Green Stimulus: Not Roads, But Schools & Jobs

As President-elect Obama considers the nature of the next stimulus package, many ideas are being floated around. While an infrastructure spending spree (like the first New Deal) has some merits, we'd see a much better long-term return from a green stimulus package that emphasized green schools and green jobs for a sustainable future. The best outline I've seen for such a package was released by the Campaign for Environmental Literacy (.pdf) and deserves broad attention during this debate.

-Dr. DRL

Harry Reid Must Go!

Now that we're looking forward to "change" one that's near the top of my list is the Senate Majority Leader. We've seen almost nothing of substance from Harry Reid over the past several years, which has included a record of almost total capitulation to the Republican minority this year and a complete failure to substantively challenge the most unpopular president in historic memory on almost anything.

Reid must go. He may in fact lose his seat in 2010, but I'd rather see him step down as majority leader long before that. The folks over at Daily Kos have taken up the torch, or at least are complaining about him more than they used to.

Good luck progressives! Let's start mailing old boots to Reid, so he'll at least know how we feel.

Interior Update: Looks Like Salazar

Good news from the Obama transition team Official Leak Channel: it looks like Colorado Senator Ken Salazar will be moving on to the Interior Department. Salazar is a much better pick than many of the others rumored to be on the list, and one that proponents of stewardship on western public lands can work with. Despite a history that includes being on the wrong side of some key environmental decisions, Salazar scored 100% on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard for the 110th Congress and was endorsed as an "environmental hero" by the LCV in 2005.

Though a moderate (and social conservative) Democrat, Salazar is the kind of guy who should be able to work with both sides on critical issues such as water, grazing, timber, mining, and recreational access on the public lands without being beholden to single industry's like some other names that have been bandied about.

As I noted earlier, we desperately need a Stuart Udall or Cecil Andrus at Interior, not only to promote sensible policies but to revive the hopes of the many Interior employees who have been fighting against a rigged, politicized system for the past eight years in vain hope of protecting some part of our natural legacy. Salazar isn't Udall, but he's much closer than I'd feared. We'll have to reach out to him quickly and hold his (and his boss's) feet to the fire to make sure he listens to voices outside the boardrooms and faux-ranches that have dominated the public land debates in the West for far too long.

Time Has Come for Universal Health Care

It's past time for the US to join the rest of the civilized world in providing medical care to all of our citizens. With the political energy built up by the Obama victory 2009 may be the best chance at health care reform since the 1950s. The best solution is clearly a single-payer model that would strip away the inefficiencies and injustices created by the byzantine private insurance industry-- why should we spend billions each year to fund an industry that skims profits from health care without providing any health care services? --and increases efficiency by putting all consumers into a buying pool for services, medications, and all other expenses.

The best solution proposed so far is H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, which would cover all medically-necessary procedures, medication, and devices for all Americans. People can still choose their doctors and there would be no copays or deductibles. It will be paid for, in part, by a 3% increase in the payroll tax-- much less per person than most of us currently pay for private insurance and the benefits will be greater.

Please contact your elected officials and urge them to support H.R. 676 in the next Congress.

-Dr. DRL

Obama's decision for Interior-- disappointment?

Much concern has been raised within the environmental community over the rumor that Mike Thompson (D-CA) may be Obama's pick for Interior (see Grist's piece).

This is deeply disturbing to those of us who gave time and money to Obama on the assumption that he recognized the critical importance of conservation on our public lands. Thompson is a Blue Dog who supported many of Bush's inane environmental policies (including the "Healthy Forests Initiative") who simply does not have the credentials to fix the mess at Interior.

What America needs today is a Stuart Udall or a Cecil Andrus at Interior-- a westerner that understands conservation and believes in a sustainable, multiple-use mission for the public lands. Mike Thompson is not that person and Obama needs to hear that from everyone who support his campaign as a means to improving our environmental record on public lands.

You can join me in emailing the Obama transition team to share your thoughts on this critical position.

-Dr.DRL

My November Newspaper Column: A Brighter Future

From the St. Cloud (MN) Times, 11/5/08:

An open letter to my children:

Girls, I’m saving copies of today’s newspaper for each of you, knowing that whatever the outcome of the presidential election it will be historic. They will go into the box with the papers from your birthdays and other important events to be passed to you when you’re old enough to want them.

Though several more elections will pass before you can vote yourselves, I trust you’ll someday be interested in these mementos of either the first African-American elected to the presidency or the first woman elected to the vice presidency. And who knows? It’s always possible that our country may be entering a new era of peace and prosperity and someday you can show the headlines to your friends and say “I remember 2008 …”

In some ways, though, I’m glad you’re not old enough to have paid serious attention to the campaigns that ended Monday. Though inspiring words were sometimes voiced and grand visions occasionally advanced, much of the rhetoric has been vapid and shallow. The politics have been mean spirited and the media coverage sadly juvenile.

Even as Election Day approached voters likely knew more about the female candidates’ clothes than their positions on major issues, and certainly more about the male candidates’ distant acquaintances and “youthful indiscretions” than their concrete plans for the future. In a polarized environment both campaigns ran for the middle and for the ever-elusive “low information voters” who couldn’t be bothered to make up their minds until the last minute. It was not an inspiring process.

My hope is that by the time you are of voting age we will have moved on. Moved on from the partisan rancor — and outright meanness — that has marked our politics for the past several decades. Moved on from the politics of division, an approach that relies as much on suppressing votes as turning them out, and toward an era in which candidates are judged by their platforms and positions, rather than by their opponent’s efforts to define them through innuendo and third-party slanders.

Moreover, I hope we will have moved on into an era of new possibilities, where the tired old epithets of “communist” and “socialist” have finally withered as they’ve long deserved, and where progressive ideas and ideals are more than simply things we remember from history lessons or admire longingly overseas.

Pendulums swing. Ours has been so far to the right for so long that many have despaired its return to a vibrant center. Perhaps the return swing picked up some new momentum Tuesday.

I hope the time has indeed arrived and that you will come of age in a world different from that in which you were born. One in which the United States is respected as a world leader. One in which the basic needs of all Americans are met before the whims of the wealthy and powerful are indulged. One that is led by elected officials you can trust to consider the nation’s interest before their own. And one in which anyone can run for office and have a fair shot at winning based on their ideas and accomplishments, not one where political power is reserved for those with personal fortunes, the right connections, or the greatest skill at appealing to voters’ fear and ignorance.

I’ll look forward to hearing what you think about this, looking back from the days you cast your first votes.

It’s entirely possible that by the time you open the box to flip through this yellowed souvenir, newspapers will have themselves become a curiosity. But I trust politics and elections will not. There are signs that 2008 may be the start of a political renaissance, with voters turning out in record numbers to move the country in a new, positive direction. Here’s hoping we’ve started a trend that continues with your generation and moves toward a future filled with all the hard work and opportunities that are your birthrights as Americans.

I already know you to be smart, caring and thoughtful individuals. There are almost unlimited numbers of other people like you out there, waiting to make a difference. I trust you’ll always remember that the most important steps in that direction are to educate yourselves on the issues of the day, become informed on the candidates’ positions, get involved as volunteers, and to exercise your right to vote just as you watched your mom and I do once again Tuesday.

A Better Future for My Kids: PRICELESS

It's hard to explain to children how long we've waited for this moment. I'm sitting here watching the crowd go wild in Grant Park, just moments after the networks have called it for Obama. Here's hoping we can all live up to the promise.

Happiness Is: Watching Good Election Results With Your Kids

I remember watching the returns with my dad in 1976. I had a Ford bumper sticker on my homemade gocart, but my parents were (of course) Carter voters. I thought Ford was great because I knew who he was, and had really never heard of Carter until that fall. Happily Carter won and I took the Ford sticker off my gocart.

Tonight I'm watching the returns with my oldest daughter, who is within a few months of the age I was in1976. But this time father and daughter are rooting for the same candidate: there's a hand-drawn Obama sign in our front window, another on the lawn, and everyone in the family has been proudly wearing "I Voted" stickers since we went to the polls this morning.

It's going to be a great night.

Let's Do It Folks! Vote like it's 1932!

In just under 12 hours voting will start on the East coast. This is our chance to take America back from the right wing extremists who have driven the country into a ditch, quite literally over the past eight years but metaphorically at least since 1981. There has been no greater opportunity for positive change since 1932-- the pendulum is swinging back, we are on the right (or in this case, left) side of history, and the whole world is indeed watching once again.

For those who will be playing the home version of our game Tuesday evening, there's a handy score card available from DailyKos. Download it and follow along with me-- I'll be up all night, waiting for the icing on the cake as the Alaska returns come in for the senate race.

Get out and vote everyone-- now is the time to act for our childrens' future!

-Dr. DRL

Sarah Palin's Anti-American Allies

While the McCain-Palin campaign makes hay over Obama's tenuous association with William Ayers-- with the full cooperation of the mainstream media --one wonders why the Palin family's past association with the anti-American Alaska Independence Party (AIP) has received so little attention. David Talbot's recent article at Salon.com lays out the AIPs history in some detail, including founder Joe Vogler's pronouncement that “My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”

Why is this important? Todd Palin was an active member of the AUP until 2002, and Sarah Palin has attended their conventions and made a video-linked appearance in 2008. If Ayers' past is grounds for criticizing Obama, the virulent anti-Americanism of Palin's AIP friends-- whom she has openly supported as recently as this spring --at least deserves our attention.

-DRL

Media Lapdogs Still Serve as McCain's "Base"

Many critics have been appalled by the mainstream media's enchantment with John McCain for years, but that hasn't prevented his putative "base" from continuing to apply a strict double standard to coverage of McCain over Obama. Even the recent (and mild) criticsms of the McCain campaigns lies and distortions have not changed the fact that his history remains largely off limits and even his currently erratic behavior draws little comment.

Media Matter's Jamison Foser's insightful piece "The media's enduring pro-McCain double standard" (posted 10/10/08) lays the issue out quite clearly. While the mainstream media may not really be McCain's base they have certainly treated him with undue deference and given him a pass on a range of issues that really should have been front-and-center for years.

-DRL

An Open Letter on Iraq: Six Years Later

The letter below was published in our campus newspaper on October 8, 2002. Written by my colleague Michael Livingston, it was signed by 125 other faculty including myself. While there was significant debate among the faculty over signing at the time (less than 50% chose to do so) I hope that today most of my colleagues would recognize the fact that Dr. Livingston's worst fears were proven accurate. The letter's conclusion still stands and is certainly applicable to other issues our country faces today: We urge you to join us in our shared responsibilities as citizens. Educate yourselves about the issue. Speak out. Act.

----------------------

An Open Letter to Students

By Michael G. Livingston

September 26, 2002

Published in The Record on October 8, 2002

We, the undersigned faculty at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, oppose an invasion of Iraq by the United States.

A war is not a videogame or a Hollywood fantasy. Real people kill other real people. As citizens of a democracy we should not let our leaders decide this issue for us. We, the people, should collectively decide. We believe that the Bush administration’s reasons offered to date for going to war do not justify such a serious course of action. Our reasons for opposing an invasion include:

An invasion would lead to the loss of many innocent Iraqi lives. The first Persian Gulf War resulted in over 100,000 Iraqi deaths. Many more people have died, according to the United Nations and other sources, due to the 11-year-long embargo that was put in place immediately after the war. A new war will lead to even more people being killed. In the event of a ground war, the deaths will include Americans sent to fight for the wrong reasons.

The Iraqi threat is not real. The administration has presented little beyond repeated assertions to show that Iraq is indeed a threat to the United States. Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska) has stated that the CIA has “absolutely no evidence” that Iraq has or will soon have nuclear weapons. Further, Iraq has no delivery system capable of hitting the U.S. Finally, many nations such as India, Pakistan, Israel, and the United States itself have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. No nation should be attacked merely for possessing such weapons.

An invasion to replace the Iraqi government would destabilize the region. An invasion will produce prolonged instability in Iraq, increase anti-American feelings in the region, and heighten the appeal of terrorist groups. An invasion will exacerbate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, compounding the enormous suffering of both groups. An invasion of Iraq “could turn the whole region into a cauldron” as former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft has written.

An invasion would not address the root causes of terror. Most of the participants in the September 11^th attacks came from American allies such as Saudi Arabia. In such undemocratic regimes, idealistic young people do not have the option of expressing their grievances through the political process. They are thus vulnerable to manipulative, authoritarian groups such as al-Qaeda. A better response to terrorism would be to help our allies become more democratic and thus empower their own citizens to pursue social change constructively and peacefully.

An invasion would harm the U.S. economy. Wars are expensive and divert money, time, and people from the economy. An invasion could disrupt oil supplies, increase the deficit, and take much needed money away from domestic problems that we must face.

For these and other reasons we oppose going to war on moral and realistic grounds. We urge you to join us in our shared responsibilities as citizens. Educate yourselves about the issue. Speak out. Act.

[signed by 126 CSB/SJU faculty]

John McCain is not my friend

All the logical reasons for opposing McCain aside, I have become nearly ill from hearing him say "my friends" at every public appearance. He is not my friend and never will be. The fake familiarity is simply either condescending or a plain old dose of Elmer Gantry style snake oil.

PS: He bombed debate number two badly.

October Times Column: Recovery Plan is Needed-- Just Not for Banks

Economic recovery plan is needed

St. Cloud (MN) Times

October 1, 2008

[posted here a week late, so less relevant than it was on 10/10/08 before the bailout passed]

The spectacular collapse of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout plan Monday afternoon apparently took a lot of people by surprise. After all, we were told that the economy depended on it and that it was “too important” for partisan politics to derail.

By many accounts a major factor in the plan’s defeat was public opinion — the fact that “Main Street” just didn’t care to pay for the excesses of Wall Street and made that very clear to their representatives in Washington. Never mind that nobody really lives on Main Street; people outside the media know that’s for banks, jewelry stores and lawyers. Those of us who live on Maple Lane, Mulberry Road, or Minnesota Street still knew they were talking about us, just as we knew we had nothing to do with the toxic brew of lax regulation, shaky investments and unmitigated greed that got us into this mess.

We didn’t invent hedge funds or exotic securities. We didn’t push banks to issue ever-more-risky loans. We didn’t promote the idea of home “ownership” as the only legitimate form of the American dream. And we certainly didn’t expect the regulatory system our grandparents established to end the Great Depression to be twisted into an excuse to pass on what amounts to someone else’s gambling losses to our grandkids.

Here in Central Minnesota people didn’t gamble quite so willingly. Our local banks and credit unions made mostly good loans, and, unlike other places, we aren’t faced with entire neighborhoods of foreclosed homes. Housing prices never grew to insane heights, so had less distance to fall. Fiscally responsible families didn’t cash out their equity to pay for toys or vacations, but continued to save for college and retirement. People cut back in response to rising energy prices and made due with less while working more.

Some folks seem to have forgotten that element of the American dream — that hard work pays off, but sometimes hard times follow good. Most Americans share these same core values. So rather than worry about how we’ll find a way to bail out wealthy hedge fund investors our top priority should be a plan for a much broader economic recovery.

The Fed or Congress must certainly develop a way to stabilize credit markets and keep capital flowing to companies that employ American workers and produce things of value. But what we really want are leaders who will condemn the politics of greed and recognize that what Main Street needs is not a banker’s bailout, but an economic recovery plan that will create jobs for our friends and neighbors, stabilize housing markets, shore up our tax bases, and put families back in the position of planning for the future rather than worrying about today.

We’ve seen what Wall Street wants and luckily on Monday they didn’t get it outright. Before they regroup and try again we should demand candidates for public office address the bedrock issues of economic recovery first and foremost. From John McCain and Barack Obama down to local candidates for school board and city council, everyone who takes office in January will face the challenges of an economy in recession, declining tax revenues, and the continuing burden of the mortgage fiasco.

How will they address these problems next year? When the cuts come what will go first? When things turn around, how will we set priorities to ease the pain of the next recession? Main Street was heard loud and clear in Washington on Monday. Let’s be sure those same voices are heard on the campaign trails across Central Minnesota between now and Election Day as well.

Chinese melamine now killing children...

Way back in April, 2007, I wrote a piece ("Pet Food Scare Serves as Warning") about the contamination of pet food with melamine from China. Several readers accused me of being anti-Chinese or claimed it was a fluke. Sadly, they were wrong: investigation of the baby formula poisonings in China this week have found exactly the same compound (tripolycyanimide) was intentionally added to low-quality baby formula in order to fool lab tests for nutrient content. Six babies have died and many others have been stricken with the same sort of kidney ailments that killed thousands of north American pets in 2007.

This time the problem was not a failure of the US FDA, but it does point to the vulnerability of any food supply dependent on Chinese ingredients-- and virtually all US-produced processed foods include ingredients sourced at Chinese plants. This is a terrible tragedy for the families of the Chinese victims, and yet another alarm call for the United States. How much longer can we continue to play Russian roulette with our food supply? FDA reform and strict inspection/regulation of all food imports from China is the only way we will avoid a similar tragedy here.

CNN's report on the investigation includes more details.

Help me help Obama-- support progressive candidates

I've established a personal fundraising site I'm calling Central Minnesotans for Progress at http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/kiwanda. If, like me, you are concerned about critical issues like education, health care, energy, and the environment and want to see a departure from the politics of the past please join me in supporting the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008.

Just click on Central Minnesotans for Progress to make a donation directly to the campaign-- credit will go to progressive causes and help advance a rational agenda while electing the only candidates who are speaking for the sort of progressive, positive change our country so badly needs.

-Derek

The Long Reach of 1968

Here's my September column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times:

Times Writers Group: We’ve yet to move beyond 1968

By Derek Larson • September 3, 2008

Some years have a longer reach in history than others. 1901, 1929 and 1941 were all turning points for the United States. But this fall, nothing from the past seems more relevant than 1968, the year everything seemed to go wrong and our politics crumbled into something almost unrecognizable.

As Americans consider their choices for president and other elected offices this fall, the shadow of 1968 looms just outside the frame, impacting our options, shaping the process and reminding us of just how important these decisions really can be.

1968 began badly. January brought the battle of Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, marking the end of widespread public support for the war. The USS Pueblo was seized by North Korea, and a U.S. B-52 bomber carrying four nuclear bombs crashed and burned in Greenland. National security — and Vietnam in particular — dominated the presidential primaries that spring.

Eroding public support for the war was echoed in campus protests around the nation. In March, Robert Kennedy entered the campaign on an anti-war platform, and by the end of the month President Lyndon Johnson had withdrawn from the race. In April, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, triggering riots in major cities. A week later, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, banning discrimination in housing, but the civil rights movement continued to fragment, increasingly divided between King’s nonviolent civil disobedience and the emerging black power movement.

In June, Robert Kennedy was assassinated on the eve of his victory in the California primary, throwing the Democratic Party into chaos. A quiet Republican convention in Miami Beach nominated Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew as law-and-order candidates, a stark contrast to the Chicago Democratic convention, which devolved into riots three weeks later.

That fall, women protested the Miss America pageant, the Mexico City Olympic Games were marked by the silent display of two American medal winners raising their fists in a black power salute from the podium, and Lyndon Johnson announced the United States would cease bombing Vietnam.

Election Day in November brought a Nixon victory, laying the groundwork for Watergate and seven more years of war in Southeast Asia. The lasting legacy of 1968 was the rightward shift in our politics and the polarization of the electorate that has lasted to this day.

This was particularly evident in the 2004 presidential election, which featured two major candidates who took opposite lessons from the war. Indeed, the issue of Vietnam was front-and-center through the final weeks of the campaign, thanks to attacks on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and a poorly researched story about Bush’s service records that ultimately led to Dan Rather’s retirement from CBS.

This election cycle makes it even more obvious we have yet to move beyond 1968.

While Republican candidate John McCain spent that year in a North Vietnamese prison and Barack Obama was just 7 years old, the long reach of 1968 is evident in everything they do. The cultural divides of the 1960s are echoed in the candidates’ positions on issues ranging from abortion to Iraq, the budget deficit to gay rights. Both conventions were scripted to be the anti-Chicago, with Obama given the daunting secondary task of mirroring the 1963 March on Washington.

Even the backlash against the events of 1968 — the rise of Nixon’s Silent Majority — is evident in McCain’s choice of a running mate as a concession to the socially conservative right.

Four decades of divisive debates, line-in-the-sand rhetoric, and confrontation about social issues failed to live up to either the promises of 1968 or the fears of those who saw the year as a sign of the apocalypse. If nothing else, perhaps the relative youth of candidates Obama and Sarah Palin (herself just 4 years old in 1968) will help us move past those contentious times.

The 21st century presents its own challenges, and one would hope that folks looking back from 2048 will be able to mark this year as a turning point in its own right.

Free '08 Bumper Sticker Idea...

Print as many as you like...there are a lot of bumpers out there.

McCain Turns the Clock Back to 1988 With Brilliant VP Pick

The McCain Argument: "Celebrity" is Bad, Experience is Critical

The GHW Bush Argument: "I Need a Handsome Young Running Mate Who Knows What a Checkout Scanner Does"

Whatever will Alaska do without a "hot" governor during the campaign?

Possible Obama assassination attempt already?

Back in February I wrote of many progressives' fear for Obama. Tonight, on the first day of the convention, it appears that a substantial plot has unraveled. These guys may turn out to be simply racist addicts, but nobody worried much about the right wing militias before OK City. Here's hoping the Secret Service and FBI have already infiltrated the rest of the nuts.

The wire story:

(CBS4) ― CBS4 has now learned at least four people are under arrest in connection with a possible plot to kill Barack Obama at his Thursday night acceptance speech in Denver. All are being held on either drug or weapons charges. [...]

The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner according to sources.

Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas.

Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel to contact an associate of Gartrell's. But that man, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say the man broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later. Sources say he was wearing a ring with a swastika, and is thought to have ties to white supremacist organizations.

A third man -- an associate of Gartrell and the hotel jumper was also arrested. He told authorities that the two men "planned to kill Barack Obama at his acceptance speech."

That man, along with a woman, are also under arrest.

The Secret Service, FBI, ATF and the joint terrorism task force are all investigating the alleged plot.

My June newspaper column: Price effects of gasoline

What price will change driving?

St. Cloud (MN) Times

June 4, 2008

It’s hard to have a conversation these days without someone bringing up the price of gas.

Monday’s national average of $3.97 for a gallon of regular is up 25 percent from a year ago. AAA is reporting a 15 percent increase in “out-of-gas” service calls as drivers try to avoid another costly fill-up by running on fumes. Car rental companies can’t keep compacts in stock and are pushing free SUV upgrades on travelers who don’t want them. New auto sales have declined 10 percent the past year, and market prices for used trucks and SUVs have dropped 15 percent across the board.

As $4 gas becomes the new norm, Americans are suddenly paying attention to the cost of driving as never before. Since 1998 the early June pump price for regular gas in St. Cloud has risen from $1.10 to $3.83. Corrected for inflation that’s a hefty 275 percent bump.

Anyone paying attention during that time would have easily noted that the price of gas was rising fairly steadily, and certainly should have noted the large jumps in 2000, 2004 and 2006, each of which saw June-June increases of 30 percent or greater.

But how many conversations about carpooling, buying smaller cars or switching to ethanol do you remember from the early summers of those years?

What we saw

When local gas prices increased 42 percent between June 2005 and June 2006 there were few car ads in the paper touting “HIGH MPG!” or recent model crew cab diesel pickups parked along the highway with “make offer” signs on the windows. But we’re seeing both now.

Some analysts have suggested the $4 threshold represents a psychological barrier that consumers just weren’t prepared to deal with, particularly those of us who remember $1 gas not that long ago.

But if we go back to the energy crisis of 1979, similar behavioral patterns appear. As prices skyrocketed and stations literally ran out of gas people bought more efficient cars, drove less, carpooled more and complained a lot.

The big psychological threshold for gas prices then was $2 rather than $4. In a Gallup Poll that spring only 26 percent said they would continue to drive to work if gas hit that mark.

Twenty-eight percent of respondents in another pool had to “drive around to find a station that had gasoline available” while another 18 percent drove less because they simply could not find gas to buy.

Conservation

The pain may not have been that bad though, as other surveys found 38 percent felt it would be “not at all difficult” to reduce their miles traveled by one quarter and fully 40 percent supported a law requiring people to reduce their driving by that much as a way to conserve gas.

But when the supply of oil increased and the price of gas dropped 47 percent between 1981 and the low point in 1988 such concerns were largely forgotten.

What’s different today is that there’s much less flexibility in the world supply to create another oil glut and push prices down in the United States.

We now import more than twice as much oil as we did in 1985, but the oil reserves of many exporting nations are producing far less than they did just a decade ago.

The big gains in automotive fuel efficiency realized in the wake of the energy crises of the 1970s tapered off in the 1990s as prices stabilized, Congress failed to follow through on conservation commitments, and consumers flocked to SUVs and minivans.

More people, more cars, more driving, less crude oil — the basic economics of supply and demand should tell us that $4 gas is not a fluke, but the first step toward a more expensive future.

We often hear anecdotes about $10 per gallon gas in Europe these days, usually presented as cautionary tales or “you think things are bad here” human interest stories. But at the same rate of increase we experienced in St. Cloud the past five years — when gas rose from $1.39 to $3.83 at the pump — we can reasonably expect to see $10 gas here by 2011.

When that happens will we be shocked and pretend it came without warning? Or is it finally time we take a serious look at our driving habits and begin planning for a future without cheap gas?

May column: conservation is possible

Here's my May column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times. Props my friends in Juneau, AK for showing us all how conservation works!

---------------------

May 7, 2008

Forget shopping, conserve

By Derek Larson

Americans rank among the world’s worst energy hogs, consuming roughly double the amount per capita of residents of other nations enjoying a similar standard of living.

This is due in part to the size of our country and a relatively low population density. But it also reflects an apparent inability to invest in efficiency, control waste, or respond to shortages with anything other than demands for increased production.

However, as oil hit $120 per barrel this week, signs that Americans are changing their habits have begun to emerge. Sales of large trucks are down, while smaller, more fuel-efficient cars are hot again. People are driving less and looking to save energy at home. Polls reflect growing anxiety about energy security and household budgets.

Gas prices alone are helping Americans attempt something they haven’t done since the 1970s: seriously try to use less energy. During the 1973 oil crisis Americans responded to exploding energy costs with imagination. Gas prices high? Join a car pool and reduce the speed limit to save fuel. Electricity skyrocketing? Shut down commercial lights at night. Fuel oil too dear? Turn down the thermostats in public buildings. Many of these changes became permanent.

When a second oil crisis hit in the wake of the Iranian revolution in 1979, the price of crude oil shot to a record that was not matched until March. The easy changes had already been made, so when Jimmy Carter spoke about energy conservation he wore a sweater, sat in front of a fireplace, and told us “There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.” But few made the sacrifices he called for and some believe that speech cost him reelection.

Not long after Ronald Reagan was elected oil prices plummeted and remained low for 20 years. We became accustomed once again to cheap energy, gorged ourselves on SUVs and McMansions, and turned our backs on those who warned it could not last. When the price of gas shot up on Sept. 12, 2001, President Bush did not tell us there was no way to avoid sacrifice; he told us to go shopping. Detroit offered interest-free loans on SUVs and soon we were rolling again. But it could not last.

Today gas prices are pushing $4 a gallon on the West Coast and may hit $5 this summer. Public faith in the Bush administration’s energy strategy, which emphasizes production increases, is low; 66.5 percent rated his performance on energy “poor” in a March Gallup Poll. The same poll found 82 percent of Americans worried about the cost of energy, and a solid majority — 61 percent — thought that conservation by consumers was the best way to address the problem.

What remains to be seen is not whether we can learn to conserve energy again, but whether we are willing to try. Recent evidence from Alaska suggests we are.

An avalanche tore out the transmission lines connecting the capitol city of Juneau to its hydroelectric energy source last month, creating an instant energy crisis as the city shifted to diesel backup generators. The cost of fuel has driven the electric rate to 54 cents per kilowatt hour, or almost seven times what most Minnesotans pay. Local stores quickly sold out of compact florescent light bulbs, clothes pins, and even lamp oil. Almost immediately consumption dropped by 35 percent and has stayed low since largely through voluntary conservation measures.

Though the lines will eventually be restored, many residents are saying their new habits are here to stay — and will save them money even after the rates return to normal.

The reality is that we are nearing the end of the era of cheap energy. Whether it’s due to growing demand, shortages in supply, or some sort of carbon tax, prices are trending upward. We can respond by wringing our hands and cursing the oil companies, or we can chose to take action by wasting less.

The residents of Juneau have shown us it can be done without major sacrifices. Those of us who remember the 1970s also know it’s possible to cut back when you have to. As the price of gas approaches $5 this summer and electric rates continue to climb, here is hoping Americans respond by doing something other than going shopping this time.

Latest Column: Environmentalists Say "NO" to Corn-based Ethanol

Ethanol, not the greenest option
By Derek Larson

St. Cloud (MN) Times

Published: April 02. 2008 12:30AM

If you listen to talk radio or read the letters to the editor for a few weeks you're bound to come across someone castigating environmentalists for embracing ethanol. "It takes more energy to make than it produces!" "It's driving up food prices!" "It's government meddling in the market!" "Those crazy environmentalists want to force us all to buy ethanol!"

The fact is, they're pretty close to the truth on all but the last point: Environmentalists have been warning us about the folly of corn-based ethanol for years.

The problem is that lawmakers didn't listen. If they had, they would know that:

Corn-based ethanol is inefficient. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the fuel produced has only 30 percent more energy value than that required to produce it.

Ethanol production demands immense amounts of water, about 4 gallons for each gallon produced.

Corn monoculture involves the heavy use of petroleum products, including fertilizers, pesticides and fuel for machinery.

Ethanol production requires electricity, which is produced from dirty coal in most of the Corn Belt.

Corn's potential is limited. Converting the country's entire corn output to ethanol would only satisfy 12 percent of our demand for gasoline.

If the direct flaws in corn-based ethanol weren't enough to frighten lawmakers off, they might have listened to the environmentalists who warned of the potential impact a "corn rush" would have on food prices. We're seeing it now.

Fallout

The price of corn has doubled since 2006, which is great for struggling farmers. But that's also driven up the cost of animal feed and any food products with substantial corn inputs. Combine that with the spike in wheat prices — due largely to rising global demand — and you get the highest rate of inflation in food prices since the 1980s. Coming at a time when energy costs also have skyrocketed, it's no wonder families are struggling to make ends meet.

And yes, Virginia, this is indeed a case of the government meddling in the market.

Due primarily to the influence of the agriculture lobby the 2007 energy bill extended the subsidies that have kept the ethanol industry alive since the 1970s and established mandates that will keep it growing into the future. Tens of billions of dollars of tax money have been spent subsidizing corn production in the past decade, and now even more will go to support ethanol production directly.

Thanks, but no thanks

If corn-based ethanol was really the solution, why can't it compete without subsidies, especially in the era of $100-a-barrel oil? Possibly because consumers just aren't interested.

E85 fuel is available at less than 1 percent of all U.S. filling stations.

Ethanol contains about 15 percent less energy by volume than gas, so despite the slightly lower pump price it costs more per mile to burn than gas.

A 2007 GM study found that 70 percent of those who own ethanol burning flex-fuel vehicles didn't know it; only 10 percent of those who did actually bought E85.

Most environmentalists will agree that some government subsidies are desirable. But knowing that corn-based ethanol reduces net greenhouse gas emissions by only 13 percent over petroleum, they'd probably argue that this isn't one of them.

Other alternatives

The reality is that greens aren't gaga over ethanol. Turning a commodity food crop into an inefficient fuel crop is foolish. Instead the government should be investing in a comprehensive alternative fuels program that drives innovation across the board and lets the market settle on the most efficient technology with the greatest environmental benefits.

It may be cellulosic ethanol, as President Bush has suggested; some studies have shown it might yield as much as 35 times the energy required to produce it, a 100-fold improvement over corn. Or perhaps it's biodiesel, which is only about seven times as efficient as corn-based ethanol but can reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 68 percent. Or maybe it's not a biofuel at all but rather electricity produced by wind or solar power that will prove to be the most efficient way to move things around.

One thing is clear: We can't grow our way to energy independence with corn. In fact, if we simply increased the average fuel efficiency of all our vehicles by 12 percent we'd save as much gas as all the corn in the country could replace. As any environmentalist can tell you, the cheapest gallon of fuel you'll ever find is the one you didn't have to buy in the first place.

Fear For (Not Of) Obama

When Jesse Jackson came to my college campus on a campaign stop in the spring of 1988, my classmates and I were awed by his speech. We cheered wildly. We sang classic protest songs, mocked Ronald Reagan, and looked toward a future closer to MLK's vision than we saw in the world around us.

I also remember the Secret Service agents that swarmed our campus that day, and later sitting a few feet away from one of them, a man wearing a suit and mirrored aviator sunglasses in a gym that had to be 90 degrees. Sweat ran down his face but he did not blink or wipe it off. Armed agents surrounded the stage and even sat among us, "undercover," posing as students. (We knew they weren't students because their clothes were all wrong-- this was Portland when grunge was simply the way we dressed and not yet a marketing tool. The female agents wore skirts without combat boots!)

But one of my most lasting impressions from Jackson's visit was fear for him-- fear that he would win the nomination and be killed before the election. A decade later, in 1998, I stood on the balcony of the Lorainne Hotel in Memphis, in the very spot where Dr. King was shot and fell into the arms of his friends, including Jesse Jackson. I thought back to that 1988 campaign stop and for a moment was glad that Jackson hadn't won, despite my voting for him; once again I feared the violent, racist past was really still with us.

Today, twenty years after that campaign rally that fear has once again raised its head. Few will talk about it, fewer still will write about it in the US. But if you read the papers from outside the country it's all over the place: people are worried that the grisly American tradition of killing our youngest, brightest leaders may not be dead. Barack Obama, they warn, will be a target.

Here's an example from an Australian newspaper that captured this concern today:

Listing the scores of assassinations and attempts that have haunted the US presidency, I suggested that now any number of racist maniacs, enraged by the prospect of a black president, must be plotting to kill the Democratic front-runner. As past assassinations (and numerous close calls) remind us, no president can be totally protected.

No country since ancient Rome has experienced the killing of so many leaders. The subject came up when I was preparing to interview the author of The New Rome?, a fine piece of political writing by Cullen Murphy, managing editor of The Atlantic Monthly for more than 20 years. He was concerned that I'd raise the issue of Obama being assassinated because every Australian interviewer had done so. In contrast, he said, no one in the US media has raised the possibility.

I copped the blame, knowing of no other Australian commentator who had raised the issue. And I knew I would have self-censored if my column appeared in a US paper rather than The Australian. As many US journalists must be doing. To discuss even the possibility of an Obama assassination in the US would be asking for trouble. Throwing accelerant on the flames of insanity in a nation with a blood-soaked history, with far more than its share of home-grown terrorists and far too many guns. [Philip Adams, The Australian, 2/26/08]

So the old fear is back. One would hope we've moved beyond this. Even though we're afraid to talk about it, I'm sure many of us are also hoping the Secret Service is doing an extra good job these days, perhaps trading in the mirrored aviators for something a bit less 80s looking but still on the job, refusing to blink. Hopefully the college students who flock to see Obama aren't thinking about MLK, RFK, or even John Hinkley or Squeeky Fromme. But it's hard for me to forget, and hard not to worry.

It's going to be a long election season. For many reasons.

My latest newspaper column: Push Candidates on Climate

Times Writers Group: Push candidates on climate
By Derek Larson
Saint Cloud (MN) Times

Published: February 06. 2008 12:30AM


As we rush toward the November elections, voters would do well to reflect on three developments in January, all of which underscore the need for voters to press presidential candidates on issues related to climate change.

Only through a considered change of leadership and a well-reasoned approach to the global climate crisis will we reclaim our traditional position as a nation that, at its best, unites people to solve common problems for the good of all the world's citizens.

In the first story, the League of Conservation Voters released an analysis of the major Sunday-morning network political talk shows that tracked questions asked of the presidential candidates during 2007. Of 2,938 questions only six were on global warming. This despite polls showing large majorities of Americans are concerned about the issue and significant time spent by many candidates discussing their climate and energy strategies on the stump.

Second, a range of speakers at the annual Washington conference sponsored by the National Council for Science and the Environment made it clear that the climate situation is much worse than most people think. Indeed, the debate has shifted significantly from "is it happening" to "just how bad will it be?"

Danger zone

Conference participants were dominated by discussion of how close we are to the dividing line between "dangerous" and "catastrophic" disruption of the global climate system. With this shift in emphasis comes a new way of categorizing responses, captured handily in three terms: mitigation, adaptation and suffering.

Mitigation incorporates all the things we might do to avoid making things worse than what's already bound to happen based on past emissions: reducing carbon, becoming more energy efficient, addressing the global imbalance in energy use, and other familiar responses.

Adaptation reflects how we will deal with unavoidable climate disruptions. The amount of human-induced change in the atmosphere already guarantees significant changes to weather patterns, sea levels and precipitation regimes worldwide. Many of these will be serious enough to require major changes in patterns of human life, economics, settlement and agriculture.

Suffering is a dependent variable: The more we invest in mitigation and adaptation, the less people will suffer.

The third development was the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where politicians and capitalist heavyweights talked about the global economy.

One of the more interesting events at Davos was a discussion about the confluence of poverty and climate change during which rock musician and anti-poverty activist Bono observed that the growing global climate disruption may be the first calamity in human history to be predicted in advance. He noted that many significant global reforms in 20th century came in the wake of major calamities: the League of Nations after World War I, the United Nations after World War II and the plodding but steady trend toward globalization after the Cold War.

What to expect

The challenges of global climate change exceed all of these in scope and impact, but we have the distinct advantage of knowing, at least to some extent, what to expect in advance. As Bono rightly pointed out, this offers the opportunity to reduce the scale of suffering for many millions if we plan now to avoid changes that will otherwise produce the critical famines, refugee crises and possibly even wars of the 21st century.

Near the end of Bono's discussion moderator Thomas Friedman of The New York Times noted wryly that "It is far more important to change leaders than light bulbs." That is where we come in. Most of the remaining presidential candidates — including McCain, Obama and Clinton — have taken responsible positions on climate change and would likely reverse the foot-dragging that has characterized the Bush administration's approach if elected.

It is our responsibility as Americans and members of the world community to push the candidates on this issue, to demand a Marshall Plan or Apollo project on climate. We should do the same with candidates at all levels of government.

While we cannot recapture the years lost to the denial of overwhelming scientific evidence, we can help our country regain its moral authority and do what it does best: rally the world to develop solutions for a problem far beyond the ability of any single nation to solve on its own.

Super Turnout Tuesday in Minnesota, Obama Wins

Turnout far exceeded any predictions for Minnesota's caucuses. Many precincts are reporting 10-20 times the turnout as 2004. At my caucus site in St. Cloud party officials sent out for more ballots-- twice. In my precinct the vast majority of voters had not attended a caucus before; those of us who had were listed on pre-printed rosters while newcomers signed in on blank sheets at a 3-to-1 rate. They had to send out for more blank sheets as well. It was great to see so many people from our neighborhood turn out, including many college students and other young people who were first time participants.

The turnout news was great. So was the fact that Obama won by a very large margin. At least Minnesota Democrats recognize Hillary Clinton as a moderate, corporate Democrat with negatives so high she stands no chance of winning the general election. Hopefully exit polling will tell us if Obama won because he's been successful at reaching voters, or because people were voting against Hillary.

As I type Fox News is reporting a 68-32 Obama victory with 55% of precincts reporting.

Consumed? See "The Story of Stuff"

Here's a great 20 min video about the impact of our high consumption American lifestyle. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're nuts.

The Story of Stuff http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Ask Congress for a Green Stimulus Package

The folks over at the 1Sky Blog have a good post up on the stimulus package: Tell Congress: we want a green economic stimulus bill! It includes an online petition demanding a green stimulus package, certainly a better idea than a simple rebate check as I've noted below.

Note to Congress: Don't Blow Stimulus Funds on Rebates

The heady talk in Washington about a $150 billion stimulus package has everyone from the President on down salivating over the political benefits such a gift would generate. But they'd be wise to consider how those funds could be put to real use-- not as a one-time gift to taxpayers that is quickly thrown away on Chinese imports, but as a real stimulus package that not only boosts economic activity but creates jobs, improves national security, and helps the environment. What could do all that? It's simple: design a package of incentives/rebates that support alternative energy investment and rollout, reward homeowners who invest in efficiency upgrades, and solidifies the basis for existing alternative technologies like solar and wind energy.

Rather than blow the funds on a one-shot deal that is unlikely to have any impact beyond the resulting spending ripple in the economy, let's invest the funds in policies that will make us stronger going forward. Energy incentives targeted at consumers will steer spending toward new and growing industries (like wind and solar) that could use the boost-- and will create jobs that last well beyond this recession.

New Hampshire: Clinton Embraces "Change" and Wins

"READY FOR CHANGE" signs were everywhere at the Clinton rally in New Hampshire Tuesday night-- if nothing else, the Clinton machine is adept at reading the polls and staying on message. It looks like Hillary will win New Hampshire by a significant margin, though several college towns are not yet in and we know from Iowa that younger voters are going for Obama by a large margin. Iowa also showed us that while women favor Hillary, her margin among female voters was only about 10%-- certainly not enough to offset Obama's appeal to the young.

I maintain the position that Hillary Clinton is no progressive-- not even really a liberal --and that she represents not only a return to the failed policies of the 1990s but a major threat to the hope of a Democratic victory due to her astoundingly high negatives. McCain would trounce her among independents.

The real disappointment of New Hampshire has to be for Edwards, who was looking to move up closer to #2 but ended a distant third. He'll have to rally by Super Tuesday or he'll be done. Hopefully his progressive message will take hold and the eventual nominee will be pulled at least a bit to the left.

Iowa Results: Young Voters Turn Out for Change and Clinton Falls Hard

Heavy Democratic turnout in Iowa, especially among younger voters, has sent a clear message: the media's proclamation of a Clinton victory was not well received. In fact, she came in third. Turnout among voters under 45 is typically low in the Iowa caucuses; this time around turnout for that age group was several times higher than in 2004 and these younger voters generally picked Obama or Edwards over Clinton. Moreover, participation by really young voters (i.e. 18-29) in the Democratic caucuses more than doubled between 2000 and 2008; their demographic made up 1/5th of all caucus goers in 2008. That's 20% folks.

Why is the youth vote news? Because it's usually ignored by the media ("young people don't vote") or portrayed as a block concerned only about tuition costs and what type of underwear the candidates favor. But realize this: young voters may well decide the next election. In aggregate more votes were cast by the 18-29 demographic in 2004 than by the over-65 group...and guess which group is growing more rapidly? An excellent outline of why the youth vote matters from Future Majority provides the details. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy the fact that young voters participated in the Democratic caucuses last night at twice the level of their Republican peers-- a good sign for November to be sure.

All eyes on New Hampshire now, though we'll be heading out to caucus here in Minnesota in less than a month. I'll be looking forward to seeing how the campaigns address young voters-- and wondering if they will recognize that less than a quarter of them are actually college students.

My latest newspaper column: The more things change...

Here's my latest column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times. Happy new year!

-Dr. DRL
--------------------------------------


Parties, then and now, are at odds


Published: January 02. 2008 12:30AM


The eyes of the nation's pundits and political analysts will be on our neighbors in Iowa on Thursday as the first real contest of the 2008 presidential election plays out, likely reducing a crowded field of candidates to a mere handful before many of us have even replaced our 2007 wall calendars.

The early start of the 2008 campaigns certainly would have surprised Americans a century ago. Indeed, in 1908 The New York Times ran its first significant stories on the election to replace Theodore Roosevelt in March, when it gave a straw poll of the members of the Harvard undergraduate political club as much space as the Ohio state Democratic convention. When the paper turned more directly to national politics in the spring of 1908, the coverage emphasized issues and parties over personalities, revealing a culture that had much less interest in the intimate details of candidate's private lives than we do today and a political landscape that was defined more by partisan political machines than the media itself.

While the political process has changed dramatically during the past century, many of the central issues of 1908 would resonate with voters today. Indeed, the platforms of the 1908 presidential campaigns reflect positions we could well expect to see coming out of this year's conventions in Denver and the Twin Cities, sounding familiar themes on immigration, national security, campaign finance reform, foreign policy, government spending and trade.

The more things change

The Democrats of 1908 criticized the Republicans for ballooning federal budgets (and deficits), for protectionist trade policies that hurt the working class while bolstering corporate profits and for politicizing the judicial system by pushing courts to intervene in strikes.

But their harshest rhetoric was reserved for Republican foreign policy, specifically toward the Philippine Islands, which the United States had occupied since the end of the 1898 Spanish-American War. The occupation had not gone well and was marked by atrocities on both sides, including water torture and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. On the continuing conflict, the Democratic platform simply stated that "We condemn the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder which has involved us in enormous expense, brought us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of abandoning a fundamental doctrine of self-government."

The Republican Party entered the 1908 election divided between its progressive and conservative wings. Both sought to capitalize on the popularity of outgoing President Roosevelt, but the eventual platform approved in Chicago underscored a victory by the conservatives. Its key passages spoke of economic opportunity, the revival of business growth and the need to protect American businesses through trade policies that guaranteed a "reasonable profit" and "security against foreign competition," while relegating Roosevelt's anticorporate "trust busting" rhetoric to the sidelines.

On the Philippine issue, it was noted that "the insurrection has been suppressed, law is established and life and property made secure." The Republican platform also included a specific plank on civil rights, calling for "equal justice for all men, without regard to race or color." By contrast, the Democratic platform mentioned race only in its opposition to immigration from Asia.

Remaining the same

The United States in 1908 was a divided nation, much as it is today. But the lines then were defined more by geography and class than by single issues such as abortion, immigration, or support for military intervention abroad. The November election results reflected those divisions, with the Northern states solidly voting Republican and the Southern states solidly Democratic. William Howard Taft, Roosevelt's chosen successor, won 51 percent of the vote but went on to be a one-term president.

We can take some comfort in knowing that while our political processes may change, many of the core issues that animate American politics remain constant. It would be interesting to share the 1908 party platforms with the candidates in Iowa today and ask where they would stand on the issues of a century ago.

There's a month to go before the Minnesota caucuses in February, and the answers to those questions would probably tell us more about the candidates than anything else we'll hear from the media during the next four weeks. Unless, of course, it's another story about John Edwards' hairstyle or Mitt Romney's favorite novel.

###