In his "quick thoughts" about the recent Bachmann cap and trade lecture series, King Banaian had this to say about silent protests staged by local college students:
Let me lead by complimenting our students. Those who disagreed with Rep. Bachmann, or with the presenter, Mr. Horner, at the St. Cloud event used their free speech rights with due respect for the speakers, were not disruptive, and made me rather proud of my university today.
However, throughout the Horner presentation those same students applauded by Professor Banaian were harassed by audience members near them AND were repeatedly approached by Bachmann staffers. It seems as though Bachmann really didn't appreciate their attendance even though she said as much in her opening remarks.
Notice though, at the end of this clip how a gentlemen from the audience (it is tough to hear him over the incoherent ramblings of Horner) came and chastised the Bachmann staffer for trying to shut down this legitimate protest. I have no idea whether he agreed with the protesters but good for him for demanding the harassment end...
While some choose to protest the various measures taken by this administration to stimulate the sluggish economy, it may be time to look at some of the "egregious" measures found within that stimulus package.
Some of the measures eligible for tax credits are:
Replacing windows and skylights, and exterior doors which are equal to or below a 0.30 U factor and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.30.
Sealing cracks in the building shell and ducts to reduce infiltration and heat loss - these should be sealed so as to be consistent with the 2009 IECC.
Window films certified by the manufacturer that the product meets the requirements of a "qualifying insulation system."
Pigmented metal roofs, or an asphalt roof with cooling granules must meet Energy Star requirements.
Adding insulation to walls, ceilings, or other part of the building envelope that meets the 2009 IECC (& supplements) specifications.
Notice that each of these incentives has the dual purpose of stimulating the economy and creating the sustainable green economy of the future. The energy savings that could potentially be had from these remodels is in the neighborhood of 25-35% each and every year. So, in addition to the tax incentive that comes with making these improvements you will see additional energy savings every year thereafter.
In the process of doing this green remodeling you have the potential to improve your health as well. One of the features of most homes built throughout the last century is asbestos which has been shown to cause Pleural mesothelioma. With these new tax incentives, you may be able to remove this material once and for all from the place in which you live.
Mesothelioma has earned a reputation as a cancer that is very difficult to treat effectively. This reputation is partly due to the fact that in early stages, mesothelioma symptoms are quite non-specific, making early diagnosis very difficult. In addition, the disease usually lays dormant for 15 to 50 years and symptoms do not appear until the cancer has reached its late stages.
So with tax incentives that can save you money in the long term and potentially even improve your health, you have to wonder what exactly people are up in arms about.
The reactions continue to roll in over the Bachmann sponsored lecture series held yesterday on the campus of St. Cloud State University. They range from the rational analysis at SCSU Scholars and Minnesota Independent to the mid level sanity of Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring to even the apoplectic lunacy of Andy Aplikowski at Residual Forces.
As I said, and as King Banaian noted, the pace at which Mr. Horner spoke made it difficult for anyone not equipped with handy dandy powerpoint notes to follow along. While it certainly doesn't make him wrong about anything, it seems to me that anyone trying desperately to have their viewpoint understood would have taken their time. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this was Mr. Horner's purpose. His purpose was to speak to his believers and overwhelm the non-believers so that they would not have adequate chance to address any one specific piece of data. Although, I will give him that it made for fantastic political theatre!
For her part, Michele Bachmann provided only the introductory remarks to an event touted as a Bachmann Forum. Those remarks, read from a piece of paper in front of her sounded remarkably similar to the already discredited Star Tribune Commentary which had been published the day before.
Here is the video (I apologize for the shakiness) of her SCSU introduction:
It is interesting that Bachmann begins her remarks by recognizing that there are two sides to this issue and thanks everyone for attending. Unfortunately, those empty thanks are followed up by a one sided presentation with no information presented from those that believe cap and trade to be effective and who believe that climate change is a real issue that needs to be addressed. For someone who wants us to be the "most educated people in America", she certainly did not demonstrate it with this presentation.
The rest of her opening statement is filled with slanted information and veiled attacks on the Democratic Party.
She begins her attacks with news that Senator Harry Reid has signaled that he may use a process known as Reconciliation to pass certain pieces of legislation. What she conveniently leaves out of this description of an "obscure parliamentary maneuver" is that Republicans used this maneuver several times during their tenure in power.
As Bachmann continues, she distances herself from the already discredited figure of a $3,128 cost to an uncited cost of "more than $2500". Where she gets this new, lower cost, is not entirely clear.
Bachmann later touts a study done in Spain which appeared to indicate that any increase in "green jobs" is offset by a greater loss in other jobs. After some digging, I found an alternate analysis of this particular study which appears to put into question the validity of these claims.
The first thing that I notice is that the study fails to establish cause and effect. In other words, there may have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created, but that says nothing about whether there is a causal relationship between the two variables. Just because Event A and Event B happened does not mean that Event A caused Event B. It could well be given the current economic climate that the creation of green jobs had nothing to do with the loss of 2.2 jobs because of the worldwide economic crisis. In other words, these jobs might have been lost no matter what the Spanish government did. And it could be that the creation of these jobs, given the worldwide economic recession, prevented a bad situation from getting worse.
The one possible cause that the study suggests is the cause of these lost jobs is the fact that the money could have possibly gone towards funding the creation of actual businesses through, say, tax cuts. But the problem here is that this is not a causal relationship, but an appeal to guilt. Of course there are always as many different alternatives as there are people interested in these projects. But a proper way to compare would be to study the effects of tax cuts, say, as opposed to the effects of creating green jobs. And a proper way might to be to consider the long-term implications of not creating these jobs — the possible creation of a massive humanitarian crisis that could wipe out the Straights of Gibraltar, among other low-lying Spanish areas and create more unemployment than the Western Business Roundtable’s worst nightmares for green jobs.
Bachmann goes on to ask rhetorically, "Where are the potential benefits?", although I dare to bet that she would subsequently ignore the potential benefits if they were given to her. For those who would like to read about the potential benefits, you can read this post from Environmental Economics:
The economic case for cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax) is clear. Climate change and the associated negative impacts of emissions are known in economics as negative externalities. Much theoretical and empirical research supports an environmental regulation that taxes the polluting activity (or, equivalently, capping the pollution with permits and allowing polluters to trade the permits). The additional production cost of taxes or permits causes profits to be lower in the polluting industries, the supply of the polluting product falls and price of the polluting good rises. As the price of polluting goods rise consumers use less of the polluting good. As the price of nonrenewable energy rises and the price of renewable energy falls (with technological improvement) we reach the Hotelling "switch point" and the demand for renewable energy rises. The price of nonrenewable energy is, more or less, capped at the price of the renewable subsitute and the world is a greener place.
At the end of her remarks, Bachmann touts the authority of Mr. Horner on this particular issue. I recognize that NOT being a scientist does not necessarily discredit your viewpoints about a scientific issue. However, it certainly gives him less credibility than if Bachmann had allowed an actual scientist or even an economist to address this issue.
You can find more information about Horner at Media Matters as well as at a site (Desmogblog) I rely on extensively whenever I am looking for climate change related information.
I will continue to sift through the video from the Bachmann sponsored lecture series so stay tuned for more video and more analysis...
It really does boggle the mind how someone can continue to cite a study and spout a figure even after an author of that study says you are misrepresenting the study and fabricating the figure. Such is the case with our very own Michele Bachmann and her latest Star Tribune Commentary about the cap and trade proposals of the Obama Administration.
From the article:
According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year.
It sounds like an impressive figure, right? SHOCKING! Unfortunately, the figure has been discredited and debunked by none other than an author of the very study which Bachmann holds in such high regard. From a PolitiFact article at the end of March:
"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."
Not only is it wrong, but he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him.
"Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this," Reilly said. "I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time."
So, even though an AUTHOR of the study calls it "wrong in so many ways" AND has already been in contact with House Republicans to tell them it is wrong, Bachmann has chosen to spread this lie to the public. So, what is the "cost" according to Reilly? He lays it out in an article by Media Matters:
We assumed in the analysis we did that the revenue is returned to households. From data in the report we can calculate the economic cost in each year (percentage loss times the base welfare level in each year), and divide this by the US population, and then multiply this amount by four to estimate the cost for a representative family of four. We further apply an economic discount rate of 4% to get the Net Present Value (NPV) cost in each year in the future. Doing this we find that the NPV cost per family of four starts at about $75 in 2015, rises to nearly $510 by 2025, and then falls to $205 by 2050.
According to Reilly, the cost will be $75 for a family of four in 2015. This is obviously a far cry from the $3,000 plus figure being pushed by Bachmann and her Republican overlords. Even at its most expensive in 2025, the cost will be $510 which is roughly 1/6 of the cost Bachmann tries to cite. Perhaps if Bachmann spent more time thinking for herself rather than blindly pushing the lies created by her Republican Study Committee bosses she would realize the lies coming out of her mouth. Unfortunately, I am increasingly of the belief that she does realize the lies but continues to blindly follow the RSC anyway.
We understand that the developer has assured the Park Board that the flow would not be impaired beneath 1,000 cubic feet per second. Look at the picture above and appreciate a 90+ reduction in the force of the flow and ask yourself what this will do to the most historically significant resource-the most visited attraction-that which we come to see as the power which gave rise to an infant industry by which Minneapolis became the flour capital of the world. Can anyone conclude that the assault from this project on our citizen's right to history is not harmed. [emphasis mine]
That being said, there have been engineers hired by Minneapolis Park Board as well as University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Lab engineers who indicate that the water flow will be largely unaffected and any affect will be visually indiscernible. There are other safeguards put in place by Crown Hydro to make sure that no more than 1000 cubic feet per second of water is taken into the intake structure.
Further, I would love to know where Mondale gets his figure of a "90+ reduction in the force of the flow". In a believability contest between Vice President Mondale and engineers from various institutions I am going to have to go with the engineers every single time, but that is just me. The best part, however, of the post written by Tommy is a letter of support from the late Paul Wellstone:
I could go on fisking Vice-President Mondale's letter, but it's time to contrast Vice-President Mondale's letter to Senator Paul Wellstone's letter of support for the Crown Hydro project:
I am writing in strong support of Crown Hydro's proposal for a FERC license. Crown Hydro proposes to build a small hydro power, renewable energy project on the Mississippi River's west bank of the St. Anthony Falls in the historic Mills District. Not only is this an important renewable energy initiative, is also an attempt to restore a bit of Minneapolis' rich "Mill City" history to this easily accessible downtown location.
I applaud the efforts of Crown Hydro for doing their homework. They have worked in close consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Hydropower Task force which includes the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control Agency, Northern States Power, the National Park Service, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency, the Minneapolis Park Board, the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board, and the Minneapolis City Council The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources allocated $120,000 to this project because of its dual benefit - - a produce of renewable energy and the restoration of an historic archaeological mill site. (more, here)
It is time to move this project forward. With all the necessary state and federal hoops having been jumped through, there is little reason for a local Park Board to obstruct on what appears to most as very flimsy reasoning. It is high time that we begin contacting those who wish to hold this project up and demand answers.
I have been largely missing in the blogs over the last couple weeks. During my time away there have been several developments on the Crown Hydro Project. First, a bill has been introduced in the Senate that would make it more difficult for the lowest levels of government to be a roadblock to a project which has been approved by every other level of government. Second, I received an email with a laundry list of objections which I have yet to address.
1) There are better alternatives. Xcel Energy currently operates a 12-megawatt hydroelectric power plant on the east side of the river at St. Anthony Falls. Crown Hydro proposes construction of a 3.2-megawatt hydroelectric power plant across the river on public land owned by the Minneapolis Park Board that would divert water from the flow over the Falls. Updating the existing Xcel plant with current technology could produce even more than 3.2megawatts of additional power at a cheaper cost and without changing the water flow over the Falls.
While frequent commenter, Taxpaying Liberal has his take:
1- Expand the Xcel plant on the other side of the river.
The 1st two points are perfect examples of this.
The writers of this should have known that the very reason Crown Hydro is building on this side of the river is because the city and others turned down Xcels request to expand at their current site.
The compromise was to find and encourage an independent producer who could build on the downtown side of the river. Now many of the same people who opposed Xcels request back in the 80’s are now asking to start the process all over again and that way we can continue this conversation for another 20 years.
I agree that if Xcel can squeeze another 3.2 megawatts out of its existing plant they should if the economics of the project is worth doing but that is a decision that Xcel should make.
At the same time Crown should also be built so we end up with 6.4 megawatts of CLEAN power and reduce the carbon footprint even more.
Wouldn’t you agree that 6.4 megawatts of Clean renewable power is better than 3.2 megawatts?
From the Summary of the FERC:
“Overall, these measures would protect or enhance water quality, fish and wildlife resources, recreational resources, and cultural resources in the Crown Mill project area. In addition, the electricity generated from the project would be beneficial because it would reduce the use of fossil fuel, electric generating plants, conserve nonrenewable energy resources, and reduce atmospheric pollution. No reasonable action alternatives to the project have been identified for assessment. The no action alternative has been considered and is addressed in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section (section VI).”
I have a bit of a different perspective on this particular objection. The objection appears to be at odds with itself. The claim is that the 3.2 megawatts produced by Crown Hydro would change the water flow over the falls. Yet, the writer proposes having Xcel Energy increase its output by 3.2 megawatts. If it were true that Crown Hydro would drastically change the water flow over the falls, then shouldn't you also be opposed to increased output by Xcel Energy that in your own words would change the water flow over the falls? Perhaps I am missing something here...
That being said, there have been engineers hired by Minneapolis Park Board as well as University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Lab engineers who indicate that the water flow will be largely unaffected and any affect will be visually indiscernible. There are other safeguards put in place by Crown Hydro to make sure that no more than 1000 cubic feet per second of water is taken into the intake structure.
So, if the construction of the Crown Hydro Project will leave the area almost completely untouched, take measures to leave water flow changes negligible including giving the Park Board power to shut off diversion, AND you are willing to see Xcel Energy increase its output to the 3.2 megawatts that Crown Hydro would produce, then what really is the issue here?
On a side note: Some people have emailed me to say that while this project has been sufficiently proven as a legitimate project, there has been no call to action.
Well, here it is: Please take a moment and contact any of the following people to inquire about why this project has been continually held up. Feel free to use any of the information provided here and in previous posts to start getting answers and when you do feel free to email me back with what you have heard (political_muse(AT)hotmail(DOT)com).
While I have been away from the blogs for past week and a half an email came to me from some people living in Minneapolis who are concerned about the Crown Hydro Project. At this point I don't have enough free time to address all these issues but intend to do so soon and hope that others who support this project will address them as well.
An email from Eva Young:
The following was prepared by citizens who are concerned and opposed to the Crown Hydro project. I'd challenge you: Muse and Taxpaying Liberal to address these issues on a point by point basis.
Greenwashing: The Crown Hydro Project and Its Impact on St. Anthony Falls and Mill Ruins Park
This information was prepared on February 20, 2009 by a group of concerned citizens and residents of Minneapolis including Edna Brazaitis, Lisa Hondros and Cynthia Kriha.
Crown Hydro and its supporters argue that opposition to the Crown Hydro project is opposition to renewable energy. This is simply not true. We are strong supporters of renewable energy but in a smart way that is beneficial for all. Crown Hydro seeks endorsement of its project because it is green, independent of any analysis of other alternatives or risk. We encourage all stewards of our rivers, parks and heritage to take a broader view of the implications of this project. There are other alternatives, and the greenest option is the one that already exists -- updating the existing historic hydroelectric power plant at St. Anthony Falls.
1) There are better alternatives. Xcel Energy currently operates a 12-megawatt hydroelectric power plant on the east side of the river at St. Anthony Falls. Crown Hydro proposes construction of a 3.2-megawatt hydroelectric power plant across the river on public land owned by the Minneapolis Park Board that would divert water from the flow over the Falls. Updating the existing Xcel plant with current technology could produce even more than 3.2megawatts of additional power at a cheaper cost and without changing the water flow over the Falls.
2) Non-renewable energy resources will be needed to create this plant. It is not prudent to waste those resources when there is an existing hydro plant directly across the River. If the need for the power generated by this plant is urgent, certainly a smarter use of existing limited resources is to update the plant across the River.
3) Without a significant public subsidy, this project is not economically viable. Experts have concluded that Crown Hydroʼs energy generation projections are overly optimistic and ignore the financial risks of a potential drought. This project may fail even with a $5.1M grant subsidy through Xcelʼs Renewable Development Fund of which $1.5M has already been spent. Xcelʼs ratepayers finance this fund. Given advancements in renewable energy technology, there are better ways to invest the publicʼs money. And any real financial benefits to the Park Board remain unsubstantiated.
4) The proposed location will forever destroy the archeological effects in Mill Ruins Park. There is a unique historic fabric including the old head race and power canal. The water power canal was a significant engineering achievement for its time, advancing the efficiency of water power, and the canal area has the potential to be designated a National Historic Landmark. In November 2007, Scott Anfinson, State Archeologist, advised the Park Board, that “… [T]he exit tunnel for this facility will adversely impact a significant historic structure, namely the historic tailrace tunnel system. The construction of the turbines could also prevent the restoration of the historic waterpower canal entrance should that be proposed in the future.” Also of concern would be the detrimental impacts from the much larger construction staging area; typical projects like this require a significant footprint for the construction itself. The risks are significant. Preserving and protecting the historic fabric of Mill Ruins Park is essential.
5) Stewardship of Mill Ruins Park and local control of this important part of the riverfront will no longer rest in the hands of the Minneapolis Park Board. Access to the Park for purposes of creating and operating the hydroelectric plant is considered a land sale and the decision of this Park Board will be one that will impact many generations. Selling public parkland to private industry is not the legacy we want for our city. No lease with a private entity can protect this key part of the Park and the opportunity for future generations to learn about the history of Minneapolis.
6) Man, not nature, will be in control of the aesthetics of St. Anthony Falls. The flow of water will be diverted away from the Falls by this project and at times the Falls themselves will look almost dry to the naked eye according to a University of Minnesota civil engineering professor who works at the St. Anthony Falls Lab. The Metropolitan Council reported that over 1.2 million visitors per year come to the Minneapolis riverfront park that runs from Plymouth Avenue to the 35W bridge on both sides of the Mississippi River. The key feature of this park is St. Anthony Falls, the only waterfall in the entire 2340 miles of the Mississippi River.
7) The Minneapolis Park Board has consistently rejected siting the Crown Hydro project on its property despite over five years of various requests.“…the Park Board holds that granting the requested amendment of license has the potential to do irreparable damage to the goals of the Park Board and the City of Minneapolis in the ongoing development or recreational facilities and historic preservation activities in the project area.”-From a March 2003 Park Board filing to the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission stating opposition to the Crown Hydro project
8) This is an extremely complex situation given the various government agencies involved and technical details. Thousands of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of staff hours have already been spent on this project over the past five years. The expertise of the Park Board is in the ownership and maintenance of our Cityʼs parks, not in entering into complex 100-year lease arrangements with a sophisticated energy producer.
9) There are other significant obstacles to this project including: a) Current zoning for Mill Ruins Park makes this an impermissible use; b) No environmental assessment has been completed; c) Under existing law, any payments from Crown Hydro to the Park Board would be passed on to the State of Minnesota since public funds were used to procure the land now designated as Mill Ruins Park; this minimizes any financial benefit to the Park Board; d) Soil contamination on the site has been identified and will have an impact on any excavation of the area; e) Concerns about the impacts on the Lock and Dam and river traffic as expressed by the Corps of Engineers in their letter dated 1-14-2003 have not yet been addressed.
10) What is the value of St. Anthony Falls and the parkland surrounding it? It is impossible to put a price on so precious an asset.
11) This project lacks the support of the National Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Minnesota Historical Society, the Land Use Committee of the Sierra Club,the State Historic Preservation Office as well as the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota.
“The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, on behalf of all current and future citizens of the City of Minneapolis, shall strive to permanently preserve, protect, maintain, improve and enhance the Cityʼsparkland and recreational opportunities.”- Mission of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
A note to readers: some people have been expressing difficulty in commenting. While I have not had problems, I have tweaked a couple things that will hopefully fix the issues...
In this continued series to examine the reasoning behind the opposition to the Crown Hydro Project, there has been expressed some concern that this facility will change the aesthetics of the area.
I have obtained some images of the proposed changes that would be made to the existing site:
Before: After:
Now, if someone could please explain to me how this objection is in any way relevant to the discussion, then I would love to hear it. As it is, the proposed changes appear to be so minor that without the obvious before and after labels most people would be hard pressed to decipher which image is which.
In the coming days I will continue to address other objections to this project including those raised by former Vice President Walter Mondale.
For now you can read the work being done by Two Putt Tommy on this very same topic and be aware that I have come into possession of some Minneapolis Park Board video. Very soon I will be putting up portions of that meeting and asking the following questions:
If Crown Hydro has all the necessary permits (including the FERC permit), then how can Brian Rice (Minneapolis Park Board Lobbyist) claim that the decision rests only with the Park Board and is not contingent on any outside input?
The Minneapolis park board has 3 lobbyists going to the capitol and asking for money to run the parks in Minneapolis?
Yet, MaryAnn Campo says $300,000 a year (the offer from Crown Hydro) is "not a lot of money"? (The actual offer is a base lease plus 50/50 split of the federal tax incentive, which has been increasing every year, and is expected to continue and increase under Obama)?
I began looking into the Crown Hydro project at the behest of a friend of mine who is working tirelessly to see that it happens and I knew going in that the objections ranged from the legitimate to the downright petty.
Little did I realize that it would be the downright petty argument which would bubble to the surface first. With all due respect to my friend, Ken Avidor, who was gracious enough to put this issue up for discussion over at Democratic Underground the benefits of creating another venue for clean renewable energy far outweigh the fact that the owner of Crown Hydro once held a fundraiser with Dick Cheney and Michele Bachmann. Have we sunk so low as to permanently black list those with whom we disagree on some issues even when they are right on a very important issue? Are we prepared to spite our principles of a cleaner greener environment simply to punish our political rivals? I for one, refuse to do so and hope that those like Mr. Avidor who I have the greatest respect for and have learned much from in our Dump Bachmann pursuits will see that and change their minds.
What we need to understand is that this project was granted a FERC license in 1999 which in my understanding is one of the most rigorous processes for examining energy production proposals. Those weighing in included the US Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service. My hope is that the Minneapolis Park Board has a far more legitimate reason for opposing this project than petty political gamesmanship. What information does the Park Board have which could possibly trump the combined expertise of all the aforementioned organizations?
As we in outstate Minnesota sit in the shadow of nuclear and coal plants with their significant environmental risks, it is downright shameful for renewable energy options to be shut down for what appear to be illegitimate reasons.
I will continue to address more legitimate objections as they become available...
We'll get to that, in the weeks ahead, because there are a lot of story lines in the Crown Hydro Project story. Story lines such as Minnesota's 25 by 2025 renewable energy bill and Sister Mary and Big Stone II and nuclear evacuation plans and a powerful politician that likes his view and and a high school kid and national defense and budget deficits and the Minneapolis City Charter and others that just make you wonder why a shovel ready project in Minneapolis that will generate renewable energy and union construction jobs without needing any federal tax dollars has been held up for years.
It's a story about issues that affect us all, it's going to take a lot of posts to tell, and they all relate in some way to the Crown Hydro Project.
Feel free to leave your comments and objections and stay tuned for more...
Over the weekend I was privileged enough to hear some information about an amazing project being proposed by an organization known as Crown Hydro. They aim to use some of the existing infrastructure along the Mississippi River for a small hydro energy facility that when completed would power roughly 2,000 homes and produce none of the environmental impact normally associated with the production of energy.
This is precisely the type of renewable energy future that both President Obama and Governor Pawlenty have been pushing our state and country towards. It would have the two fold effect of creating immediate jobs (union jobs according to the developer) and helping Minnesota move towards its goal of 25% renewable by 2025. While it certainly doesn't solve the entirety of our energy needs, it is the perfect shovel-ready project as defined by the Obama Stimulus Plan that moves us one step closer to a greener cleaner energy grid.
Couple these environmental and immediate economic benefits with the fact that the developer of this project has promised to pay the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board $300,000 every year with a 3% increase every year for the next 100 years and you have a long term positive economic impact.
So, a project such as this would seem to be the dream of any self respecting progressive who heralds their love of the environment, right? A project such as this would seem to be an easy sell for those environment loving progressives inhabiting Minneapolis, right?
It appears as though we may have some progressives who refuse to practice what they preach...
Welcome to Liberal in the Land of Conservative!
I, Political Muse, will be your host and my hope is to provide a dash of political commentary, a sprinkle of policy wonkishness, and a double dose of snarkiness to the blogosphere in Minnesota.
If you have any tips on local conservative foolishness or if you want to challenge me to a duel, there are a variety of ways to keep in touch:
