Credit where it's due

Readers of a nervous disposition should steel themselves: I am about to pay the Republicans a compliment, and not the back-handed variety. The following compliment in no way absolves the Republicans of responsibility for denying both the patriotism of their opponents and the reality of climate change; for their attempts at disabling the EPA while enabling the deranged, delusional birthers; for denying public funding to public broadcasting; for subpoenaing labor-studies professors for studying labor; for toadying to oil moguls while stripping seniors of medical insurance; and for likening anything that looks even vaguely like universal healthcare to incipient communism, blatant fascism, or both. With that caveat, I now proffer my compliment. Well done, Republicans, for fielding more than 80 candidates for the Massachusetts House of Representatives in last year’s legislative elections.

For about ten years I have been complaining about the opposition-shaped gap in Massachusetts politics, pointing to the paucity of Republican legislative candidates as evidence of the party’s pusillanimity. Over the course of a decade I grew fond of telling audiences that in the national league of contested elections, Massachusetts ranked 49th out of 50, just one up from North Carolina or sometimes Alabama. It was one of my favorite lines, suitable for almost any occasion. Whatever solution I was hawking – proportional representation, public campaign financing, voting Green – I could always count on the Massachusetts GOP for the problem. But now the Republicans are back in the active-opposition business, and I shall have to come up with new material.

During the 1990s and early 2000s, the number of districts with more than one name on the ballot dwindled to around 30%. That really was quite anemic, I think you’ll agree. Things picked up a little in 2004, when John Kerry ran for President and then-Governor Mitt Romney – in an effort to keep Massachusetts Democrats busy in their home state and out of swinging (in the electoral sense) New Hampshire – persuaded a host of Republican legislative candidates to offer themselves up in a mass martyrdom mission.

With his money, good looks, and box-office appeal Mitt Romney inspired local Republicans. Or he begged, berated, and bludgeoned them, depending on who you talk to. Either way, in 2004 he helped put more Republican names on the ballot than the electorate had seen for years. Then Romney moved on to a bigger stage, leaving the GOP crowd bereft. The role of square-jawed leading man did not lie vacant for long, however.

Like Dean Cain succeeding George Reeves as Superman, Scott Brown took over from Mitt Romney as the man who could inspire relatively large numbers of Republicans to run for seats in the General Court (a feat no less impressive than seeing through solid objects and bending steel bars). Scott Brown’s special election victory at the beginning of the year reminded them that in a state where 50% of the voters are unenrolled, Republicans actually can win, even though 90% of the state legislators and 100% of their federal counterparts are Democrats. Of course, it helps when 45% of the voters stay home on election day, as they did on January 19, 2010.

Scott Brown has worked wonders for democracy in Massachusetts. Yes, he is a climate-change denialist who voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment. And yes, he wailed like a baby when the League of Women Voters pointed this out (judging by his ads you’d think they’d waylaid him in a dark alley, mussed his hair, and given him noogies). But it is Scott Brown we can thank for the novel sight of the letter R on ballots in half the state’s House districts last fall.

Having praised the Republicans, I now have no qualms about congratulating my own party – the Green Rainbow Party (GRP) – for its performance in the 2010 legislative elections. Scott Laugenour in the Fourth Berkshire District, facing a popular and diligent Democratic incumbent, walked away with 18%, a more than respectable basis for his next effort. Meanwhile, in the neighboring Third Berkshire District, the Green-Rainbow Party’s Mark Miller took an astonishing 45% of the votes. This is worth restating for emphasis: The Green candidate won 45% of the votes.

These results from the Berkshires are impressive, but they are not victories, and I am not going to blow them out of proportion. However, “proportion” is a word that comes to mind in this situation, together with the word “representation.” Countries with proportional representation reward political parties with seats in the legislature in return for much less than 18% of the votes, let alone 45%.

When they appear on the ballot, Greens in Massachusetts win a higher proportion of the votes than Greens in most European countries, even countries where Greens are not simply opposition backbenchers but partners in coalition governments. What the GRP results in the Berkshires suggest is that if Massachusetts had a fairer electoral system, the Greens would have no difficulty winning seats in the Legislature.

But, of course, Massachusetts has the same voting system it has had since 1855, namely plurality voting in single-member districts, and Greens have to play by the rules as they are, not as we would like them to be. Yet even within the constraints of the current voting system, Greens can win. For example, in 2002, John Eder of the Maine Green Party won a seat in the state legislature and held on to it for two terms. Yes, the voters of Portland, Maine, using the same voting system we use in Massachusetts, elected a Green. It happened, and it can happen again.

Now the Republicans are running and winning, it may only be a couple of cycles until they erode the Democratic supermajority, leaving the two major parties with a roughly equal number of seats in the House. In that situation, just one or two seats would put the GRP in a pivotal position, holding the balance of power. In other words, an ongoing Republican resurgence in Massachusetts could be good news for Greens.  Hence the compliment.

Write your Senator

Earlier this week Senator Scott Brown voted to block the EPA from combating climate change. The EPA wants to move ahead and cut the amount of carbon dioxide that power companies pump into the atmosphere, but Senator Brown voted for two amendments that would have stopped the EPA in its tracks. While Massachusetts citizens are demanding action for clean energy and green jobs, their senator is aligning himself with the faction of his party that wants to just stand idly by. We need to change the way Senator Brown votes in future.

So let's each and every one of us write him a letter. Yes, I'm suggesting that you write him an authentic, personal letter. I'm not talking about a mass-produced form letter. I mean an old-fashioned, pen-and-ink, this-is-what-I-think letter.

Why? Because one of the dirty little secrets of mobilization and advocacy campaigns is that the generic letters and emails have relatively little impact on politicians. All they prove to elected officials and their aides is that the sponsoring organization has a big mailing list and staff that are adept at writing persuasive emails; persuasive enough to prompt members to spend a minute or two online filling in the name and address fields and clicking "send."

But a genuine, individual piece of correspondence containing the original, unique thoughts and feelings of a committed and passionate human being -- a human being who votes -- explaining why the senator should support the EPA? That would be different.

I'll be writing my letter shortly. And on Thursday, May 5, 7:00 p.m., I'll be sitting down with a group of Sierra Club volunteers at the Media Education Foundation, 60 Masonic Street, Northampton to write another one. If you would like to join us, please bring the following: a pen, paper, envelope, postage stamp, and your passion for clean air.

In the meantime, here's the address of the man who voted to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases:

Senator Scott Brown, 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston MA 02203

Please write him and let him know why his votes were just plain wrong, and why you expect him to vote the right way in future.

Greens poised to lead state government

Young Greens celebrate in Stuttgart

After an election campaign that tackled the nuclear issue head-on, Winfried Kretschmann looks set to become the first Green premier in the European Union.

With almost a quarter of the votes, the Greens in the German state of Baden-Wuerttember not only out-polled their Social Democrat allies but also helped defeat the conservative Christian Democrats.

To check out the party's YouTube channel, which includes some of its election ads, click here.

GDF Suez: Green in Europe

GDF Suez, the energy giant that owns the coal-burning power station at Mount Tom, Holyoke, is getting greener.

In addition to winning the Gigaton Award last year from the Carbon War Room, GDF Suez has picked up the World Carbon Finance Market award in the category for renewable energy project developers. Gerard Mestrallet (pictured) and his team deserve credit for taking strides in the right direction by building up the proportion of electricity they generate from renewables.

The steady greening of GDF Suez means more than plaudits in the press. It spells good news for workers in the clean-energy sector.

But only if they happen to live in Europe.

For example, GDF Suez has just entered into a deal for photovoltaic modules. The winner of the multi-million dollar contract? Bisol, a Slovenian company.

The agreement complements the pholovoltaics research GDF Suez has been undertaking through a subsidiary. The subsidiary is called Photovoltech and you'll find it in the town of Tienen, which is in Belgium.

In addition to solar energy, GDF Suez invests heavily in wind. The company is spending approximately 10 billion (yes, billion) Euros to build an offshore windfarm. Where? Near Saint-Nazaire, in northern France.

Later this year GDF Suez will unveil another wind farm. In the words of the GDF Suez website, this one will be big enough to "spare 145,000 tons of CO2 per year from being spewed into the atmosphere!" The location? Haute-Pays, France.

One of the GDF Suez's sources of renewable energy on this side of the Atlantic is its cluster of windfarms in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, Canada, which together generate over 700 megawatts of electricity. As a result of ordinary wear and tear, the turbines need an upgrade.

A quick glance at a map reveals that Prince Edward Island is not all that far from Massachusetts. But workers in Massachusetts, home to the pioneers of wind-energy, didn't stand a chance. Instead, GDF Suez awarded the retrofit contract to Moventas, a Finnish company.

If any clean-energy workers in Belgium, France, Finland, and Slovenia happen to be reading this, please accept my sincere congratulations. I'm glad that your elected officials, unions, and entrepreneurs had the foresight to work together so effectively, investing in green-skills education and training over many years. We in Massachusetts don't want to take your jobs and livelihoods away from you.

But surely there's something in the realm of renewable-energy that GDF Suez can do in Holyoke, Massachusetts. As we ponder a post-coal future for Mount Tom, let's look at leveraging both Holyoke's and GDF Suez's green credentials in ways that bring in new jobs and tax dollars.

For example, wouldn't Mount Tom be the perfect place to build a wind-hydrogen village like the one in Prince Edward Island, perhaps in partnership with municipally-owned Holyoke Gas & Electric?

After all, why should all the good green jobs go to Europe?

Click here for YouTube version.

Activists call Mt. Tom power plant's future into question - News

Activists call Mt. Tom power plant's future into question - News

How new EPA regulations will affect Mount Tom

After reading a claim in the Republican newspaper that Mount Tom can already meet all current and future regulations I submitted this letter to the editor:

A recent letter about Mount Tom power station (Tuesday, March 1) makes some valid points that nobody would dispute. For example, the plant provides good jobs and significant tax revenue for Holyoke. And repowering the plant to natural gas may not be practical, not least because it sits on a flood plain.

But the assertion that there are no future regulations the plant cannot meet is way off the mark.

The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing new regulations that amend something called the Air Transport Rule. Under the new rule, in 2014 Mount Tom will be allowed to emit no more than 245 tons of sulfur dioxide, a chemical that damages people's lungs and exacerbates respiratory illnesses. Last year -- even with the Turbosorp system in operation and the plant running at 60% capacity -- Mount Tom emitted 2,129 tons of sulfur dioxide. So three years from now the plant will have to reduce its sulfur dioxide emissions by 1,884 tons. Similarly, the plant will have to bring its nitrogen-oxide emissions down from 287 tons to 185 tons, a drop of more than 100 tons a year. Right now, Mount Tom is simply not equipped to do that.

We all want to safeguard existing jobs and generate new ones, and we all want to boost Holyoke's tax base. So we (the community, plant employees, plant-owner GDF Suez, and elected officials) need to plan a post-coal future for Mount Tom, one that creates clean energy and green jobs. And the time to start planning is now, before the new regulations come into effect.

What connects Holyoke, Massachusetts, with floods in Australia, and explosions in La Preciosa, Colombia? The answer is coal.

As the January flood waters subsided in Australia the governor of the state of Victoria, medical researcher Professor David de Kretser, pointed the finger directly at climate change. Referring to the spate of record-breaking climate events de Kretser commented “everyone says this week [is a] one in 100, one in 200 years [event] but they are happening pretty much more frequently now.”

Australia’s Greens went further, connecting a few more dots between coal-burning, ocean temperatures, and flooding. In the months preceding the floods record heat had warmed the seas off northern Australia leading to increased evaporation and rainfall, explained the Greens. Then, pointing out that coal is a major contributor to climate change, party leader Senator Bob Brown called on the coal-mining companies to pick up the tab for the flood recovery and other climate-related disasters via a 40% surtax on their profits.

“We know that climate change is due to the burning of fossil fuels, primarily coal,” said Brown. “I’ve called on the Australian Government to ensure that the tax on super profits on the coal industry [should] be levied in full to help the country pay for future flood, bushfire and drought disasters caused by climate change.”

There is no sign that the Australian government will adopt Senator Brown’s proposal, which is hardly surprising in view of the fact that last year when the Prime Minister, Labor’s Kevin Rudd, tried to impose the same tax the mining companies spent $20 million to defeat him. Mr. Rudd is now the former Prime Minister, by the way.

But the floods have certainly had an impact on the availability – and, therefore, the price – of coal. Because flooding inundated so many coal mines and railroads in Australia, the price of coal rose 4.5% in the first week of January. Rising coal prices were good news for mining companies like the one that owns La Preciosa mine in northeastern Colombia, where management has long been cutting corners on safety measures. An explosion (the second in four years) tore through the mine at La Preciosa on Wednesday, January 26, killing 21 mineworkers. Today (Tuesday, February 1) another blast killed five more miners, this time at La Escondida coal mine, north of Bogota, Colombia.

Last year, more than 100 Colombian coal-miners died at work. Just five weeks into 2011, the death toll already stands at 26. Other than the ties that bind us all together as humans, what do these deaths in Colombia have to do with us in Massachusetts? The connector is coal: The coal we burn at Mount Tom, Holyoke, comes from Colombia.

How does the coal get from Colombia to Massachusetts? Helpfully, the Wall Street Journal provides the names of the major companies that own coal mines in Colombia. One of them is BHP Billiton, an Australian company that dedicated $4 million to crushing Kevin Rudd’s surtax proposal. BHP Billiton’s shares were up 0.8% today. Others include Xstrata (up 1.26%) and Anglo American (also up by more than 1%).

As connect-the-dots puzzles go, this one is not very elaborate. GDF Suez imports Colombian coal from companies like BHP Billiton. It burns the coal in power stations like Mount Tom, Holyoke. A lackadaisical approach to workplace safety in Colombia leads to the deaths of miners, and a cavalier attitude to climate safety leads to floods in Australia. What are the common factors joining the Australian and Colombian tragedies? We are. And we are doing something about it.

Let’s ponder the dots connecting our Massachusetts campaign for climate justice to the floods in Australia and the struggle for workers’ rights in Colombia. When we join the dots together and look at the picture, we see that ours is a just cause.

If you want to take action right now and do something to stop GDF Suez burning coal at Mount Tom, sign this petition in support of the Act to Phase Out Coal-Burning in Massachusetts. The proposed law would force power companies to move beyond coal, either by retiring their coal-burning plants or repowering them to run on cleaner energy.

Will signing an online petition fix the problem? No. But it's one step. And if you would like to do more, let me know: email peter@petervickery.com.