Global warming, shorebirds, windmills and the Androscoggin River
Playing a little catchup. Fasten your seatbelts.
Action’s been heating up in the Legislature with committees trying to get bills out to the House and Senate. Here are just a few updates.
Gov. Baldacci’s plan to reduce power plant global warming pollution 10 percent by 2019 was voted “ought to pass” Tuesday afternoon by the Natural Resources and Utilities and Energy committees. The committees voted a combined 12-9 in favor of a slightly amended version of the bill, according to House Majority Office’s count. If it passes, Maine would join with nine other northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and limit carbon dioxide emissions from large electricity plants.
The vote went mostly along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. Supporters had hoped for more unanimous support, but seem confident the bill will pass.
The Natural Resources Committee voted unanimously on Monday for a compromise in the battle over protecting shorebird habitat along the coast.
Protections sparked an angry revolt last session, especially from landowners along the Downeast coast where rising coastal property values have been providing a glimmer of economic hope. The amendments supported Monday would reduce development setbacks from 250 to 100 feet around shorebird feeding areas, while maintaining the 250-foot buffer around roosting areas.
And, this afternoon, renewable energy bills move to center stage in the Utilities and Energy Committee.
Sen. Ethan Strimling, D-Portland, plans to present his bill to encourage wind energy development through tax incentives and streamlined permitting. And Sen. Phil Bartlett, D-Gorham, plans to present a bill to elevate the role of the Office of Energy Independence to promote efficiency and alternative energy resources.
Meanwhile, not all of the action is in the State House.
Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection began a five-day day public hearing this morning to try to clear up the big, confusing mess surrounding Androscoggin River pollution limits and cleanup costs.
This is the same cleanup plan that more than a year ago led to an Attorney General review of private negotiations between state officials and paper mills, the resignation of Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Dawn Gallagher and the ethics review of Rep. Tom Saviello, D-Wilton, who works for a paper mill that’s at the center of the long-running Androscoggin saga.
The hearing is focusing on multiple appeals of DEP waste discharge permits for two paper mills, two towns and one hydroelectric dam. Two things appear to have fueled the controversy: Intense pressure to accelerate the cleanup and a behind-the-scenes battle between the mills and the dam, the two titans of river politics in Maine, over who will pay for making a chronically polluted section of the river suitable for fish and other life.
The hearing began at 9 a.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn Auburn Riverwatch Hotel. It’ll continue on May 3, 4, 8 and 9.
The public is invited to watch the whole thing, but those who aren’t directly involved in the appeals will be given opportunities to speak at 6:30 on May 3 and 8. Written comments also can be sent by May 11 to: Dana Murch, 17 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0017 or dana.p.murch@maine.gov.
And that, believe it or not, isn’t the half of it.
Phew.
Posted by at 11:23 AM
E-mail this entry to a friend
It's a very interesting phenomenon that something like Global Warming would split along political party lines. There is a story unto itself. It's not as if Republicans are in favor of pollution, or dumping raw sewage into the oceans, or allowing noxious clouds of poisons to hover over cities merely to support big business, although many from the left believe exactly that.
The fact is that Global Warming is NOT proven to be occurring due to mankind's "abuse" of resources and industrialization and conservatives are NOT willing to strangle those industries.
There are real consequences to halting the development in developing nations. We call it starvation. Diverting American corn production away from food and into bio-fuels for example will, literally, kill hundreds of thousands and so raise the costs of food that millions will suffer needlessly.
We can argue the science all day long, which is exactly the point; there is argument not agreement. Unfortunately, even given the hard science that throws the Al Gore speculations into question, there are too many people connected to the new economy of the Global Warming Alarmism to convince them to find new ways to be employed
Posted by
DickMay 2, 2007 12:28 PM