Letter to the editor: Report the facts about fracking pollution, not misleading false balance

I finally had it with a misleading false balance the press often use when reporting on fracking. The State Journal-Register published my snarky letter to the editor Sunday suggesting a more accurate description of the debate.

A recent Associated Press article published by The State Journal-Register needs correction. It included this claim about fracking: "Opponents fear it can cause air and water pollution and health problems, but industry officials contend the method is safe."

In fact, numerous studies by EPA and others confirm fracking does, in fact, cause air and water pollution that harms public health. To minimize the problem by calling it a mere fear by some opponents misleads readers. A corrected, factual sentence might read: "Multiple objective studies confirm fracking causes air and water pollution which threatens public health, but industry officials continue to lie about it."

Let's hope this reporting cliche is put to rest.

Democratic Congressional Candidates Agree on Climate Science, Differ on Solutions (IL-18)

The Democrats running in a special election to replace Aaron Schock in Congress both admit the scientific consensus behind climate change but one sounds more serious about tackling the problem.

Check out my latest at Huffington Post Blog.

Candidate Rob Mellon immediately moved the conversation to where it belongs. "We have to realize that climate change is real and there's no debate about that." He took on the latest dodge of climate deniers who claim it's happening due to natural cycles, not man-made pollutants. "The overwhelming majority of scientists are clear about that. That humans play a role."
Mellon, who teaches at Quincy High School, says he agrees with Pope Francis and pointed out that climate change disproportionately hurts the poor. "Individual politicians have to step up to the plate. We have to remove our focus on fossil fuels. These are finite resources, and if we continue to put our resources into drilling, fracking, and pipelines, we're doubling down on a failed policy."

Also posted at Daily Kos and Democrats for Progress. 

Hillary Clinton is Taking Democrats Backward on Climate Change

When Barack Obama announced his Presidential campaign in Springfield, Illinois he spoke of climate change.

Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil. We can harness homegrown, alternative fuels like ethanol and spur the production of more fuel-efficient cars. We can set up a system for capping greenhouse gases. We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation, and job creation, and an incentive for businesses that will serve as a model for the world. Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here.

Obama was the first major party nominee for President who made climate change a central theme included in every major campaign speech. He even showed politicians how to make it sound poetic. It helped elect him twice. Climate change or clean energy policy was a significant portion of every State of the Union address. That's something environmentalists should celebrate for what it says about the electoral appeal of the issue.

Nearly seven weeks after she announced her campaign for President, Hillary Clinton has yet to make a noticeable statement on climate change. At her first campaign speech in South Carolina Wednesday she didn't mention it all, despite the threat of more hurricanes hitting the state.

The best gesture for the climate movement so far is a tweet from an adviser. It's a disappointing step backward from having climate take center stage.

It's a risky move since Clinton already has a credibility problem on climate. Her most significant actions to date are promoting fracking as Secretary of State and allowing oil industry influence to corrupt the state department process on Keystone XL pipeline. The climate crisis requires bold, aggressive action against entrenched corporate special interests, which isn't a style of politics Clinton is known for.

Clinton will probably have an easy time getting endorsements from beltway green groups hoping to gain influence. But as Pat Quinn learned in Illinois, and Mark Udall learned in Colorado, promoting regulated fracking is a tough sell to environmental voters no matter what endorsements a candidate can brag about. Without a major change to her campaign, primary voters will be forced to look elsewhere for a climate champion.

After making a joke in South Carolina about coloring her hair, Clinton claimed, "you're not going to see me shrink from a fight." But so far, she's ducking the most urgent fight of our time.

Senator Manar Faces Backlash for Press Conference with Coal Lobbyist

Illinois State Senator Andy Manar is getting pushback from constituents after introducing a bill to help the heavily subsidized state coal mining industry.

A coal industry lobbyist with Foresight Energy joined Manar and other legislators at a press conference for a bill to give Illinois coal an advantage over imports. Roughly 90% of coal burned in Illinois is imported from other states because power plant operators are too cheap to install better pollution controls.

Their press release claims Manar and Senator John Bradley introduced the bill to ensure coal is part of the discussion in negotiations over state energy policy. How sweet of them to look out for poor, overlooked Foresight Energy after it donated only $185,600 to Illinois politicians this year!

Coal is already king of corporate welfare in Illinois. Mining equipment is exempt from the state sales tax, it's heavily subsidized by the Coal Development Office, and it doesn't pay an excise tax levied in other coal producing states. Despite all the extra help, Foresight Energy is still worried their Illinois mines can't compete in a competitive market.

Montgomery county resident Mary Ellen DeClue sent me a copy of a letter she wrote to Senator Manar in response to his coal bill. It's so good I asked permission to share it online.

Dear Senator Manar:
Your interest and concerns about the citizens in central and southern Illinois are appreciated.  As you have acknowledged, our citizens deserve community development and an economic improvement plan.  Observing the aftermath of coal extraction across the world, the U S, West Virginia, and especially Saline County, Illinois, coal is not the progressive sustainable solution for Illinois counties.

The proposed legislation to jump start the Illinois coal industry is misguided and counterproductive. The coal industry in Illinois needs no promotion or development. The coal industry in Illinois is already entrenched in the political system.  This is not due to the positive connections to communities, citizens, and economic benefits, but rather to undue influence of corporate funding and favoritism of Illinois agencies.

The state of Illinois has lost revenue from coal mining. The benefits bestowed on the coal industry have increased profits and liberties to coal entrepreneurs. The quality of life in coal communities is compromised by polluted air and water, damaged farmland, lower property values, higher taxes, unhealthy exposure to coal dust, and inundation and leakage from high hazard coal slurry impoundments.

Coal mining adversely affects communities by extracting more than just coal from them.  The citizens realize they have no more control over their daily lives.  When a government’s public policy establishes corporate profits over the rights of citizens, the spirit of a community is lost. Communities deserve better.

There are presently 8000 coal jobs and 130,000 jobs in renewable energy in Illinois.  If coal miners had a choice of jobs that were not hazardous and did not expose them to black lung disease, don’t you think they would prefer not risking their lives in order to earn a living?  Why aren’t there more efforts to increase job choices in central and southern Illinois?

The negative aspects of coal mining have been enhanced by the tragic actions of the Illinois Office of Mines and Minerals. The mismanagement of Shay 1 indicates just how vulnerable citizens in a community really are. The current status of Shay 1 must be a disappointment to you. Off mine-site contamination has progressed over a decade while more coal waste disposal continues. There is no additional monitoring to document contamination from the unknown amounts of imported coal ash and underground injection of coal slurry. West Virginia has a moratorium on coal slurry injection in mine voids because of ground water contamination. Illinois has not only approved underground coal slurry injection at Shay 1, but subsidizes the process. DCEO awarded Foresight Reserves LP, associate of Foresight Energy, a grant of $1,022,602 to use for coal slurry injection, a conveyor train, and safety equipment at Shay 1 starting in 3/1/2014 and ending in 2/28/2016. The state is actually funding ongoing pollution and the regulatory agencies continue to legalize pollution by approving permits that compromise the safety of communities.

Deer Run Mine is a poster example of how a community is blighted by coal with full approval of IOMM and IEPA. The careless disregard for the health and safety of thousands of residents through government actions is very troubling. The community has no recourse to coal dust, contaminated water discharges, threatening inundation from 2 impoundments, permanently placed high hazard impoundments, subsided farmland, destroyed water resources, etc. IOMM never hesitated approving the location of the coal processing plant next to the hospital or the placement of the 318-acre impoundment where upon failure would destroy life and property of several communities. This second impoundment is 200 feet away from the first 80 foot high 140-acre impoundment and both remain forever in Hillsboro. There are no air monitors to document fugitive coal dust so residents do not know what they are breathing. The mine discharges are analyzed for pH, chloride, and sulfate only, so citizens have no idea of what chemicals or what quantities are contaminating their surface waters. The higher conductance of surface waters around the mine does speak to an increase in contaminants. It is unacceptable that the most harmful chemicals found in coal are not monitored, yet are allowed to permeate the community.

The state energy policies do indeed need to be addressed, but I fear the wrong direction for public policy will be endorsed.  The photo-op of legislators with Foresight Energy’s lead lobbyist sends a message that investment in Foresight Energy will earn favors in Illinois coal permits. The known contributions of Foresight Energy to Illinois lawmakers are published and part of the public record.“Pay to play” or the perception of such must be addressed by citizens and legislators so that Illinois can climb out of the lack of trust hole.

Most importantly, the citizens of central and southern Illinois need job availability other than the polluting, unhealthful effects of coal production as a new direction for livelihoods and community development.

Sincerely,
Mary Ellen DeClue

Earth week screening of DamNation in Springfield

A free screening of the award-winning documentary DamNation is happening in Springfield on Thursday, April 23, 7pm. The film will be followed by guest speaker, professor Clark Bullard, who will speak on the locally proposed Hunter Dam. The Liberty Brew & View screening is hosted with Prairie Rivers Network at the Capital City Bar & Grill theater dining room.

This powerful film odyssey across America explores the sea change in our national attitude from pride in big dams as engineering wonders to the growing awareness that our own future is bound to the life and health of our rivers. Dam removal has moved beyond the fictional Monkey Wrench Gang to go mainstream. Where obsolete dams come down, rivers bound back to life, giving salmon and other wild fish the right of return to primeval spawning grounds, after decades without access. DamNation’s majestic cinematography and unexpected discoveries move through rivers and landscapes altered by dams, but also through a metamorphosis in values, from conquest of the natural world to knowing ourselves as part of nature.

Springfield Mayoral Election a Victory for Clean Energy

Illinois' largest public utility will now be overseen by a mayor who pledged to keep renewable energy as part of its energy mix.

Springfield's Democratic Mayor-elect Jim Langfelder deserves credit for talking about clean energy. Some candidates avoided the topic because it's controversial after a wind power contract became more costly than expected. With most local news outlets focused on utility finances and rate increases, Langfelder could have avoided taking a clear position on where our power comes from.

But voters were given a real choice between a modern energy mix with renewable energy or "we've always done it that way." Scare tactics about clean energy causing rate increases didn't work this time. Springfield is already a better clean energy leader than Chicago and now the progress can continue.

Coal was being mined in Springfield when Abraham Lincoln represented the city in the state legislature. But this year, a new clean energy future was a winning issue in a coal-country election.

Illinois Poll Shows Strong Opposition to Fracking

Nearly half of Illinois voters oppose fracking, according to a new poll by the Simon Institute. The statewide poll reveals 48.6% oppose fracking while only 31.8% believe it should be encouraged, even if there are economic benefits. Opponents outnumber supporters an all regions of the state, including downstate where fracking is promoted as a jobs plan.

The numbers reinforce that fracking is one of the issues which cost Governor Pat Quinn support among Democrats and independents in his losing re-election campaign. Illinois Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose fracking with 61.9% against and 19.7% in favor. Independents oppose it as well, with 48.3% against and 30.6% in support.

Any Illinois candidate looking for support from young voters should stand against fracking. A whopping 74% of 18-24 year-olds don't want it.

A solid 54% majority of Chicago residents are opposed. That's a bad sign for Rahm Emanuel who claims his aggregation deal is a clean energy victory, even though it powers Chicago with natural gas from the Marcellus shale fracking fields.

An election analysis released in January by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute identified low turnout among Democrats, and downstate opposition as reasons for Governor Pat Quinn losing re-election. During the campaign Quinn faced protests against his support for fracking, and as this poll shows, his position is unpopular among the Democratic base. With neither candidate for Governor taking a position against fracking, it left little reason for concerned voters to show up on election day.

There's no issue for which politicians and lobbyists in the statehouse bubble are more out of touch with Illinois voters than on fracking.

After a bill to regulate and launch fracking passed the Illinois legislature, industry lobbyists launched a campaign to portray opponents as a tiny fringe. Overwhelming public outcry against fracking at public hearings provided a reality check. A few accommodating statehouse green groups helped reinforced the false impression that regulation is a consensus middle ground. The Simon poll shows industry claims that fracking opposition is limited to a small group are outrageously false.

Some statehouse Democrats are still out of touch. Central Illinois Senator Dave Koehler recently introduced an amendment to the Illinois Clean Jobs bill that would allow some utilities to pay for converting coal plants to natural gas with a new fee charged to customers. The act creates a market-based carbon auction that may push coal plant operators to make minor upgrades or convert to natural gas. Koehler's amendment would help utilities to keep aging, polluting plants running at ratepayer expense rather than investing in new clean energy.

Most Illinois fracking is on hold, at least temporarily, due to low oil prices. Yet, the issue could play a roll in the 2016 election, particularly in Democratic primaries for U.S. Senate and Congress. Although some Democrats, like Pat Quinn and former Colorado Senator Mark Udall, have supported fracking regulation as a compromise middle crowd, it's a position that alienates voters on both sides of the issue while gaining support from no one but industry donors. Democratic candidates in a competitive primary would be smart to support a ban on fracking.

The poll question adopts a "jobs v. the environment" narrative which assumes fracking would benefit the economy. But, many residents oppose fracking because they don't believe another boom and bust extraction cycle will help the downstate economy. Most people don't want to locate their business or home in a community with poisoned water and air.

Low oil prices and public opposition provide an opportunity for downstate Illinois to build a healthy economy without the destructive impacts of fracking. As the poll shows, many voters are looking for leaders who offer more than empty assurances that regulation will make fracking safe or provide good jobs.

Department of Interior Announces Big Rock Candy Mountain Management Plan

The U.S. Department of Interior made three announcements today. One establishes rules to protect the lemonade springs at Big Rock Candy Mountain. Second, is a management plan for unicorn populations on public lands.

The third announcement is for rules to produce safe, responsible fracking. Clearly announced on the same day because all three are all equally realistic things that exist in the same world of make believe.

America's Fracking Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

Sandra Steingraber gave an excellent comment for my new piece about Chicago's energy aggregation contract. 

I grew up Illinois coal country, just downwind from a massive, coal-burning power plant that sent all its power north to Chicago. When I was in high school, in the 1970s, that plant was the biggest polluter in the state, and everyone in my home town of Pekin all suffered from breathing its emissions. My 84-year-old mom, a life-long non-smoker, has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. And because that coal, when it burned, sent mercury raining down on our river, the local fish became too poisoned to eat.

Unfortunately, Chicago residents have been sold a bill of goods by officials who misrepresented a switch from coal to natural gas as 'clean' energy. Natural gas, predominately extracted by fracking, is anything but clean, and once again, people far from Chicagoland will suffer so that Chicagoans can turn on the lights. This time, it's Pennsylvania children living in the shale fields, rather than downstate Illinois kids living by the strip mines, whose health will be sacrificed. So, how is that progress?

For the climate, extraction by fracking results in tremendous leakage of methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more damaging for the climate than carbon dioxide over 20 years. For people, those living near fracking suffer a range of health ailments including respiratory illnesses, birth defects, and the threat of contaminated water and earthquakes. Chicagoans deserve better than false representations of natural gas as a clean power source; they need true leadership that boldly moves to renewable energy.

It's impossible to take Rahm seriously as an environmental leader after he sold fracking as clean energy. Read the rest at HuffingtonPost.

Lincoln loved taxing the rich

Happy birthday Abraham Lincoln!

When Lincoln anniversaries come around I sometimes enjoy comparing the views of the first Republican president to the Republican party of today. Tax policies offer a stark contrast. Lincoln supported progressive income tax structures that asked the rich to pay their fair share.

As a member of the Illinois state legislature, Lincoln defended a property tax because it would mostly be paid by the wealthy. Paul Simon's book, Lincoln's Preparation for Greatness, quotes Lincoln's letter on the tax.

...I believe it can be sustained, because it does not increase the tax upon the "many poor" but upon the "wealthy few" by taxing the land that is worth $50 or $100 per acre, in proportion to its value, instead of, as heretofore, no more than that which was worth $5 per acre. This valuable land, as is well known, belongs, not to the poor, but to the wealthy citizen.

On the other hand, the wealthy can not justly complain, because the change is equitable within itself, and also a sine qua non to a compliance with the Constitution. If, however, the wealthy should, regardless of the justness of the complaint, complain of the change, it is still to be remembered, that they are not sufficiently numerous to carry the elections.
Very Respectfully,
A. Lincoln

We live in different times. The voice of the wealthy few manage to outweigh the many poor in most elections thanks to unrestricted campaign spending. Illinois' new Republican Governor Bruce Rauner has discussed supporting a sales tax increase that would place a greater burden on the middle class and poor, rather than the 1% Lincoln preferred taxing.

As President, Lincoln created the first income tax. It was so progressive that most Americans paid nothing at all. Republicans today sometimes complain that half of Americans supposedly pay no income tax. That's exactly what Lincoln had in mind when he established a tax on those most able to pay.

Somehow, Lincoln's populist views sound more modern and relevant than today's Republican party that's captured by perpetually complaining billionaires.