But wait....there's more
6 hours ago
The road goes on forever and the party never ends.

Clunker Crit
Wheelie Competition
Foot Down Competition
Bike Toss
Bike Jousting
kashmir from Steve Scott on Vimeo.

Mr. Lomborg says governments should commit to spending 0.05% of gross domestic product on clean-energy research, financed by a $7 a ton tax on carbon dioxide. That could address what he calls a "market failure" in the development of solar-power systems and wind turbines effective enough and cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels. Buying what he sees as today's premature renewable-energy technology "would be like putting an inefficient [computer] on everyone's desk in 1965."
Stephanie,
While this bill is being debated I’d like to share some thoughts for your consideration. In your letter to me you’d mentioned some things I consider a bit troubling.
I very much appreciate your efforts to keep energy costs low. No one wants to pay more for anything. However, your support of such items as “clean” coal, increased use of biofuels, and increased exploration for fossil fuels are no more than an attempt to restore the U.S. to a pre recession lifestyle.
Despite what some have seen on TV or what the lobbyists in Washington are saying, burning coal is in no way clean. While it may be cleanER, non industry influenced scientists will point out it is far from clean.
Technology continues to find new ways to convert all sorts of biomass into usable fuels. Turning corn into to ethanol has been wonderful for South Dakota farmers. At which point does one question putting food in gas tanks? When does the tipping point come in which food becomes scare such that Americans can continue with “Happy Motoring?”
This is the same for increased fuel exploration. Do you really want to risk irreversibly damaging such areas as the Arctic Nation Wildlife Refuge, marine environments, and shorelines for the sake of enabling Americans to become even more obese as they drive through the fast food lanes? I certainly hope not.
The Earth’s resources are finite. Some say we’ve reached Peak Oil. Some say there’s plenty of oil for generations. This falls into the “my scientist can beat up your scientist” mentality. If mankind is going to err, let’s err on the side of conservation. The time for appropriate legislation is now. In my view, appropriate legislation puts conservation of resources first and foremost.
When a person gets use to living a certain way it is very hard to change the lifestyle paradigms. Americans have gotten use to having two, or more, vehicles per household. These vehicles have gotten bigger and bigger. I’ve heard in the media bigger and bigger vehicles are what Americans want to drive. This, in part, has caused our current recession.
Americans, in their quest for big and in “keeping up with the Jones’”, have attained some of the highest levels of debt and lowest levels of personal savings in history – this is also related to increasing levels for obesity in turn guaranteeing health care costs will stay high. This phenomenon has been encouraged by domestic auto makers. Everyone is well aware of what the glamorous marketing of bigger has done to the domestic auto makers. Americans are spending exorbitant amounts of their disposable income to own and operate something that is killing the Earth. This is only one example of Americans living beyond their means, creating a global recession, all while wishing for a government bailout so things “can go back to the way they were.”
The way things were is not sustainable. What must happen is incremental belt tightening. The incremental belt tightening starts with appropriate legislation. Failure to do so and by trying to put things back “the way they were” could be catastrophic. If the science of Peak Oil is correct and if the assertion of food scarcity due to biofuels becomes fact, this recession will pale in comparison to what’s on the horizon.
The U.S. cannot make these fundamental changes overnight. It must be done in increments. Slow movement toward sustainability is less likely to shock the economic system and less likely to abruptly collapse any one industry, such as “clean” coal.
There is no doubt energy is going to cost South Dakotans, and Americans, more. Would you prefer it to increase slowly over time, or very abruptly, resulting in economic depression? Belt tightening is hard. It is not politically popular. But, it must be done.
Please consider the ultimate long term. Increased use of coal, biofuels, and increased drilling are short term approaches which have no hope of sustainability. Being tempted by these short term fixes in hopes science will discover the silver bullet is not prudent and ill advised.
It will take a true visionary to see beyond the recession and the global picture for the long term. It will take incredible courage and leadership to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done. I fear our elected officials will take the re-electable stance. This stance will not foster a new economy but only bolster the old long enough for a future congress to attempt to deal with a problem that might be unsolvable.
Heroes are not concerned with elections. They are concerned with leaving the world a better place than which they arrived. Instead of admiring the Emperor’s new clothes pointed out by the Lobbyist, they are building a legacy in which they will be admired for all generations.
Having re-read this now I’m sounding like a politician! Please do not take this as an attack on you or your character. I voted for you because you are a smart, well educated person. However, I think you’re falling in with most everyone else in Washington who doesn’t “get it.” I’m very hopeful to see the leadership and courage I alluded to in this from you and others in Washington.
Sincerely,
Snakebite
Dear Snakebite:
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about legislation addressing energy and climate change. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you may know, the Congress has been considering important energy and climate change issues. Recently, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Markey introduced wide-ranging legislation addressing both energy and climate change. This bill is H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It was introduced on May 15, 2009 and approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21, 2009 by a vote of 33 to 25.
H.R. 2454 aims to reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent in 2020. The bill has four titles on clean energy, energy efficiency, reducing global warming pollution (which includes a carbon cap-and-trade system), and transitioning to a clean energy economy.
I believe the bill approved in the Energy and Commerce Committee is imperfect and incomplete. Moreover, if South Dakotans' concerns are not fairly dealt with, I will not be able to support an energy and climate change bill on the House floor.
Let me mention some of my key priorities going forward as various House committees have an opportunity to address the bill approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee. These include protecting South Dakotans from a rise in electricity rates and recognizing the essential role coal-fired power plays in keeping electricity rates affordable for South Dakotans. In addition, the legislation should recognize the significant role agricultural producers can play regarding climate change. For example, recent government estimates of U.S. Greenhouse Gas markets indicate that U.S. farms and forests have the potential to mitigate 10 to 25 percent of our nation's total climate impact with practices such as soil carbon sequestration, methane capture, and forest management practices. Moreover, the bill must do much more to strengthen the ability of rural states like South Dakota to participate in the new energy economy, by broadening the definition of biomass that can be used to produce electricity that would count toward the Renewable Electricity Standard, and to produce biofuel that would count toward the Renewable Fuels Standard.
While the Energy and Commerce Committee made some progress in improving the bill since an initial discussion draft was released, the committee did not make nearly enough progress in fixing the bill. That is why I'm pleased that this legislation has been referred to several other House committees. In particular, I'm pleased the bill has been referred for consideration to two committees on which I serve, the House Agriculture Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee. I will work with my colleagues on both committees to improve this imperfect bill.
Certainly, with a significant and growing demand for electricity expected in coming years, and energy costs a burden on South Dakota families, there is no single solution. That's why I support a comprehensive energy policy that includes support for clean coal technology, domestic oil and gas exploration and drilling, hydropower, increased use of renewable fuels like biofuels and wind, action to prevent energy market manipulation or harmful speculation, and incentives for energy conservation. I have supported efforts to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as on the Outer Continental Shelf, when joined with more comprehensive policies, including expanding the use of renewable fuels.
Likewise, there is no single solution to reducing the accumulation of greenhouse gases. I agree with the growing scientific consensus that human activity has substantially increased the accumulation of greenhouse gasses and is contributing to a rise in average global temperature. This rise threatens to create a number of dramatic and negative impacts. With much of South Dakota's economy dependent on agriculture, which in turn depends on our climate, global warming could have a profound effect on South Dakota's economy and our way of life.
Given the importance of these issues for South Dakota, I believe it's important to avoid engaging in divisive, partisan disputes, and instead to work together on an energy and climate policy that promises the greatest benefit for our state.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If I can provide any further information, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Member of Congress






Danko Jones - King Of Magazines from Bad Taste Records on Vimeo.