Can't Do

The present energy crisis drives home a depressing point – America has lost the old "can do" spirit.  There are a hundred reasons why we can't drill off the coasts, drill in Alaska, import ethanol from Brazil, build nuclear plants ... can't do anything except, perhaps, sue OPEC.  That's what we do.  We file lawsuits. 

Some Vermonters like to think that while we are small in size, our leadership looms large.  And in this case ... they may be right.  We long ago embraced a permitting, regulatory regime that reliably throws up obstacles to development of any kind.  On energy, we talk great game but we are mostly about the things that we can't do or should stop doing.  We are supposed to be the greenest of the green and we can't even get wind farms going.  Boone Pickens, down in Texas, is all over wind.  In Vermont ... we study.

The Republican party comes out with a plan that, among other things, attempts to cash in on one resource that is abundant in the state – wood.  Not so fast, comes the answer.  There are all kinds of reasons why we don't want to go there.

And, of course, there is the looming question of how Vermont will go on the relicensing of Yankee which is described, invariably, as an "aging" nuclear plant.

Well, yes, it was built some time ago.  And heaven forfend that another, adjacent plant should have been built on the same site in the intervening 40 years.  Then we would have had an "aging" plant and a "new" plant and if we felt absolutely compelled to shut down a nuclear plant, then we could have gone with the "aging" one. 

The nation's infrastructure crumbles.  Vermont is in the lead there, too.  Our roads and bridges are as bad as anyone's.

This is a deeply demoralizing trend precisely because it goes so thoroughly against the American grain.  You hear people saying, smugly, that "we can't drill ourselves out of this crisis."  Maybe not.  But we can't litigate our way out either.  And it will surely not be the things that we don't build that will be our salvation.

Comments

[Green Mtn Punter]

Right on the money, GN, as usual. America, The "Can Do" Nation of all time, now can only do litigation as a response to it's problems? How pathetic. And Tiger contributors know who brought us to this sorry state, let's just hope the voters somehow magically find out by November, as they surely won't if they dwell in MSM-land.

So, with $70 fillups of the gasoline tank, and $1,300+ fillups of the heating oil tank by November 4, $4.89 being the predicted price on Page 1 of today's Rutland Herald, wouldn't you expect a rapidly rising level of anger- then fear- in the Vermont electorate? Will they be fooled once again and return the same legislators who brought us these absurd prices by blocking broad domestic energy development at every turn?

[G. Cross]

Checking out the "not so fast" article I find it says anything but "no so fast." Maybe the Tiger does not like the idea that the article points out that the Republican leadership is a bit late to the dance. That, however, is a different story from "not so fast." Regardless, thanks for the reminder of the good work being done by the Democrat majority legislature.

[T. Shea]

Geoff,

You are quite right on the burdensome regulatory climate here, but I have to disagree regarding the wind 'farms'.

I own two houses -- one in VT less than a mile from the turbines, and one less than four miles from a nuclear plant.

I would much rather have a nuclear plant near me than a wind 'farm'. (I would gladly trade the existing wind turbines for a nuke plant.) The nuclear plant would generate both reliable energy and reliable jobs. The wind 'farm' would just generate 'self esteem' for people who want to think they are green.

This despite the tenuous 'green' aspect of wind turbines:
"According to Thomas Tanton, President, T & Associates, Environmental Fellow, Pacific Research Institute, a wind turbine would have to produce at 100 percent of its capacity nonstop for up to seven years just to offset the CO2 emissions caused by the installation of the concrete base upon which it is erected. This would suggest that it may take as many as 20 plus years to break even on the CO2 emissions." http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/jun/07/no-headline---patricia_lapoint/
Now all of the 'data' regarding wind turbines (from both sides) should be taken with a grain of salt -- lies, damn lies and statistics. But this points out the limited 'green' aspect of wind turbines. And the fact is they are unreliable and require constant backup. T. Boone Pickens has also flatly stated he is only investing in wind turbines because of the huge subsidies they get -- translation: we are paying for his 'profits'.

You are spot on regarding nuclear, but wind 'farms' just don't make sense, especially in VT.

[Green Mtn Punter]

The long lost Democrat "Can Do" attitude is vividly portrayed in Robert Caro's great bio of LBJ, a "Can Do" guy if ever there was one. I believe that this episode took place prior to a campaign event during LBJ's controversial 1948 Senate primary against "Mr Texas", Gov Coke Stevenson, a very popular "Can Do" guy himself. Anyway, one of LBJ's coat holders was telling him that certain arrangements couldn't be made for some campaign event or to satisfy some campaign donor. LBJ would suggest alternative plans and the hapless aide would respond that none of them were possible, to which a by now boiling over LBJ, famous for his bullying temper, shouted: "Are we gonna join the "Can't Do It" Club right here on the steps of this courthouse? Find a way, goddamit, you can do it, I know you can!"

[Green Mtn Punter]

When we see a wind farm in Nantucket Sound I will be a believer in the viability of wind energy! Meanwhile, keep, er ah start drilling!

[walter meyer]

We are all certainly a sad bunch. No one wants to be willing to cooperate with the other's party, if it's not his own. LBJ was a Democrat, but he showed more wisdom than we sad sacks today.

[Greg Decker]

Cooperate? isn't one of the basic tenets of a two party system that the parties are adversarial? If they always cooperate where's the check and balance? If they cooperate isn't it more like a one-party system? Besides that, when parties willingly violate their principles and stand down in the face of an opponent so that the opponent may do the same for them in the future -- this is not called cooperation -- it's called collusion.

[Poor George]

Mr. Cross - it appears that the Minority leaders know a thing or two more about the "dance" than your man does - as seen in today's Bennington Banner - http://www.benningtonbanner.com/opinion/ci_9750163

[G. Cross]

Poor George (cute name!),

While Act 92 does not specifically name wood stoves or pellet stoves, it does address support for all of the following:

"renewable energy systems"

"biomass"

"renewable energy sources particularly from Vermont's farms and forests"

One does not have to be overly creative to figure out that chunk wood, wood pellets, as well as corn and switch grass could be in the mix of items supported by Act 92.

[Green Mtn Punter]

Much more accountability in the Brit Parliamentary System. In the Commons party, unity is a must, and if the back benchers revolt, the government will fall and new elections are held. I like this system, much less room to obfuscate and escape blame.

In Britain the government is elected to legislate, and if they can't, then they hold a new election until one of the parties gains enough strength to pass its program in the Commons. Our problem in Congress is that neither party is able to gain a veto-proof majority- 2/3 of seats in the House and 60 seats in the Senate- while sitting under a President of the same party. This divided government has hurt the country because there is no accountability and the voters continue to be fooled by the politicians and their campaign donors.

Ideally, the country should vote in a majority party and President and then give it a try; we have not known of such a situation in our lifetime other than the 1964-1966 Congress which may have had these majorities under LBJ. It only lasted two years as the Great Society did not represent the grand national consensus the Democrats and LBJ thought it did. So, the voters responded in '66 and LBJ was out the door two years later. If the results are unsatisfactory, then vote them out and try the alternative. What both parties fear is that the other, given the political power, will succeed with the American voter and that the loser will be in the wilderness for years, out of power. So, who is really looking out for the interests of our great nation?

[Brattleboro_conservative]

Green Mtn. Punter, Wasn't it Bill Clinton's first term in office that he had Democratic majorities in the both the senate and the house? Didn't work out too well did it? Even with a majority in both houses he still could not get universal health coverage through. Barak Obama faces a similar situation if he gets his turn in the oval office, and I'm guessing it will turn out the same way.

[Poor George]

George,

Now you're dancing around the issue.

"While Act 92 does not specifically name wood stoves or pellet stoves, it does address support for all of the following"

Does Act 92 define "support" as using weatherization money to pay for wood and wood pellet stoves? Answer: NO - it does not.

I just received my weekly spam email from Ian Carleton. I suspect that if the author of that op-ed was correct, that it would have been prominently featured in Chairman Carleton's news round-up. Well - it wasn't. And there has not been a peep from Democratic leaders. In fact, I suspect... no, I predict that Symington and Co. will steal the idea.

[T. Shea]

Another perfect example this week. Two anti-nuke activists appointed to review board for VY as 'independent' evaluators.

Wonder what their view of VY will be?

[G. Cross]

So my friend, Poor George, is support defined as "using weatherization money?" Strange dictionary you are using. Please read Act 92 again. You will find the support for alternative fuels clearly stated in the legislation. No political spin can change that.