counting without passing a jobs bill. They must not care about priority polls, either.

Will David Gregory Let Meet the Press Get Spun by a Climate Denier?

UPDATE 2/18: So how did Meet the Press and other Sunday shows do? I just wrote up a recap at the National Wildlife Federation blog.

Meet The Press, NBC News' Sunday morning political talk show, is hosting a "debate on climate change" tomorrow featuring children's TV host Bill Nye and polluter-funded politician Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

Deniers like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) admit in unguarded moments that they only deny climate science because they hate the solutions. Will host David Gregory force Rep. Blackburn to talk about inconvenient truths and the need for tough medicine, or let her spin him into talking about how it's cold outside? How is it "serious" to talk about facing the deficit, but if you don't feel like talking about climate solutions, you're allowed to deny the problem exists?

As Salon's Alex Pareene writes, it's symbolic of how America's media is either unable or unwilling move on from the settled science that proves manmade global warming to the question of what to do about it:

Unfortunately, “Meet the Press” cannot deal with any issue without framing it as a binary debate between two opposing partisans, with the assumption being that “the truth” lies directly between their views. The fact that, in this debate, the entertainer represents the “side” of the overwhelming scientific consensus is less important to the producers of “Meet the Press” than the fact that one “side” is also the consensus of the Democratic Party, while the view of a small fringe in the scientific community is the official position of the Republican Party. The political debate apparently trumps any responsibility the program might feel to present to its viewers an accurate picture of the debate, or non-debate, over anthropogenic global warming among actual climate scientists.

I predict with absolute certainty that one of Gregory’s questions to Nye will be some variation on “How can there be global warming if it just snowed a bunch?"

Next week's debate: Do cigarettes cause cancer? An oncologist debates a tobacco executive!

Obama Administration Official Shilling Hard for Coal

People who don't listen to what the Obama administration like to complain about an imaginary war on coal. But if you listen to the actual words spoken by actual administration officials, they often sound a lot like coal executives. (I say executives because there are very few coal mining workers left - machines do almost all of the work now.)

Listen to Julio Friedmann, deputy assistant secretary for clean coal at the Energy Department, who makes the Obama administration sound incredibly desperate to be the coal industry's best friend:

Friedmann said it was “unquestionable” that coal would remain an essential element of a “vibrant” American energy portfolio but said it would be difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change without the use of CCS technologies.

“It's a technology that we simply need to have,” Friedmann said.

Why do we need to have carbon capture & storage coal-fired power plants? If solar, wind and tidal power become cheaper than even dirty coal - and in New England wind is already cheaper than coal - why would it be "questionable" to install as much clean energy as possible, blow up coal plants, and use gas-fired plants to fill in any gaps? (Gas plants can fire up much faster than coal plants and are much cheaper than nuclear.)

Is it to protect coal jobs? The solar energy industry already employs more people than the coal and gas industries combined. Why are Obama administration staffers like Friedmann be putting a thumb on the scale for coal? As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) explained, we should look out for the fate of high-carbon energy industry workers, but not at the expense of workers in countless other industries like fishing, skiing and foresting that suffer due to carbon pollution.

But as Andrew Breiner reports at Climate Progress, Friedmann has more reasons to advocate for carbon capture & storage coal plants than just, is it good for America? The real question is, is it good for Friedmann's past and likely future employers?

Friedmann is a Ph.D geologist, and comes to the DoE from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a federally-funded research organization, where he worked in carbon capture and sequestration. His resume also lists work with ExxonMobil and board memberships with the National Coal Council, a coal industry group that lobbies the government. He has also worked with energy companies, as well as with clean energy research organizations. [...]

The very existence of Friedmann’s clean coal post is boon for the coal industry. The possibility of “clean coal” is highly questionable, and industry has pushed the idea for decades to allay concerns about the environment and climate change. While the DoE has pursued a variety of worthwhile efforts to make fossil fuel production generate less CO2, it cannot do enough to make coal a fuel that can be safely pursued. But the DoE will continue to fund research and demonstration projects that support its desirability as a climate change solution, fostering positive public perceptions of coal, and decreasing the perceived urgency of abandoning it.

It is at this point I must remind you that this is a Democratic administration, which is allegedly the party that understands we need to get off of coal as quickly as possible if we have any hope of keeping climate change from becoming climate crisis.

No matter who's in charge in DC, the fix is always in for dirty energy. The default, the center of gravity, the least painful thing is to do what the polluters and their huge piles of desperately-needed campaign cash want you to do.

It's always up to average citizens to make our elected officials feel enough pressure to do the right thing. That's the only way things change.

Conservatism Now Failing in Real Time on Climate Change in UK

With unprecedented climate change-fueled floods pummeling the United Kingdom, conservative Prime Minister David Cameron stood in front of the media Tuesday to insist that, despite appointing a climate science denying environment secretary to gut flood preparation and ignore climate threats, he is in fact aware that climate change is happening.

It's yet another reminder of how completely conservatism has failed humanity on global warming. Scientists have been warning of man-made climate change for more than a half century and of ongoing and potentially catastrophic climate change for more than a generation. Yet all these later, conservatives like Cameron remain paralyzed in the face of this ongoing disaster by their anti-tax zealotry. And compared to today's Congressional Republican leadership, Cameron is Al Gore.

Conservatism has no answer to climate change - that's why they demand to debate science, not solutions. The media may let them get away with it, but the atmosphere isn't so forgiving.

h/t Duncan Black

Alabama Republican Wants Big Government to Block New Wind Energy Business

Solar panels at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
in Huntsville, Ala.

Hey look, another Republican who wants more big government regulation to protect polluting special interests! Kristi Swartz of E&E News reports this time it's an anti-wind state senator in Alabama:

Industry and federal government officials say advances in turbine technology could transform wind development in the Southeast, adding another renewable fuel option to an area once dominated by coal. But as outside developers are eyeing places to build taller towers and longer blades, emerging lawsuits and legislation could drive them away. [...]

"As a conservative Republican, I am typically for less regulation, but I also recognize that the absence of regulation can create anarchy," [State Sen. Phil] Williams [R-AL] said.

Just last month in Virginia, a Republican state senator's bill to put up new hurdles to wind energy in Virginia was narrowly defeated.

Again: Republicans aren't pro-business, or anti-government, anti-regulation, or anti-subsidies. Some have principles, sure. But many support what their big business patrons want them to support, and are willing to do whatever it takes to stop clean energy from infringing the slightest bit on their supporters' government-protected polluting monopoly.

True Price of Coal: Massive Ash Spill Threatens Dan River's Fish, Drinking Water

On Sunday, a security guard spotted a leak at an enormous Duke Energy coal ash pond. It's now estimated that 82,000 tons of coal ash flowed into the Dan River along with 27 million gallons of water. Matt Wasson, the program director of Appalachian Voices pictured here collecting a water sample, warns the river's dozen or so fish species are at risk:

Wasson, calling the incident “a massive disaster,” said six inches of coal ash covered the bottom of the river Tuesday about two miles downstream from the spill site. “It’s like a lava flow moving slowly toward Danville on the bottom of the river,” Wasson said.

Selenium toxicity could be a concern for humans for months or years as a result of the spill, Wasson said. Arsenic could reduce the number of fish available in the Dan River for years, harming the food chain on which they depend for food.

“It’s fair to say possible impacts of this on fish populations could extend for years,” he said.

When politicians talk about the cost of coal energy vs. clean energy, they never (OK, maybe if their name is Jim Moran or Sheldon Whitehouse) talk about costs like these. What's the cost of threatening the Dan River's drinking water and entire fish population? When politicians like State Sen. Tom Garrett claim to be terribly concerned about the impacts of wind power on birds, why aren't they outraged that bald eagles will now be eating coal ash-poisoned fish out of the Dan River?

And let's not forget the horrifying impacts of coal power on human health even when everything's going right:

Mercury contamination is so widespread that one out of every six pregnant women have mercury levels in their blood high enough for levels in the fetus to reach or surpass the EPA's safety threshold for mercury.

According to the latest government data, this means that 630,000 children are born each year with a strong chance of developing serious mercury-related health effects.

According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

And coal plants get to inflict all this damage without paying a cent for it. It's called privatizing profit and socializing the risk. Tell the Environmental Protection Agency you support strong new limits on carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Is Childhood Obesity Only a Problem When It's Warm Out?

UPDATE 2/14: Thanks to the New Bedford Standard-Times for reporting on the icy Fairhaven bike path.

In towns like Fairhaven, good intentions on walkability are often buried under the reality of policies that strongly urge everyone to drive everywhere.

Take the Fairhaven bike path. In October, it was an important way to encourage children to get outside and combat obesity:

Ella Tveit, 8, agreed that it would be fun "because we're going to exercise. Usually I just jump rope or hula hoop," she said. "This is way more fun."

Before the event, [Rep. William] Straus told the children that bike paths are "important forms of alternative transportation."

But in the winter, kids spending all day inside and getting fat must miraculously stop being a problem. Bike to school days stop November 15 no matter the weather, and the town lets bike path look like this:

Obviously there aren't many great biking days in Massachusetts in the winter. But even when the temperature does rise, the bike path remains covered in ice. While the town pays to plow every road and cul-de-sac, it doesn't budget money to plow the bike path that's used by hundreds of people on nice winter days. The snow that's allowed to build up gets packed down into ice by ATVs that use the path and neighboring marshes as race tracks.

But even if THAT obstacle was cleared, how would anyone safely get to the bike path? Bike lanes are few & far between, and the Fairhaven town code only requires landowners to remove snow from their sidewalks if they're asked to do so by the police.

On one of Fairhaven's busiest roads, I came across this wheelchair ramp and crosswalk buried under banks of snow plowed off of the adjacent road and alley:

Why is allowing people to walk & roll enough of a priority to install sidewalks, ramps & crosswalks, but not enough of a priority to require they be cleared in the winter?

Organic Egg Shortage: Free Market Failure

The Market Basket grocery store in New Bedford posted this sign recently apologizing for an industry-wide shortage of organic eggs. The shortage has also been reported in places like New York City.

According to the Wall Street Journal last year, the invisible hand of the free market isn't working:

The Farm Belt isn’t going organic fast enough to keep up with surging consumer demand, forcing makers of organic foods from milk to deli meats to look abroad for key commodities while struggling to recruit skeptical farmers at home. The U.S. is the world’s largest producer and exporter of corn and soybeans, but organic supplies, which are used largely as animal feed for production of organic meat and dairy, are hard to come by here.

We shovel billions in taxpayer subsidies to corporate farm interests and they can't even make enough organic eggs to sell us. Great system, huh?

If you can't find organic eggs at the grocery store, use the USDA's Farmers Market Search to track down some local eggs. Or for the really ambitious, look into getting some backyard chickens.

The Green Miles Talks SOTU On The Green Front

I joined "On The Green Front" with Betsy Rosenberg and D.R. Tucker yesterday to talk about the climate & energy themes in President Obama's 2014 State of the Union address, listen to it here or search On The Green Front in iTunes podcast store.

State of the Union Excerpt on Climate Change

The advance copy of President Obama's State of the Union address focuses much too heavily on fracked gas for my liking, but this section is the key:

Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.

But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.

The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.

UPDATE 9:52pm: Just wanted to highlight this shift in President Obama's tone on climate science.

2010:

I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.

2014:

Climate change is a fact.

Northern Virginia Sierra Club Endorses Alan Howze for Arlington County Board

Campaign finance laws may let the Koch brothers spend as much as they want on elections, but they make it much harder for local conservation groups to get involved in local elections. Tax-exempt non-profits known as a 501c3s can't get involved in elections and it costs something like $10,000 to set up a 501c4 political wing, so if your group only has a budget of, say, $75,000 for the entire year, having a say in local politics can be prohibitively expensive.

The Sierra Club makes campaign endorsements a priority on the national, state and local levels, and it's desperately needed to elevate conservation and transit-oriented growth in races like this:

The Sierra Club is pleased to announce its endorsement of Alan Howze in the Democratic Caucus on January 30 and February 1 for the the Arlington County Board.

Running in a strong field, we are endorsing Mr. Howze given his depth of knowledge and understanding of the key environmental issues facing the County, including his support of the Columbia Pike streetcar, which the Sierra Club supports as vital to the future of the growing community along Columbia Pike. In endorsing Mr. Howze, we recognize that such a significant investment in transit will require close monitoring by the County Board and its staff. We applaud Mr. Howze all the more for so clearly outlining the long-term benefits of the streetcar, which the Sierra Club views as the defining transit investment in Arlington – perhaps as significant to the County in promoting smart growth as Metrorail was to the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor a few decades ago.

When I ran for Virginia House of Delegates in 2009, Alan was one of my Democratic primary opponents and I told campaign volunteers at the time that if I hadn't been running, I'd have voted for Alan. Considering the winner of that primary, Patrick Hope, has been a great delegate and one of Virginia's most progressive state legislators, that's saying something.

Since then, Alan has worked as a certified home energy auditor providing residential energy audits & efficiency improvements, served as president of the Highland Park-Overlee Knolls Civic Association, and has been active in local Democratic politics. Plus - and TOTALLY MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU GUYS - he was a supporter of Westover Beer Garden in its battle to protect fun from overzealous county regulators.

The proposed Columbia Pike Streetcar has become a key issue in this race and Alan understands that this issue isn't just about whether the project can pass some economist's dry cost-benefit analysis - Columbia Pike needs and deserves this investment. Throwing some new buses the Pike's way would save money, but it wouldn't provide the redevelopment spark of a permanent investment in streetcars, sending a clear message to prospective residents and businesses that pinching pennies mattered more than making life on the Pike better. Also, it's odd that one urban streetcar project would get such scrutiny when suburban road projects get truckloads of money dumped into them without the austerity crowd blinking an eye.

So if you're in Arlington, go vote for Alan in this weekend's Democratic caucus and in the special election in early April (date TBD). And even if you're not in Arlington, go like Alan's Facebook page, because conservation candidates everywhere deserve your support.

What Used to be Normal Now Feels Too Cold

Brilliant comic on climate change from xkcd:

A Bipartisan Win for Wind Energy in Virginia

Virginia's insane General Assembly schedule just produced an absurdly heart-warming outcome: Two smart Republicans blocked a bill that would've put up an unnecessary new hurdle for wind energy.

When it comes to clean wind power, Virginia remains a black hole. Republican State Sen. Tom Garrett thinks the problem is that it's not being regulated heavily enough:

A proposal by Sen. Tom Garrett, R-Louisa, to protect birds and bats from wind turbines passed a committee vote Thursday and was referred to the full Senate.

Garrett said some advocates for wind-generated electricity had criticized the bill.

“I want to make this abundantly clear — and I’ll speak really slowly — this bill is in no way, shape or form designed to be an anti-wind bill,” he said. “We will, I hope, generate a greater and greater percentage of our power in the coming years via renewable energy resources whether it be solar, etc. That doesn’t mean we should do so irresponsibly.”

Wind energy is already heavily regulated by a range of officials and agencies charged with making sure its siting is as friendly to communities and wildlife as possible. Is it more likely Sen. Garrett was standing up for wildlife, or using anti-wind talking points pushed by polluter front groups to try to kill wind before it even gets off the ground?

Also, I have three reallys:

• Really, Virginia is now solely concerned with how energy impacts wildlife? Virginia has already lost 156,000 acres on 67 mountains to mountaintop removal coal mining, but now that people want to build wind turbines to compete with coal energy, suddenly protecting birds and bats is the top priority? Really?
• Really, Sen. Garrett's commitment to advancing our energy future? Really? The same Sen. Garrett who last year sponsored a bill to put onerous new regulations on energy-saving smart meters? Really?
• Really, Sen. Garrett is completely dedicated to the health & well being of Virginia's wildlife? Really? His only other wildlife-related bill is to allow the hunting of coyotes on Sunday.

And last year the General Assembly passed and Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Federal Court) signed a bill that Sen. Garrett introduced to spend taxpayer dollars promoting nuclear power. Remember this when Republicans try to tell you they're pro-business or anti-regulation. In reality, they're pro-their preferred industries.

The bill actually passed out of committee with the support of some of the most progressive Democrats in the Virginia Senate. I'm hoping they didn't fully understand it - that they just saw a bill that claimed to be good for wildlife and voted yes. Virginia's horribly dysfunctional General Assembly session is just 6 weeks long, requiring legislators to file, consider and vote on bills in less than a month. Again: Insane.

But fortunately it was saved on the Senate floor by two Republicans who know wind power means jobs in their district:

Sens. Frank Wagner and Tom Cosgrove, both Republicans from Virginia Beach, opposed the bill on the Senate floor.

Wagner said a wind-turbine park off the Virginia coast is awaiting a decision by federal agencies, bird-flight patterns already were considered, and adding new regulations would harm the project.

Here's hoping yesterday's vote is one of many that bring together clean energy jobs-loving Republicans with climate change-fighting Democrats.

All Those Times I Watched "Kingdom of the Spiders" Didn't Go To Waste

I managed to make the world's first joke connecting William Shatner and global warming in this Daily Beast story. You're welcome.

Take All the Crazy Oil Drilling Risks You Want

If you do trigger an oil disaster, no problem - just direct your staff to destroy the evidence. As long as you work for Halliburton, you'll only get a tap on the wrist from the judge, who’ll then praise you.

Polar Vortex II: Arctic Boogaloo?

It looks like the polar vortex may make another drunken run at the East Coast later this month. I am sure Fox will have an explanation for why the swing from 50 to -5 and back again is totally normal.

So why is the polar vortex suddenly showing up on our doorstep so often? Does climate change play a role? Here's the explanation from White House science adviser and physicist John Holdren:

 

Why Congress Will Miss Rep. Jim Moran

I'm sorry to hear Rep. Jim Moran is retiring, a hard-working, underrated fighter for progressive values, especially for our environment & public health.

My favorite Jim Moran moment: I was leading one of my first Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment stream cleanups at Four Mile Run and was told to expect Rep. Moran to attend. I expected him to show up in a suit, make some brief remarks, hold up a few pieces of pre-collected trash for the camera, and be off to his next event.

Instead, Rep. Moran showed up in hip waders, grabbed a trash bag, and took off down the rocks into the stream. Within minutes he was downstream & out of sight around a bend. Moran didn't return until he'd filled the bag with trash & was dragging a bigger piece of junk that wouldn't fit in. As he left, he apologized profusely that he had to leave before others had finished.

The more you work with members of Congress, the more you respect politicians who genuinely care passionately about solving problems, as opposed to those who just know what they're supposed to say. (Bizarrely, it's the latter who are more hailed as "moderate" heroes by the Beltway media.) Rep. Moran has a fire for the solutions he truly believes will improve the lives of average citizens, and that's sorely lacking in Congress these days.

Inhofe Admits He Only Denies Climate Science Because He Doesn't Like the Solutions

Capitol Hill's Denier in Chief, Sen. Jim Inhofe, slipped up and admitted the real reason why he pretends climate change doesn't exist:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told WABC-AM that he was initially intrigued when former Vice President Al Gore began warning about human-induced climate change but became skeptical after discovering that environmental regulations might prove costly to business.

Climate science deniers don't like the solutions, so they attack the science. The reasons why they don't like the solutions may vary - they most often represent an oil or coal state like Sen. Inhofe does, or it may simply conflict with their anti-regulatory ideology in general as in the case of someone like Sean Hannity or Scott Brown.

It's no different than when cigarette companies rejected science connecting smoking with cancer: Their real objection was to the implications, not to the methods. Science denial almost always has nothing to do with science.

Because once you accept the science and admit there's a problem, you then have to discuss to how to solve it. Frank Luntz and his fellow Republicans recognized this years ago and planted their heels in the ground on debating the science on an endless loop.

More than a decade later, the US media is still allowing deniers to play that same ignorant game, pretending the actual truth can never be discerned. Reporters even go to great lengths to portray deniers as interested in science, even when those same deniers say otherwise.

Reporters then pretend they don't understand why trust in the media has plummeted.

Why Do Climate Science Deniers STILL Hate Al Gore So Much?

I can't understand the ongoing hatred of Al Gore by climate science deniers. It made some sense when An Inconvenient Truthcame out, but that was seven years ago. Gore stepped back from a leadership role in the climate action movement around the time of his divorce in 2010 and is now semi-retired, rarely making public appearances.

But far-right conservatives apparently still hate Gore with the fury of a thousand global warming-fueled wildfires. What's weird is they simultaneously try to portray Gore as this big fat pathetic loser AND as this wealthy jet-setting holier-than-thou asshole.

Are they still trying to prove he didn't win that election that he would've won via a full recount if the Republican-controlled Supreme Court hadn't ordered it shut down? Or that while George W. Bush's disastrous presidency destroyed the Republican brand, Gore is in many ways MORE respected than he was in 2000?

Gore went through something that would've left most people angry at the world. Just look at how much John McCain hates Barack Obama and opposes everything they once agreed on from climate action to immigration reform - and McCain lost fair & square.

Yet Gore went on Saturday Night Live to laugh about the experience and never stopped fighting for what he believes in. Is that what grates Fox News types the most - that they haven't been able to break Gore's spirit and make him shut up & go away?

I Survived the 2014 SouthCoast Earthquake. Where's My Commemorative T-Shirt?

I happened to be doing some work in our ground-level utility room here in Fairhaven, MA and felt the 1.9 magnitude earthquake that rumbled through the greater New Bedford area today. It wasn't nearly as strong as the 2010 DC area quake that woke me up or the 2011 Virginia quake that swayed the chandelier over my head in Vermont, but I definitely felt a brief rumble.

What's weird is that I'd never experienced an earthquake in my first 33 years. Now I've felt three in the last three years.

HGTV: Always Choose Sprawl

Every show on HGTV has the same advice: If you can't afford your dream home, just move further out!

Realtors are all about the instant gratification of finding your dream house. Sure, they hope you're happy long term, but let's be honest: Whether you end up with a nightmare commute or sleepy social life doesn't impact their commission.

Republicans Attack George W. Bush's Only Environmental Legacy

If Congressional Republicans succeed in repealing light bulb efficiency standards, George W. Bush's only remaining environmental legacy will be pardoning the turkeys.

Tell your members of Congress to leave light bulb efficiency standards in place and maybe find something more productive to do.

The Day After Tomorrow: Thunderstorms with Chance of Polar Vortex

It was -6 this morning here in Fairhaven, MA but it's forecast to rise through the day ... then through the night, hitting the high at midnight. Then up to 50 with possible thunderstorms Monday. Then down to 16 Monday night, but it will be even colder 400 miles south in Washington, DC thanks to a huge chunk if the polar vortex going rogue and making a break for the US.

All totally normal, according to Fox.

"Climate Scientists Have a Technical Term for This Phenomenon: It's Called Winter"

Watch climate scientist Michael Mann talk to MSNBC's Chris Hayes on "All In" about how snow at Fox headquarters doesn't mean climate change isn't happening:

How Climate Science Deniers Exploit Corporate Newspaper Shrinkage

How are the gatekeepers of truth in public discourse supposed to function when they're being laid off by the hundreds in the name of higher profits? While a few newspapers like the Los Angeles Times are taking a stand against opinion pieces that get the facts wrong on climate science, smaller newspapers across the country are getting overrun by climate science deniers.

This week's example: Steve DiMarzo Jr.'s climate science-denying op-ed in the New Bedford Standard-Times. It's not just that it's filled with easily-disproved lies. It's filled with quotes that aren't attributed to any source at all. Who said them? Is DiMarzo just making up quotes as he goes? Readers are left hanging.

That's such an egregious miss, I can't believe an editor even read the piece before printing it. The Standard-Times has been hammered by round after round of layoffs with the latest hitting just two months ago. Nationwide, a Pew Research Center report shows newspaper editorial employment has fallen by a third in just the last 15 years.

But here's the thing: The Standard-Times isn't losing money - it's profitable. It just wasn't making enough money for its corporate owners, so the layoff ax swung. Remaining staffers are being asked to do the jobs of several people and subscribers are being asked to pay the same price for a product of lesser quality. No wonder CareerCast.com ranked newspaper reporter last out of 200 career fields, below dishwasher, oil rig worker and lumberjack.

A similar story is playing out at the nearby Providence Journal. As Dean Starkman has documented, the paper's corporate owners have been laying off newsroom staff to fund huge executive bonuses. Its op-ed page has turned into a haven of climate science denial and I've heard the editorial page editor tells people that's by design, that playing to the lowest common controversy makes for good reading.

Declining newspaper readership rates are often covered as proof of the declining literacy among the American public. But readers know when they're being sold an inferior product. Why spend $20 a month to read climate science denial in the local paper when it's already available for free on Drudge Report or Rush Limbaugh?

Just check the reader comments on the DiMarzo op-ed. When your customers are openly asking the equivalent of "what is this shit?" maybe it's time to reinvest in the product.

Top 5 Posts of 2013 & 3 Conservation Stories to Watch in 2014

The Green Miles & fiancee on top of Mt. Washington

As I head into my ninth year of writing here at The Green Miles, here were the top 5 posts of 2013 at The Green Miles:

1. Cod Fishermen Are Even More Screwed Than You Thought
2. Massachusetts Voters Keep Rejecting Wind Turbine Restrictions
3. What If Your Street Belonged To Kids On Saturdays?
4. Worcester Official Unleashes Epic Clean Water Whine
5. Dominion Sale Shows Old Coal Power Plants Are Nearly Worthless

Both my number of posts and overall traffic were at historic lows. Some major life events (getting engaged, preparing to become a first-time dad, buying a home) distracted me from my usual laser-like focus on important things like green deodorant. But it's not just me who's seeing traffic decline - as I wrote this year, it's getting hard out here for a free-range blogger.

So what's on tap for 2014?

• Will Obama say no to dirty energy? President Obama has shown signs of shaking his previous Yes Man persona by rolling out his climate action plan. But will his administration write strong industrial carbon pollution limits, or let big polluters off the hook? And will he say no to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline? 
• Can Congress do anything but cut on conservation? The December budget deal showed signs of promise by loosening the budgetary noose that Congress has put on programs that protect our wildlife, clean air and water and public lands.
• Immigration reform. It doesn't seem like a conservation issue at first glance. But poll after poll shows Latinos are strong supporters of clean air and water, including climate action. The possibility of millions of undocumented immigrants becoming American citizens and gaining voting rights would nudge the electorate even further towards climate action than it already is. 

Thanks for reading and please keep in touch in the comments section, feedback looking back on 2013 or ahead to 2014 is always appreciated.

Who's Paying Marc Brown to Attack Cape Wind?

Who is Marc Brown, how did he create the "New England Ratepayers Association" out of thin air, and why is he attacking Cape Wind? Check out my new op-ed for the National Wildlife Federation in the Providence Journal.

Signs You Should Stop Thinking About Smart Growth & Enjoy Your Egg Nog

When you see your future mother-in-law's holiday village and think, "Needs more height & density near the train station."

Merry Christmas, everybody.

Real America's Salads Have Been Dead for Months

My fiancee & I got a gift card to Applebee's for Christmas, so I went to America's #1 casual dining restaurant for the first time. We're trying to watch what we eat between holiday gorge-fests, so we both got salads, which was of course a mistake because you don't go to Applebee's for salad, you go there for the cheese dip & pretzel sticks, which is both incredibly delicious and blow-your-hair-back salty.

It was amazing how Applebee's manages to assemble salads with no actual fresh vegetables - bagged greens, dried cranberries, canned red pepper, mandarin orange and corn. In Real America, even if you order a salad, you're getting meat, fried noodles and cheese in heavy sauce - and that meat spent just as long in the freezer as the vegetables were locked in the can.

Hottest November Ever

Just in from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center: November was the hottest on record and January-November 2013 has been the fourth-hottest ever, more than a full degree above the 20th century average.

Graphic: Wind Turbine Syndrome is Bizarro Snake Oil

Ketan Joshi just shared this graphic of just 87 of the 216 symptoms that wind turbine opponents attribute to "wind turbine syndrome." Like bizarro snake oil, it's the cause of whatever ails you:

Via Grist via Donald Trump who cannot be bothered reading what he tweets

Northeast Climate Change Compact Keeps Proving Carbon Cap and Trade Works Really Well

The U.S. Senate Republican minority used the filibuster to block the majority from passing a carbon cap and trade program in 2010, because FREEDOM, or something. So a group of Northeast states went ahead with it anyway and it continues to prove cap and trade works really, really well:

Massachusetts and eight other states – Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont – are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is the nation’s first “cap-and-trade” program. Power plants in the RGGI states must purchase “allowances” that allow them to emit carbon dioxide. The states auction off these allowances and use the proceeds for public purposes, especially investments in energy efficiency, which create jobs and keep energy spending local.

The revisions to the Commonwealth’s RGGI program, as well as similar changes in the other eight states, will lower the existing “cap” on power plant emissions in the RGGI states from the current level of 165 million tons per year to 91 million tons per year starting in 2014. The cap will then be lowered by 2.5 percent each year thereafter until 2020. This reduction will ensure that in 2020, power plant emissions from these nine states will be half of what they were in 2005, when RGGI was initiated.

The lower cap is also expected to generate an estimated $350 million in additional revenue for the Commonwealth by 2020. These revenues will be invested primarily in programs to improve energy efficiency in Massachusetts’ municipalities, businesses and residences, which will, in turn, reduce energy costs and lower carbon dioxide emissions.

$350 million in revenue for Massachusetts alone? I wonder how much his state would be raking in if Gov. Chris Christie hadn't pulled New Jersey out of the program. What's the opposite of fiscal conservatism? Christie's pander to the Tea Party was that.

But cap and trade is supposed to bankrupt families and leave children shivering in the dark ... uh, right?

Before making these revisions, the RGGI states conducted extensive modeling on the impacts of these changes on consumers. The modeling shows that the impacts of the reduced emissions cap will be very modest, less than one percent in consumer bills. The average Massachusetts residential customer’s monthly electric bill of $72 will rise by 39 cents; the average commercial customer’s monthly bill of $455 will rise by $3.89; and the average industrial customer’s monthly bill of $6,659 will rise by $83.

A little over a penny a day to curb superstorms like Sandy and make sure we pass on a stable climate to our children and grandchildren? Seems like the biggest doorbuster bargain of the holiday season.

Philly's Free Parking Problem

Philadelphia only charges residents $35 a year for one unlimited on-street parking sticker - just 10 cents a day.

In a related story, Philadelphia has no money for schools.

Privatized Oil Profit and Socialized Risk, As Explained by Pipeline Safety Official

Want to know why oil companies can turn billion dollar profits and leave taxpayers at risk of oil spills? Listen to what Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) official Bill Lowery told DeSmogBlog's Julie Dermansky, keeping in mind he's supposed to be one of the good guys:

At a Public Safety Trust conference on Nov. 21, Lowery was asked, "Knowing what you know about the problems in the Keystone XL's construction, what would you do if your house was in its path?"

His answer: "Here is what I did when I bought my house — I looked on all the maps, I looked for all the well holes. I found there is nothing around me but dry holes and no pipelines. And it's not because I'm afraid of pipelines, it's not because I think something will happen. It's because something could happen. ... You're always better off, if you have a choice...."

He trailed off before finishing his sentence, but added that, "If I was building a house, I wouldn't build it on a refinery, ... I wouldn't build it on a pipeline, because they're all industrial facilities. That's just the reality."

Again, this is a federal pipeline safety official saying he wouldn't let his family live next to an industrial oil facility - yet the agency he works for permits those same facilities near residential areas like an over-eager third base coach waving runners home. This is how the deck gets stacked in favor of Big Oil and against the average citizen.

As I often ask, where's the Tea Party outrage? If the Tea Party is really about looking out for the little guy against Big Government Tyranny, shouldn't they be furious that pipeline safety agencies are letting oil companies build facilities in our communities that they wouldn't accept in their own backyard?

If You Avoided The Mall Yesterday, You Won Black Friday

Once again, a small but fanatical portion of the American population has gone nuts on Black Friday, and thanks to the internet we have a supercut video of all the most abhorrent capitalism gone wild. What's most insane: Black Friday isn't necessarily a good deal!

I wonder if stores are starting to ask themselves if hyping DOORBUSTER TRAMPLE YOUR KID'S THIRD GRADE TEACHER FOR A DIGITAL CAMERA THAT WILL BE OBSOLETE BY FEBRUARY RAGING BLOODBATH OF FURY DEALS is scaring off more customers than it's attracting. I actually had a few non-holiday items I needed to buy yesterday, but put it off until the weekend because I'd rather be forced to listen to Kanye West talk politics for an hour than go anywhere near a mall on Black Friday.

Call me a socialist for even raising the question, but ... maybe you'd enjoy the holidays a bit more by ordering a few key presents online & giving everybody else a bottle of local wine?

Judge Rules Falmouth Wind Turbines Cause "Dental Injuries"

Barnstable County Superior Court Judge Christopher Muse has declared wind turbines cause dental injuries:

Neil and Elizabeth Andersen, who live about a quarter of a mile from the turbines, said they caused "continuous insomnia, headaches, psychological disturbances, dental injuries, and other forms of malaise" they had not suffered prior to the turbines’ construction.

"The court finds the Andersens claims that they did not experience such symptoms prior to the construction and operation of the turbines, and that that each day of operation produces further injury, to be credible," the judge wrote.

Continued operation of the turbines at previous levels put residents at risk of "irreparable physical and psychological harm," he judge wrote.

Let's break down the ways Judge Muse is ignoring reality:

• What exactly causes these problems? Wind turbine opponents don't have an answer - that's why they throw out dozens of discombobulated theories (sound! infrasound! air pressure! shadows! electromagnetism!) in hopes you might find one plausible. Meanwhile, a comprehensive independent assessment of all available research showed no basis for the litany of conditions blamed on "wind turbine syndrome."
• Why are so many people immune from "wind turbine syndrome"? Why do a few people say they feel sick in so many different ways, while so many of their neighbors - and even children in the same household of "syndrome" sufferers - feel great? Judge Muse doesn't have an answer, but science does. Research shows it's a communicated disease: People who expect to feel sick do, while those who don't expect to get sick don't. Turning off the turbines won't cure that - turning off Fox will.
• Why do wind turbines only make people sick at night? Why don't they make people sick during the day? Either Judge Muse is leaving people at great risk of illness during the day, or he's admitting his own logic doesn't hold water.

A judge willing to create his own reality is the last hope for Falmouth's wind turbine opponents, whose neighbors don't believe their increasingly absurd claims. In April, voters at a town meeting declined to have a referendum on tearing down the turbines. Town officials decided to have the referendum anyway, so in May voters rejected tearing down the turbines by a 2-to-1 margin.

If you live in Falmouth, join the hundreds of residents who support the wind turbines. And no matter where you live, like Friends of Falmouth Wind on Facebook.

John F. Kennedy & Our Environment: "We All Breathe the Same Air"

"For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal."
President John F. Kennedy, American University, June 10, 1963

Some suggested reading on the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination:

• John F. Kennedy, the Cold War and Echoes of the Climate Change Challenge, Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media
• Rachel Carson and JFK, an Environmental Tag Team, Audubon Magazine
• Remarks at the Dedication of the National Wildlife Federation Building, March 3, 1961 

Why I Don't Go To Church, Doug Phillips Edition

The more science learns about the universe, the more amazing it is. If gravity was a tiny bit stronger, the whole universe would've collapsed on itself, and if it was just a tiny bit weaker, the whole thing would've flown apart. And that was just the first day! Why does everything seem so perfectly tuned for us to be here today? Nobody knows! It's amazing!

But when I have kids, I'm supposed to drag them out of the house at 9am on a cold Sunday morning so some guy who's cheating on his wife can tell me gays are icky?

Climate Deniers, Super Typhoon Haiyan Is Looking At You

One year after superstorm Sandy became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, Super Typhoon Haiyan just became the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone on record, hitting the Philippines with sustained winds of 190-195mph and gusts to 235mph. That's as strong as a top-of-the-scale EF-5 tornado ... except Haiyan's eye is eight miles wide.

Why is the storm so historically strong? NOAA blames warm deep water. When climate science deniers claim a global warming "pause," the heat isn't missing - it's right there lurking in the ocean, waiting to put super typhoons on steroids.

Better burn all the coal and oil while we still can.

Journalists Are Only Against Some Cancer

Countless "objective" journalists advocate for mammograms to stop breast cancer.

Katie Couric advocates for colonoscopies to stop colon cancer.

Air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and oil definitively & scientifically causes lung cancer. Where are the journalists advocating for Environmental Protection Agency limits on air pollution?

Why are the first two OK, but not the third? Or is advocacy for stopping cancer only OK if there's no big money starting the cancer?

UPDATE: A Facebook commenter points out that media's unwritten rules sometimes allow an advocacy exception when the journalist is personally affected, i.e. Megyn Kelly suddenly caring about maternity leave.

Watch Trailer for Showtime's Global Warming Series "Years of Living Dangerously"

Here's the trailer for Showtime's upcoming documentary series on the impacts of climate change, executive produced by James Cameron & Arnold Schwarzenegger, called Years of Living Dangerously:

October's Lesson for Climate Activists: Skate to Where the Puck is Going

Here's what we've learned about Congressional Republicans in October:

• Republicans are so paranoid, they think even mundane legislative procedure is "a political trap."
• Republicans shut down the government and almost crashed the economy, admitted they had no idea why, and ended up with nothing to show for it but historically dismal poll numbers. 
• Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) now opposes his own immigration bill.

It's not just that today's Republican Party rejects all available solutions to all available problems because they don't want President Obama to get any credit for solving any problems. They're willing to create entirely new crises solely in hopes of making President Obama look bad.

Congressional Republicans won't support any legislation that gives President Obama any credit for solving the climate crisis. In fact, if the climate crisis did not exist, the House GOP would be gleefully passing bills trying to create one.

The only hope is that either Democrats can re-take the House or that Congressional Republicans get more interested in problem-solving - as Wayne Gretzky once said, skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been. Climate activists should be planning and power building now for that moment when it comes, hopefully in 2014 or 2016.

Yet I keep hearing arguments like this:

Carbon taxes will also encourage more private investment in renewables because investors are hesitant to invest while congressional action is uncertain. This should appeal to conservatives who dislike government investing in high-tech ventures that might fail. Private investors invest more successfully.

Also, conservatives hate EPA regulations that are expensive to implement and inefficiently only target one industry at a time. Carbon taxes fairly affect the whole economy's emissions simultaneously.

Conservatives also object to reducing U.S. emissions without international emissions reductions. Carbon taxes with border adjustments will impel nations exporting products to the U.S. to pay US carbon taxes or enact their own, thus impacting foreign emissions.

This is skating to where the puck was in 1992. As David Roberts detailed at Grist, since then sane Republicans have been driven from the party. There is no policy nuance that will satiate people willing to blow up DC to end the reign of the Socialist/Fascist Dictator/Weak-Kneed Muslim/Religion-Hating Obama.

Advocate for the policy we need and hope Congress catches up - skate to where the puck is going.

Massachusetts Voters Keep Rejecting Wind Turbine Restrictions

It's happened again, this time in Plymouth. Once again, an effort to limit wind turbines was put before voters, citing hazy "health" concerns, and once again clean energy has won in a landslide.

The Plymouth Town Meeting on Saturday rejected a de facto ban on new wind turbines:

If approved, this article would have limited the construction of wind turbines to two overlay districts – one at the Camelot Industrial Park, the other along Commerce Way – and would have modified the required setbacks and the total height allowed. Opponents of the article suggested that if it were approved no additional wind turbines could be located in town.

Town Meeting Rep. Simon Thomas, part owner of the Camelot Wind turbine, said that Plymouth was already the toughest place in New England to try and get a permit for a new turbine.

The article would've required a two-thirds supermajority to pass, but didn't even come close to a simple majority, losing 49-68. The clear defeat for turbine opponents comes just weeks after the Plymouth Zoning Board rejected Stop & Shop's request to build a wind turbine, citing the dangers of an I think I might be able to hear it pandemic and don't forget deadly shadows.

The Plymouth vote comes on the heels of similar election results over the last few months in the nearby towns of Fairhaven and Falmouth. Falmouth elected officials put a plan to tear down the town's wind turbines before voters, who rejected it by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. And in Fairhaven, voters chose a pro-reality candidate for Board of Health over an turbine hysteria candidate, also by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

While elected officials keep trying to pander to the vocal handful of wind hypochondriacs who show up to complain at meetings, Massachusetts voters continue to strongly support local wind energy projects. How many times to do they have to send that message at the ballot box before it sinks in?

As WHO Declares Air Pollution Causes Cancer, Some MA Towns Fight Clean Energy

As the World Health Organization declares definitively that air pollution causes cancer, the Massachusetts town of Shelburne has declared the real threat to the public is looking at wind turbines.

Shelburne is just a few miles up the road from the infamous Mount Tom coal-fired power plant, one of just three coal plants left running in the state that still kill an estimated total of 22 people a year. Among the town's recommended anti-wind turbine measures:

• "Maximum electricity capacity should be limited to 10 kilowatts for homes and up to 30 kilowatts for farms or businesses." Capping capacity is the tell that these rules aren't serious. If someone designs a more efficient turbine that can generate more than that at the same height, it's banned, because everyone knows efficient wind turbines give off INVISIBLE DEATH RAYS.
• "Noise is not to exceed 5 decibels above ambient noise levels." Planes, trucks and motorcycles can rattle your windows all they want, but if a wind turbine makes so much as a whisper, it's HOLD YOUR BREATH KIDS TIME TO FIRE UP THE COAL PLANT.
• "The setback recommendation from any roadway, structure or property line is to be twice the height of the turbine." Because god forbid a car should have to see a wind turbine as it goes by at 45 miles an hour, amirite?

Meanwhile, Kingston is spending $22,000, enough to hire a new teacher or cop or fireman for the rest of the year, on a consultant to study the insidious effect of deadly shadows. That amount is on top of the taxpayer money being spent on acoustical consulting to study the poisonous near-silence.

As Michael Novinson reported in the Worcester Business Journal this week, small distributed wind energy projects are taking off in Massachusetts. But added up, these NIMBY battles can have a big negative impact. Even with wind energy being so economical and so healthy, the added red tape and expense may serve as a deterrent to those considering proposing new wind projects.

Want to show your support for wind energy? Go like the Better Future Project and the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center on Facebook.

Bored Boston Cops Taunt Bicyclist

A friend who lives in Brookline bikes to work every day and reports he got hassled by some apparently-bored Boston cops recently:

After cresting the hill and crossing Washington street in Brighton, I began pedaling to build up speed for my mile descent to a steep climb over a bridge before leaving the main roads for the bike path along the Charles. I had noticed the Boston Police Department paddy wagon turning behind me on Washington street.

As I cruised slightly behind the pace of traffic I was cut off half way down by a driver who exited a side street without stopping. She was talking on her cell phone, her hand blocking her view of me. Moments after the cut-off, the police siren chirped several times behind me. I instinctively slowed as the street signs reflected the the flashing blue lights. I felt a sense of happiness thinking that maybe the officers had seen the woman pull into traffic while engaged in probably a very important call.

I was astounded when a voice over the loudspeaker summoned "Cyclist on the blue bike please stop!" I did as I was told as the paddy wagon pulled along side me. Still talking through the loudspeaker the driver and his smiling partner admonished me publicly for exceeding the speed limit by 6 miles an hour. He continued "You are required to abide by all the laws of the road just like an automobile. "Don't shake your head when someone pulls out in front of you when you are exceeding the speed limit!"

I felt the heat in my face and I imagine my mouth was open from the shock. The smiling officer rolled down his window and took a drink from his standard issue large Dunkin regular. The driver turned off the loudspeaker and asked if I understood. I didn't answer immediately because I thought it was a joke and my brain was short circuiting. "We don't have a problem do we?" he asked. I quickly responded "absolutely not".

They pulled away with the smiling officer never removing his gaze from me. I watched the light turn green and began the climb up the hill that I had hoped momentum would make vanish.

As Casey Neistat demonstrated in New York City, police often seem more concerned with the needs of the big polluting metal boxes than keeping the humans on the bicycles safe:

America Chooses to Make Bicycling Dangerous (Video)

A lot of the public discussion about bicycling gets caught up on a circular debate: Do we have little bike safety infrastructure because relatively few people bike, or do relatively few people bike because we have such unsafe bike safety infrastructure?

It's distracted us from a much more important question: Do the people in the giant metal polluting boxes need the extra safety measures, or do the people on the bicycles? As this video details, bicyclists are 30 times more likely to be injured while riding in the United States than in the Netherlands: