Renewable Energy an Environmentalist’s Dilemma

Jim Harbison

How many of you have traveled to Palm Springs, California, or across the Tehachapi mountains east of Bakersfield or the Altamont Pass east of San Francisco or the plains of western Texas and have seen the gigantic wind turbines that dot the horizon or cover entire mountain sides. Some think these massive manmade industrial forests are quite attractive and commend them for the “clean” energy they produce. Have you seen the massive solar panel fields located in the Mohave Desert, or the 775,000 solar panels installed on the 380 acre site outside Boulder City, Nevada? I find both wind turbines and solar panels to be offensive blights and visual pollution on otherwise beautiful natural landscapes.

My environmental friends do not share my opinions and fail to understand my interest in protecting the visual quality of the environment. To me there is nothing attractive or scenic about these massive wind turbines that spoil the scenic tranquility of the landscape, or wreak havoc on the migration of birds, and emit noises that disrupt the solitude of nature. The massive fields of solar panels are equally destructive to the unique scenery of the areas in which they are located.

How can these same environmentally conscientious individuals, who want to lock up the wilderness to protect it from the ravages of mankind, advocate the destruction of vast areas of our natural landscapes to install these “clean” energy systems. How many acres of scenic lands are now littered with these ugly, noisy, or visually offensive devices? How much of our natural scenic beauty has been or will be rendered useless by the environmental “renewable energy” movement that claims to protect the environment for future generations?

Solar panel installations remove massive amounts of acreage from public use. The Bureau of Land Management has identified three areas in New Mexico as Solar Energy Zones (SEZs) which has the potential of removing 110,000 acres of land from public use. Not only will this land be inaccessible to the public but it will be dotted with man-made devices that will destroy any natural scenic beauty of the same lands the environmentalists keep telling us they want to protect. Do they truly want to dedicate 77,000 acres southwest of Las Cruces, or 22,000 acres near Alamogordo for solar energy zones? It would be interesting to calculate the total number of acres of land that these renewable energy projects have already removed from public use or adversely impacted the landscape and natural beauty of the nation.  

I find it difficult to understand how so many people in southern New Mexico could lobby for the wilderness bill to protect the Organ Mountains and our deserts and still advocate construction of renewable energy projects on public lands. These two concepts seem to be a collision course toward their mutual destruction because of their environmental implications. How is renewable energy compatible with the efforts of the Wilderness Alliance to protect public lands from all forms of development? Recently Wilderness Alliance staff attorney Judy Calman stated in the Las Cruces Sun-News that solar development can be destructive, mostly because the projects require such large areas and cause considerable disturbance.

Is this another case of the “not in my backyard” mentality of the environmentalists. Even the late Senator Ted Kennedy lobbied for environmental policies including renewable energy but later opposed its construction near his community. It appears that the environmentalists have created a monumental obstacle to renewable energy through their policies to establish wilderness areas that lock out ALL development – including their own renewable energy projects. Perhaps it’s poetic justice.

Renewable Energy an Environmentalist’s Dilemma

Grubesic: 40 Year Addiction

John Grubesic

Capitol Report New Mexico - When I was in office didn’t pay much attention to blogs. I knew they were out there, but I had a hard enough time keeping track of the press in the Capitol. I didn’t get along with the press. We put up with each other. I had a bad habit of opening my mouth. They had the bad habit of writing it down and if they didn’t I wrote it for them. I made their jobs easy. I was a walking news brief. I have a new, I wouldn’t say respect but an understanding for bloggers and their ilk. Trying to figure out what to write about once a week is tough. Especially when you don’t have easy access to politicians that are rolling train wrecks. Luckily, the nature of politics naturally leads to the absurd. It mirrors Einstein’s definition of insanity, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” When I was 9 years old I remember my parents talking about gas prices. Watching the news and seeing people wait in line for gas. I remember my Dad selling his beautiful eight cylinder Mercedes and buying a four cylinder Peugeot, the ugliest car this side of the Pacer. I remember our neighbors putting up solar panels and doing a project for Cub Scouts making a solar oven. Didn’t cook worth a damn, but it could roast the fingers of any 9 year old dumb enough to use it. President Nixon wrestled with OPEC and their embargo, Carter fretted over our oil dependency and the first Bush called it an addiction.

Thirty-eight years later where are we? Still nuzzled up to despotic, corrupt Arab regimes that we continue to prop up. Rebuilding Iraq while America turns to dust and blows away before our eyes. We are fighting three wars ( regardless of the semantic gymnastics, when you are dropping bombs on someone I am sure they would call it a war or at least very warlike) to protect the spigot for us or our European pals. There is no difference in America’s energy policy. We are doing the same things and expecting a different result. President Obama talks a great game and with every forceful finger point and gesture made at Georgetown he laid out the exact approach that every politician has touted for the past four decades. Read full column here: News New Mexico

Grubesic: 40 Year Addiction

Otero Mesa - A False Dichotomy of Choices

Jim Burleson

NMPolitics - Compromise has gotten a bad name. Nowadays everyone seems to think it means one side selling out, or both sides selling out. But true compromise involves each side prioritizing their objectives, trying to see the merits of the other side’s argument, and being willing to give a little so that both sides can be happy with an approximation of their desires instead of utter disappointment. Nowadays we seem to be presented with nothing but Hobson’s choices: this bad option or nothing at all, this bad option or something even worse.

Otero Mesa

This seems to be especially true of issues involving the environment and the development of natural resources. We’re continually presented with a choice between the preservation of pristine natural beauty and the reckless exploitation of the landscape leading to total desecration. This is a false dichotomy. There are many other options, ones that lie between the two extremes, and we could find an acceptable solution if we were willing to be reasonable and realistic. Read full story here: News New Mexico



Otero Mesa - A False Dichotomy of Choices

Line Item Veto?

Bloomberg  - Businessweek - Republican Gov. Susana Martinez is looking at a maneuver once used by her predecessor, Democrat Bill Richardson, to end run the Legislature and selectively reject a tax increase that lawmakers approved. Martinez is considering using her line-item veto powers to eliminate a $128 million tax increase on businesses in a measure the Legislature passed to keep the state's unemployment compensation program from running out of money next year, Martinez spokesman Scott Darnell said.

Taking that approach would allow the governor to stop the tax increase, which she's already promised to do, but preserve nearly $80 million in cost savings and benefit reductions that could improve the solvency of the unemployment fund. Read full story here: News New Mexico

Line Item Veto?

Martinez Has 284 Bills to Review

Susana Martinez

Capitol Report New Mexico - For Dwight Eisenhower, D-Day was June 6. For Susana Martinez, decision day for the bills from the 2011 legislative session is April 8. By that day, the Governor has to decide whether she’ll sign, veto or pocket veto the bills that managed to get through both houses of the state legislature. Here are some facts, figures, questions and answers leading up to that date:
Total number of bills on the Governor’s desk: 284
Total she has already signed (as of 10:53 a.m. Thursday, March 31): 15
Total she has already vetoed (as of 10:53 a.m. Thursday, March 31): 1
Read full story here: News New Mexico

Martinez Has 284 Bills to Review

News New Mexico 9 Months Old

April Fools Day fittingly marks the nine month anniversary of the launching of News New Mexico. We are grateful for the contributions of our staff, our strategic partners, our affiliates, our guests, and our contributors. Most of all we appreciate everyone who visits our site every day and listens to our show around the state and country.

Speaking of foolishness.......on the first day of each month we visit usdebtclock.org. It is a painful practice that continues to sharpen our sense of mission. Since we took the airwaves and launched our website nine months ago the Federal Government has borrowed $19,328 for every taxpaying married couple in America. If you are unmarried, the government has borrowed $9,664 since then. That is $1,078.78 per month in borrowing for each taxpayer in the nation. The New Mexico congressional delegation in Washington includes four elected officials who think is is "extremist" to try to stop the borrowing binge through spending cuts. This group includes Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall, Ben Ray Lujan, and Martin Heinrich. These four men purportedly oppose borrowing. If spending cannot be cut without being extreme, clearly these four men must favor raising taxes to eliminate the borrowing insanity. On the other side of the borrowing question is Congressman Steve Pearce. Pearce says he wants to cut spending to reduce borrowing. Taxpaying New Mexicans should be thinking about these positions and decide whether or not they want 1) their elected officials to continue to allow the government to borrow $1,078 per month on their behalf, cut spending, or increase federal income taxes. We will check back on this next month. Before April 15th, the amount borrowed on behalf of every married couple since we took the air last July will soar above $20,000. Can I opt out and get a new car?

News New Mexico 9 Months Old

Grand Jury Probing Bribe Allegations

Bill Richardson

NMPolitics - NMPolitics.net is reporting that a Las Cruces Grand jury will consider allegations that Mike Murphy paid a bribe in exchange for Bill Richardson naming him to the bench, and that he may have solicited bribes for Richardson from other judicial applicants. Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy has been notified that a grand jury meeting next week may charge him with paying a bribe in exchange for then-Gov. Bill Richardson appointing him to the bench in 2006. The grand jury is scheduled to meet Tuesday in Las Cruces to consider charges against Murphy, a source with knowledge of the case confirmed. In addition to the allegation that he paid a bribe for his appointment, investigators have been looking into allegations that Murphy may have solicited bribes for Richardson from applicants for other judgeships. The bribe or bribes were allegedly paid as political contributions, the source said. No one besides Murphy, including Richardson, has received notification that they may be indicted, the source said. The investigation is ongoing. Murphy said he could not comment on the situation. “I can’t discuss that at all Heath, and one better be careful about that. Those are sequestered, sealed proceedings,” he said. “I’m not either confirming or denying that.” Richardson’s executive assistant had not gotten back to NMPolitics.net with comment by the time this story was published. Read full story at NMPolitics.net.

Grand Jury Probing Bribe Allegations

Martinez Signs Public Safety Bills in Farmington

Governor Martinez

FARMINGTON – Governor Susana Martinez visited the Boys and Girls Club in Farmington yesterday to sign two key public safety measures into law. Joined by Sen. Sander Rue, Mayor Tommy Roberts of Farmington, Mayor Sally Burbridge of Aztec, Farmington city councilors, San Juan County Sheriff Ken Christesen, police chiefs from Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield, San Juan County legislators and other state and local officials, Governor Martinez signed Senate Bill 102, requiring palm prints from individuals arrested for a crime and Senate Bill 134, banning the possession and sale of synthetic marijuana. “One of the most basic duties of state government is providing for the safety of all New Mexicans,” said Governor Martinez. “I have made it a top priority to protect and promote communities in which our children can feel safe and New Mexico’s families can thrive. These two important pieces of public safety legislation will help us to further create a positive environment for our citizens and I’m thankful to Sen. Rue and Sen. Wilson Beffort for their leadership.” SB 102, sponsored by Sen. Rue, requires a palm print to be taken from anyone arrested for a crime, just as law enforcement officers take finger prints. Last month, the FBI began using new technology to compile a palm print database and several other states, including California, Rhode Island, and Connecticut also use palm prints to identify criminals.

Sander Rue

“Requiring palm prints from anyone who is arrested is a common-sense measure that is already being used by the FBI,” Governor Martinez remarked. “This law will require a palm print to be collected in the same manner that we collect finger prints – and it can be equally effective. When finger prints are smudged or non-existent, palm prints can be used to identify and convict criminals. This is an important tool that the law enforcement community needs to put criminals behind bars.” SB 134 outlaws synthetic cannabinoids such as Spice, K2, Blaze, and Red X Dawn, substances that were easily available online and at smoke shops in New Mexico. The substances typically consist of plant material coated with chemicals that mimic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. In January, Farmington became the first city in the state to ban them.

Regarding SB 134, the Governor stated, “I’m proud to take statewide what Farmington started. These drugs are no less harmful just because they are known by catchy names and are chemically different than the substances they are supposed to replicate. They can pack a powerful punch and can hold devastating consequences for anyone who uses them. New Mexico now joins the federal Drug Enforcement Agency and a number of other states in recognizing that ‘synthetic’ does not mean "harmless."

Martinez Signs Public Safety Bills in Farmington

The Department of Energy

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the Department of Energy during the Carter Administration? The DOE was institution August 4, 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil which was at that time 30 percent. In 2010 the budget for the DOE was $242 Billion a year. It employs 16,000 federal workers and has about 100,000 contract employees. So when it started working on the problem of our dependence on foreign oil that dependence was 30 percent. Today 70 percent of our oil consumption is from foreign sources. What is the chance we could do away with the Department of Energy? About the same as the DOE actually doing the job it was founded to do… no chance whatsoever.

The Department of Energy

When a society really means to tax the rich

From NM Politics.net - Commentary by Michael Swickard, Ph.D. - I have heard many times our legislators talk about how unfair it is for our society to allow the evil rich to keep their ill-gotten gains. These legislators keep changing the tax code to take more and more from the rich, but if we are to have a just society, they have not taken enough until they take all of it. Example: Last week someone plunked down a dollar in the Mega Millions lottery drawing and came away with more than $100 million after taxes. How can we Americans allow this to happen in our country? Remember, this is someone who does not need $100 million. They were getting by fine and, in fact, had an extra dollar to waste on the lottery. The media covers it like it is a good thing. They ignore the fact that this money came from all of the poor people of our land who essentially got nothing in return for putting their dollars in the lottery. We cannot allow prizes to be awarded from the lottery because that would be ill-gotten gains – like when someone in a company gets a golden parachute. We must confiscate all lottery winnings if we are to have a just society. P.S. – I am not a nut. Read full column

When a society really means to tax the rich