WE saw this a couple of days ago and felt it was worth sharing as widely as possible.   It's a frank, honest view of local clean energy that's loaded with common sense.

Clean energy is a good thing.  Who in their right mind would want dirty energy?   Whatever your political stripe it's one thing everybody agrees about.

This is a good read, better yet the facts check out.   Yes, critics may say it comes from a politician, but Ericksen's kinda unique.  He received a bachelor’s degree in government from Cornell University, and a master’s degree in political science and environmental policy from Western Washington University.  He's no slouch where it comes to finding solutions.

A Fresh, Forward-thinking and Affordable Energy Strategy, October 26, 2012
by WA Senator Doug Ericksen

Hello Whatcom County,

Electricity is absolutely vital to our daily lives. If a tragedy struck and one of our major roadways was shut down, services could be provided while the road was rebuilt. On the other hand, if the electrical grid were to fail, our society could collapse within a matter of days.

I use this example not to provoke fear, but rather to underscore the importance of our state approaching energy policy in a rational, forward-thinking manner. With this week's Blueprint for a Better Washington, we'll look at what we're doing right on energy, and where fresh ideas could keep electricity costs low and our energy grid reliable, while encouraging innovations to move us towards energy independence.

The facts:

• 81 percent of the power produced in Washington comes from clean sources

• 73 percent comes from hydroelectric
• 8 percent comes from nuclear

• Washington has the 3rd lowest retail electricity cost in the U.S.
• Washington has the 9th smallest carbon footprint in the U.S.

The problem:

• Washington's Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate that a percentage of energy come from "renewable sources", but fails to recognize hydroelectric power as renewable

• Examples of eligible renewable sources allowed by the measure include wind, solar and biomass

• Utilities are mandated to increase the percentage of power they provide to customers derived from renewable sources to 15 percent by 2020

• The current renewable requirement is three percent

• As utilities increase the amount of power generated from less efficient sources, the cost of power increases and reliability decreases

The solution - my guiding principles for energy policy in Washington state:

• Focus first on cost to the consumer - technology should lead to lower prices, not higher costs for families
• Keep a level playing field that encourages innovation - provide tax incentives for all energy producers to become more efficient instead of allowing government to pick winners and losers
• Invest in research and development - provide resources for our universities to develop new technologies

As Washingtonians, we are fortunate to live in a state where a remarkable 81 percent of the power generated in our state comes from clean sources. Not only is our power clean, it's also relatively inexpensive. Let's take a look at how we can continue forward-thinking energy policies without compromising existing resources and without increasing your utility bills.

Clean, reliable and inexpensive - what's powering Washington

Currently, our state enjoys reliable and affordable power from a mix of sources that is the envy of many states in the nation. As you can see in the below chart, the vast majority of the power generated in Washington comes from clean sources like hydro and nuclear that emit no greenhouse gases. 

WE can't help but wonder, what gives with all the food crisis talk lately, scaring the devil out of people?  Well it all goes hand-in-hand with peak oil and global warming/climate change of course.

Religious fanatic, or environmental extremist? What's the difference?

Right here, today ...  "Climate Change & the Future of Food"?    Adaptation Strategies? Like what?   Check out the invite:

Notes and Links:  MRC is the Marine Resources Committee of Whatcom County;  here's the link to Whatcom Conservation District.  WE understand that Whatcom County Public Works will be there, as well.   Planners, planners, and more planners.   'Wonder if council is aware of what these agencies are doing.   Readers need to know that WWIN, Whatcom Watersheds Information Network, is a private organization with a persona that makes it look like it's an official "agency" but like so many others it's not (they seek to advise anyone who will listen, sharing their view of what's best for everyone else).

There's way to much "volunteer visioning" going on these days, do you think?   There's been one "workshop" or "community meeting" after another, most entirely one-sided, pre-programmed consensus affairs principally run by advocates and proponents.   WE dredged and it seems that this event's organizers Kilanowski and Jimerson are doubling up, tied to both WSU "Carbon Masters" and WWIN (like WSU's Blake).   Special interests galore, most funded by tax dollars and grants.  Think there would be any spin at an event like this?   Nothing but.

Commentary:

All Hail the Nanny State! You know, all this wouldn't bother me so much if it was left to the earnest but crazy guy on the street corner, holding the "repent!" sign.  It's his job, and his first amendment right to convince me to repent, and it's my job and my right to decide if I need what he's selling, or not.  The non-establishment clause of the first amendment prevents him from co-opting government into forcing me to join his religion -- at least the Judeo-Christian ones, it seems. Increasingly today though, we have social justice and environmental prophets who are seemingly immune from the non-establishment clause,  digging their tendrils ever deeper into my personal affairs. They have all the trappings of a faith-based religion, except the name. 

They wrap themselves in the garb of science, but all they have done is trade traditional vestments for a lab coat, with none of the objective scientific rigor. Put your money where your mouth is! Do what it takes to give me reliably reproducible science. Maybe then I'll join your cause -- not your religion. But attempts to coerce me by the force of government is only going to make me, and more people than you may realize, resentful and reactionary. Just gimme some truth!    Signed, Publius

Science realists, conservation challengers, climate change skeptics, anyone who dares to suggest that greenhouse gas emission goals are a load of hot air ...  not getting with the program?  No pressure.     (HAPPY HALLOWEEN)

(Not for the faint-hearted, or under-18 crowd)

FYI - this, believe it or not, was produced and released some time ago in Europe as an effort named 10:10 Global.org.   It was intended to bring humor to the eco-activist cause, but it created such an uproar it's been pulled (blocked) repeatedly.   It disappears [KABOOM!] from YouTube due to (no pressure!) "political correctness."   But it keeps popping back up.

This is amusing, or ought to be.  There are those in the illiberal community who seem obsessed to know who and what makes the Excavator rock n roll.

Truth be told (that's always been the theme) a lot - a lot - of eyes are on local government, what constitutes just law, fair and open process, and checking science and facts. 

The rational public is the Excavator, dudes.   There are tens of us, hundreds ... along with tens of thousands across the nation.  The "silent majority" is silent no more, and it's shining a light on a lot that slithers.  WE are reading, we are researching, we are watching.  And we're saying "No."

Americans have the rare and undeniable constitutional right to speak freely.  And WE say, as we should:   Back out of managing private lives.  Get your meat hooks off our homes and hearths.  Our land and property are not public playthings - this is not a game of "Monopoly."  And stop the incessant indoctrination of our children with political and ecological religiosity.

Readers --  you're all "the Excavator."  Add your comments, below.

It's good to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about land use mitigation fees.   What's really important, it's a case that involves mitigation demands related to a "wetland" that look like clear-cut extortion.

For more than ten years, Whatcom County has established a growing number of regulations, policies, and plans based on environmental theory.  And our Planning & Development Services department operates on the assumption that all land within the county's boundaries - both public and  private - is a "natural resource" that the county has not only the right but a duty to manage.  An increasing number of permit approvals require "mitigation."   In most cases, little tangible scientific proof of harm done is proven by the government itself.   Planners glibly write about creating regulatory "tool boxes" to expand the public use of private property.  How justifiable is their stance?

Citizens' private land (or the use of their land) should not be taken wrongfully, without site-specific proof that damage has occurred or will occur.   On-site and off-site mitigation, if justified, should be soundly based on facts and be proportionate to impact.

The general demand for agricultural, watershed and wetlands "protection" and restoration, and for numerous other kinds of public use (such as transportation and recreation),  is expanding here in leaps and bounds without the specificity it should. Whatcom County legal's opinion always leans in favor of expanding county powers - but is that constitutionally correct?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Koontz family as it may, could this case make a difference?   Yes, absolutely.   Watch the video below.

Background, from Pacific Legal Foundation:

PLF's new case at the Supreme Court asks: Can government extort money from property owners?

The Koontz family merely wanted to develop the family's land in legal and responsible ways," said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II, who wrote the successful petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "But the St. Johns River Water Management District saw a chance to make all kinds of unrelated, outrageous demands."

In particular, the agency demanded that the Koontz family pay for up to $150,000 in improvements on 50 acres of the district's own land --- miles away from the Koontz property!

"This permit condition bore no connection to the project that Mr. Koontz proposed," said Beard.

"This is a classic case of an unconstitutional shakedown. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government can't use the permitting process to extract conditions that aren't related to the impact of the proposed development."

As PLF supporters know, that ruling came in PLF's 1987 victory, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. In this new case, we're asking the Court to rein in agencies that ignore Nollan --- and to make it clear that Nollan forbids extortion of money, not just real property.

WE received the following press release from CAPR San Juan:

Today, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) filed a legal action in San Juan Superior Court against the County of San Juan alleging both violations of Washington's Open Public Meetings Act and violations the Washington's Growth Management Act. All but one of the causes of action allege procedural and substantive errors in the County Council's deliberations during the County's revision of the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Plan.

Simply, the goal of CAPR's legal action against the County of San Juan is to require the
County Council to follow the laws pertaining to openness and transparency of
government. This is essential in a functioning democracy.

The legal action alleges that members of the County Council have repeatedly met with
staff behind closed doors and have not allowed the public to observe their deliberations.
This is illegal. CAPR alleges that for more than a year, Council Members met as a
CAO/SMP Implementation Committee and discussed important policy issues without
allowing the public to observe the meetings as required by law. Similar behavior has also
been evident in other county committees working on issues such as the county budget.
CAPR has asked the Circuit Court to declare that these private meetings have been and
are illegal, and to nullify any action that was taken therein.

In addition, CAPR alleges that the Council has failed to follow substantive laws, which
provide how a county is to go about creating or revising a critical areas ordinance or
shoreline master plan. CAPR alleges that the Council has failed to follow the Washington
State Legislature's direction on what is to constitute "best available science".

While CAPR does not favor resorting to legal action, CAPR looks forward to the speedy
and just resolution of this matter.

You can download a copy of the original press release from here.  The detailed complaint is here.

With ballots hitting the mailbox October 19, WE figured it was high time to dredge Initiative 502 (I-502) “on marijuana reform.”  Liberty-minded folks committed to preserving individual rights ask, “Who owns our bodies anyway?  Us, or the state?" and many wonder, "Maybe it’s time for legalization - we’re adults."   But even pro pot forces have their knickers in a knot over this holdover from last year.

Wikipedia offers a pretty solid background article, and here’s the official verbiage (tons to read).   You should know what the fine print actually says before voting.  Also know that there’s one heck of a dogfight inside the pro-marijuana community.  According to this recent article in the Seattle P.I., the law enforcement community has been split on it.

The Wikipedia piece does such a good job of presenting a section-by-section rundown on the initiative with a good comparison of pros and cons we won’t restate them.

We'll point out a few things to consider that aren’t apparent in the ballot title:

·         This would defy federal law.  How that shakes out is uncertain, but it raises questions about states' snubbing Congress.  People with a liking for federal laws and regulations should consider the implications of ignoring them piecemeal.  Do state-versus-federal law conflicts lead to bad precedent?  It’s worth pondering.  States’ rights challenges don't always end well.

·         It may not matter to you, but the plan places marijuana and related “controlled substances” under the management of the Liquor Control Board – bureaucrats.    Most of the initiative talks about production, manufacture and sales without addressing home herb gardens (the number of plants people can have is limited).   There's talk about THC concentration (how does a person determine that?), what a person can carry, etc.  and parts of this could create an enforcement nightmare.  There may be tension between the new liquor control board business and what's already on the books about medical marijuana.

·         This would present entirely new regulatory and law enforcement challenges.  Unsafe behavior "under the influence," public inebriation, and DUI won't be judged or tolerated much differently than they are now.   Know that levels of THC in your system can be tested, just as for alcohol.

·         WE honestly don’t know how businesses would have to adapt their drug testing and employment policies and standards if marijuana is "decriminalized" on the state level, but people working for federal agencies and maybe even those doing work funded by federal grants would probably have to abide by federal workplace laws and regs to avoid jeopardy.

·         This state has the rabid munchies for cash, and the proposed tax on grass would be huge.  Did you know this would impose a 25% tax on every stage of handling:  production to wholesale, wholesaling to retail, and the final retail sale?  Those taxes would add  up a mighty heavy hit.   Once rolling, this sin-tax could get bodaciously high (pardon the endless stream of puns).  If "legal" grass becomes outrageously expensive thanks to taxes on handling by middlemen plus the final sales tax, street grass could be a lot cheaper.  Thus "legalization" may do little to meet the official goal to "take marijuana out of the hands of illegal drug organizations."   Don’t know, can’t say – but there’s little reason to believe any part of this initiative will empty jails overnight, if at all.

·         It’s always seemed hypocritical that many who vehemently oppose smoking tobacco and obsess about organic food and fitness go totally brain-dead where it comes to public health consequences and the physical effects of smoking weed.   Whether or not you believe grass is harmful, the state will continue to officially categorize marijuana use as a problem.  Millions will be spent on programs to discourage abuse at the same time that it's skimming taxes on sales and handling.   The tax revenue (at least at this point) is mostly slated for health and drug-treatment, but WE also suspect that - like always - those funds will be raided for other things.

At a minimum, readers should take time to understand what this initiative actually says before voting.   The "decriminalization" of pot has been proposed before, and not all opponents have been squares.  The situation is not a dead ringer for prohibition.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is legalization in the true sense, it's not.   Have ads been honest?   Here in Whatcom County we haven't seen too many.   However positive the spin, no one should expect this to be a joyride with Cheech & Chong.    It will take few to the happy place they'd really like.

Go - Google, Wiki, and learn what you can about what may be nothing more than another 66 pages of bad regulation.

Here’s to the 1st Amendment.  Ooh-rah.  Free speech lives. 

Conservation Northwest (one of the lead Park Department “partners”) continues to fly lowbrow, doing its best to denigrate everyone and anyone who dared raise questions at the first ever public hearing about this huge park expansion proposal on September 11.  Lobbing inane and sophomoric insults, boy have they ramped up the drama.

Despite the group’s claim that it seeks civil discourse (see their blog’s “Scat! Guidelines”), Con. Northwest has sunk to sleazy tactics to divide the community, branding all critics as late-coming, mean-spirited, tin foil hat throwbacks. 

And in a series of lame editorials, the website has bandied cracks like this (from  “A new soundtrack for Lake Whatcom”) since the hearing:   “Last night’s meeting was so packed that downtown Bellingham’s taverns reported weak sales, though they made up for it in the hour after the midnight adjournment.”    Tsk-tsk.

As for substance, let’s take a stroll through Conservation Northwest website’s recurring themes by giving them a little “fisk”:

“A Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park offers local control of natural resources and world-class outdoor recreation while maintaining quality municipal drinking water.  In time, the park will mature into old-growth forest for future generations. In a recent poll, 74% of residents supported the park,”  and  “The proposed new Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park would protect more than a quarter of a local watershed, which supplies water to half of Whatcom County's residents.”

Here we go, starting with the claim that the county needs to do this to protect Bellingham's water supply:

   Bellingham’s 2010 population was 81,000 according to Wikipedia.  That’s 20,000  shy of half the county’s residents, but who’s counting.   “More than a quarter” of the watershed they say.   It's not much over, so for this exercise we’ll go with one quarter.

   IF making this land a “preserve” did anything to improve the lake’s water quality (something Washington Ecology keeps evading), how much watershed or lake water quality improvement or protection would the park provide?

   Using a McDonald’s type “customers served” approach, 81,000 “served” by the lake divided by four (a quarter of the watershed), that comes to the protection of water used by 20,250 people.  That “service” would proportionately equate to protection of water-improvement for about 1/10th of the county’s population of 203,000 - not half.   Something like that.  The numbers are practically meaningless in any case, but this big-deal benefit is blown way out of proportion, dramatic as Lady GaGa.

“A Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park offers local control of natural resources...”

   Local control, how?  By all accounts, proponents say they don’t trust either the state or county council (present or future) to manage this land.  So they want “local control” by whom?  The Whatcom Land Trust, of course.  Now that’s a private non-profit, run by people who are not elected and therefore not actually accountable to the public.   How much did the land trust want a role in controlling the park?  Enough to pay the Mt. Baker School District $500,000 to change its position from “oppose” to “support.”  Whomever the movers and shakers were (ever see Spielberg’s “Pinky & the Brain”?), the half-mil deal was concocted at the same time the trust was penning a deal for itself.   Just the facts, man.

 “...world-class outdoor recreation...”

   While tongues wag about eco-tourism, mountain biking, horse riding, camping and fishing, the hard core want “wilding” and “quiet recreation" meaning passive activity only.    That would leave world class what?   Hiking, and nothing competitive.   Archie Bunker would say “Whoop-tee-do.”  WE hope the mountain bikers don't get their hopes up too high. That descent might be a lot less fun than the ones they're used to.

“...while maintaining quality municipal drinking water...”

   Again, there’s no reason to believe this would be "maintaining quality municipal drinking water."    Despite the talk, staff (not a retiree) at the Department of Ecology has continued to ramble on about TMDL and development.   But logging under the Landscape Plan has never allowed development so the whole thing's a "straw man" argument.   Furthermore, the Audubon Society has questioned for years that a park would cause more environmental harm than logging does.   They posted Tom Pratum's concerns repeatedly.

“In time, the park will mature into old-growth forest for future generations...”

   How many generations would it take this productive fir forest to become real “old growth”?  According to Wikipedia, a Pacific Northwest forest would need something like 250 years to achieve old-growth characteristics.  The wiki also says old growth forest can only have “minimal signs of human disturbance.”  At a minimum, it would take 120-150 years to reach pristine pre-development condition if the land weren’t used (a conflict with the “world class recreation” industry claim).

Last but not least, Conservation Northwest (and others, like Pete Kremen) continue to say, “In a recent poll, 74% of residents supported the park...”

  What “recent poll”?   Name it.  Show it.  Everybody is tired of hearing this.  If somebody knows what poll that was, send a note to "contact us" or leave a reply below.

Disproving balderdash is like shadow boxing.   WE question why council  should find ways to “make this move forward” when the need has never stood up to real scrutiny.   WE know reason doesn’t matter to some.  It’s all about the environment, man.   This "park" will be discussed at this morning's "Committee of the Whole" meeting at 9:30 a.m., County Council chambers.  Attend if you can; if not, stay tuned.  Meanwhile, enjoy a little chuckle from the past.

WE honestly don't know who this British guy is, but he delivers some bodacious clarity about the United Nations' Human Rights Council that we hope our left leaning readers will take to heart as they sit down to make their presidential vote.  Just how brilliant is the current administration's effort to make nice with the creeps running the U.N.?   How about all those globe trotting reach-outs to brutal, woman-hating, despotic regimes in the Middle East?   Is the administration's foreign policy workin' for ya?

Has there really been a bedbug infestation at the United Nations?   According to Reuters, oh yes.