Thursday, January 28, 2010

Cutting arts programs a bad idea

The arts

Among the many programs the legislature is looking at cutting in order to balance the budget are school arts programs.   According to the Deseret Morning News, as many as 52 schools statewide could lose their arts specialist as cuts to arts education is added to a growing list of bad ideas circulated so far to balance the budget - a list which already includes brilliant brainstorms like eliminating the 12th grade and/or busing kids to and from school.

It is not as though the arts have generally been a top priority in Utah schools lately, or in the American K-12 educational system as a whole.  For years now arts programs have gone through cuts during periods when states were experiencing shortfalls, typically to have only a portion of the funding restored when revenues improved again.  As a result, the trend in funding for the arts has been declining for quite some time.

One does not need to be gifted artistically to benefit from an arts education.  The creativity essential in the arts, if nourished, bears fruit in many other aspects of life.  A society which likes to boast how much it values innovation cannot long be a leader in innovation if its people lack an appreciation for the arts and the creativity essential to them.

The time has come for the legislature to stop looking for places to cut education spending and start looking for more fair and balanced means of funding it.  Restoring Utah's progressive income tax would be a good place to start.

Unfortunately, the emphasis continues to be on running government like a business, something it most assuredly is not and never will be.  A well rounded education is an investment in our future that will pay back society many times over in ways both monetary and that cannot be measured.  That includes the arts as well as math, language and the sciences.  A vision that does not extend beyond the current fiscal year never fails to miss this fact. 

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty good for Utah

Nuclear test

The following appeared as an Op-ed in the Saturday, January 23, 2010 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune.

In April, President Barack Obama addressed the people of Prague. In that speech he committed his administration to pursuing U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), putting an end to the fear any Utah - or U.S. - citizen living downwind from the Nevada Test Site would ever again face the deadly threat from nuclear testing.

This is the best opportunity since the conclusion of the Cold War for the U.S. to move toward eventually meeting its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As President Obama stated last April, “The basic bargain [under the NNPT] is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them…”

The United States currently has about 9,400 nuclear weapons. That’s down about 1,000 from 2002, but still far more than any reasonable nation could claim to need to deter a nuclear attack. President Obama pledged last January not to authorize any new nuclear weapons, yet some within the Pentagon and the military industrial complex are already pushing back against Obama’s commitment to permanently ban nuclear testing and are resisting efforts to incorporate into the Nuclear Posture Review plans to significantly reduce the size of America’s nuclear arsenal or change its role in America’s military defense strategy.

A nation committed to moving toward a community of nations where no country possesses nuclear weapons has no reason to test them. Our pleading with other nations they not develop these weapons of mass destruction will not be taken seriously so long as we continue to persist in keeping the option of “improving” or “maintaining” our own arsenal through possible future testing of our own.

The CTBT is verifiable, and has been ratified by 148 nations and signed by another 32. An analysis of the nuclear stockpile stewardship program by the independent, highly-respected JASON defense advisory group found that the U.S. can maintain a reliable nuclear arsenal without testing for decades. Ratification of the Treaty is supported by former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Senators Sam Nunn and Jake Garn, and many other prominent Democrats and Republicans.

The human and financial cost of nuclear weapons testing and production has been staggering. In the United States alone millions of citizens were exposed to fallout with tens if not hundreds of thousands developing cancer or other illnesses as a result. From the mining and processing of the uranium ore right through the making of the bomb and frequent testing that continued up until the last of an estimated 1,054 nuclear tests on September 23, 1992, Americans of every race, creed and economic status have paid dearly for what has been done in the interest of keeping them safe.

The time has come to close the door forever on that shameful era of lies, cover up and death perpetrated by our own government in our name.

The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, due out this spring, should reflect the new policy announced by the Commander in Chief in Prague last year. The U.S. should abandon expensive, unnecessary and provocative plans to rebuild its bomb-making capacity and develop new nuclear weapons, pursue diplomatic efforts to achieve further reductions in nuclear arms worldwide, and design its military structure and capabilities to address post-Cold War realities.

Senators Hatch and Bennett – who voted against ratification of the CTBT in 1999 - should stand with their Utah constituents who overwhelmingly oppose new nuclear testing and declare they are ready to back up that new policy with an “aye” vote on the CTBT when it is brought before the U.S. Senate. In the words of our president, Americans “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Craig Axford is the executive director of the Citizens Education Project. Steve Erickson is CEP policy analyst.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Saving journalism means saving our republic

Journalism

A world without journalism is not a world without political information.  Instead it is a world where what passes for news is largely spin and self - interested propaganda - some astonishingly sophisticated and some bellicose, but the lion's share of dubious value.  It is an environment that spawns cynicism, ignorance, demoralization, and apathy.  The only "winner" are those that benefit from a quiescent and malleable people who "will be governed," rather than govern themselves.

Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that will Begin the World Again -

Bob McChesney & John Nichols

With the news last week the holding company which owns the Salt Lake Tribune is declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy, all of us should pause to imagine what the decline of journalism means for our communities, states and our nation. 

The Tribune isn't alone.  The Deseret Morning News has had to lay off a number of reporters and reduce the resources it dedicates to gathering and reporting the news.  The Rocky Mountain News recently ceased publication.  Even the New York Times has had to borrow tens of millions to continue operating and may well be on the verge of collapse.

While the current economic crisis has certainly had an impact and the advent of the Internet has caused more Americans to seek their news online than by more traditional means, the decline of American journalism isn't a recent phenomenon according to Bob McChesney and John Nichols, authors of a new book out on the subject.

McChesney and Nichols were also recent guests on PBS' Now program and they are offering a solution which will ironically seem like a radical idea to many Americans; government subsidies for journalism.  I say "ironically" because as McChesney and Nichols point out, for our founders the question wasn't should America subsidize print journalism, but how much.  James Madison advocated giving newspapers free access to the US Postal Service while others argued for simply giving them the lowest postal rates possible. 

At the time, newspapers relied on the postal system for delivery and for the first 75 years of our history delivery was heavily subsidized.  In fact, 95% of the weight mail carriers delivered consisted of print journalism while print journalism generated only 12% of the revenue for the US Postal Service.

McChesney and Nichols point out most democratic nations today, particularly Scandinavia's social democracies, subsidize their free press just as we used to.  Their media is thriving and does a great job holding the governments in those countries accountable. 

McChesney and Nichols propose giving each adult American $200 that can be entirely deducted from their taxes  they can use to contribute to any non-profit media source.  Given the commercial media model is in collapse, they will likely mostly be non-profit in the future. It is estimated this $200 credit would cost us about $30 billion annually though by my calculations it would cost more if everyone actually used all $200, which would mean we have a citizenry far more engaged than we do.

By allowing the people to determine the media they wish to support with this type of tax credit without government interference, we can restore the investigative journalism and real news reporting essential to the survival of our Republic.  This is definitely an idea worth exploring.  All you have to do is imagine Utah without either the Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret Morning News, not to mention any of the many smaller community papers operating throughout our state, to understand the vital role these institutions play.  Self governance without a strong and vibrant journalism is impossible and $30 billion or so is a small price to pay to save the Republic.

Friday, January 15, 2010

CEP sends letter to Attorney General Shurtleff regarding inaction on Snake Valley Water Grab

Shurtleff at tea party

The Following letter was sent to Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's office earlier today.

clip_image002

January 15, 2010

Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General
Utah State Capitol Complex
350 N. State, Suite 230
P.O. Box 14320
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2320

Dear Mr. Shurtleff,

I am writing in response to your comments in the Salt Lake Tribune (12/31/09) regarding the work of your office on the SNWA plan to export water from Snake Valley to Las Vegas. You reportedly stated that your office is “just advising – they [Nevada interests] want to work out some agreement. But we’re prepared to litigate if we have to.”

Many of us who oppose the Las Vegas Water Grab wonder how “advising” equates to advocacy for a deeply flawed agreement to give Utah’s permission to Nevada to export more water from the Valley than it can sustain without unacceptable consequences. Certainly, your office has advocated for that agreement. Forgive us if we fail to understand what you mean by litigating in the future if you “have to” when you have thus far shown no inclination to litigate to protect the legal rights of Utah citizens from this Water Grab.

Specifically, your office failed to litigate to protect the due process rights of Utah successors in interest to Snake Valley water rights holders, or those who moved to the Utah side of the valley after the close of the protest period in 1990. When that case was pursued to the Nevada Supreme Court by lawyers representing affected individuals and organizations, you made no effort to assist or file briefs in support of that pending appeal. Your office did not object to the decision of the federal agencies – BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA – to drop their protests of SNWA applications in Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar Valleys in favor of stipulated agreements when the impacts of those water withdrawals will affect Utah’s environment and water rights holders. Rather, your office supports a similar Utah-Nevada stipulated agreement in Snake Valley to avoid litigating this to the U.S. Supreme Court, where this issue will wind up in due time. Should the federal agencies again “stipulate out” of their protests of the Snake Valley applications, is your office prepared to challenge legally those decisions?

We further note your apparent unwillingness to take legal action to protect Utah citizens’ rights from oppressive federal actions like the premature USDOE shipments of depleted Uranium to EnergySolutions and to demand that an Environmental Impact Statement be completed prior to approval and construction of the massive new National Security Agency electronic eavesdropping/spy complex at Camp Williams. Such inaction erodes your credibility in defending Utah interests vis a vis the “feds”, your histrionics about the supposed unconstitutionality of the proposed health care reform legislation notwithstanding.

Perhaps you could redeem yourself on the Water Grab front by filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the plaintiffs whose win in the Cave, Dry Lake and Delmar Valleys case is being appealed by SNWA to the Nevada Supreme Court. Or by preparing to challenge the adequacy of the environmental impact statement on the SNWA groundwater development project later this year. Or by examining the legal options to challenge the cloud seeding in the Ruby Mountains that SNWA is funding.

These suggestions may not rise to the level of “have to”, but were you to take action on any of them it would be more appropriate and less expensive than bringing a grandstanding case on health care reform.

Sincerely,

 

 

Steve Erickson
Policy Analyst, Citizens Education Project

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Going nuclear in Green River: policymakers and the energy industry's continuing lack of imagination

Nevada Solar One 1

Even in good economic times the lure of high paying jobs can be almost as powerful as the gravity of a black hole.  As today's Salt Lake Tribune story makes clear, the promise of decent, stable employment is apparently enough to get most residents of Emery County on board with a proposal for an expensive nuclear power plant requiring water the Green River  can't spare. 

Certainly no one can be opposed to job security and a decent wage.  Too often debates such as the one now getting underway regarding the construction of a nuclear power plant on the Green River are framed as a choice between jobs and tree hugging liberals who care more about fish than they do people.  Once the argument has been simplified to this point, those offering the promise of jobs have won in the court of public opinion no matter how stupid or expensive their scheme may be.  The choice should not be framed in such easy either/or terms.  

In other states and nations solar thermal power plants are not only being dreamed of, but actually being built.  The southwest is poised for an explosion in the construction of these facilities, yet so far Utah's county and state governments have shown little sign of any interest in this emerging industry. 

Nuclear power's appeal seems to derive in large part from the fact it is technologically complex.  Drawing power from something as common as sunshine is relatively easy technologically speaking, and therefore quickly dismissed in a culture that has come to believe technical solutions are usually better than simple ones. 

But let's assume just for the sake of argument the Green River could supply the water to generate 3000 megawatts of electricity, regardless of how that water was heated (a point the CEP is by no means willing to concede).  According to the Salt Lake Tribune the proposed nuclear power plant will cost between $13 and $16 billion to construct and 12 years to complete, if it stays on schedule.  We'll split the difference and say it will cost $14.5 billion.  At 3000 megawatts of generating capacity the cost per megawatt will be a little over $4.8 million dollars.

The Nevada One solar plant built just outside of Las Vegas produces a lot less electricity to be sure (64 MW), but it took less than two years to become operational and cost $260 million to build.  In other words, it cost just under $4.1 million per megawatt of generating capacity. 

The Nevada One facility has some heat storage capacity that carries it well into the night.  It superheats a special oil to over 700 degrees and uses this oil to convert water to steam.  The oil retains enough heat to continue this conversion process for hours after the sun sets.

Therefore, theoretically at least a thermal solar facility like Solar One with similar generating capacity to the proposed nuclear plant and placing similar demands on the Green River could be built in at least half the time for somewhere between $1.5 to $2 billion less, and that is without taking into account the cost of storing nuclear waste for heaven knows how long into the future. 

Obviously there would be considerable ongoing employment associated with such a facility as well.  In addition, tourists, engineers and others could visit a facility of this nature without the security risks associated with allowing numerous frequent visitors into a nuclear power plant.

Other solar technologies using mirrors to heat a gas which drives pistons do not require any water at all.  Using what is known as the "Stirling engine" (named for the Scottish minister who invented it in 1816), this technology will only work while the sun is shining.  However, like the Solar One plant in Nevada this technology is already in operation with plans for plants with up to 500 MW of generating capacity at their peak already in development. 

The point here isn't that we should build a solar power plant instead of a nuclear one, though that would be preferable in CEP's view.   The point is simply going nuclear is among the most expensive and time consuming alternatives we could consider, and that is before taking future nuclear waste storage or the impact on the Green River into consideration. 

In a desert community where the sun rarely ceases to shine even on the coldest of winter days, solar is perhaps only the most obvious of possible alternative projects we could explore that could bring an economically struggling part of Utah high paying jobs with far less cost to electricity rate payers or the environment.  Unfortunately, no one seems willing to put their imagination to work and explore ways we can create jobs, generate energy and protect the environment in spite of the fact other states and nations have already done much of the imagining for us.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Genuine Progress Indicator: An idea whose time has come?

GDP RIP

The gross domestic product (GDP) has served as the standard measurement for economic growth for so long, until recently questioning its reliability as an indicator of either economic activity or human progress was considered radical.  However, lately some very prominent economists and world leaders have begun to do just that.

George Monbiot  put the problem with the GDP fairly succinctly in one of his recent blog posts.  After citing a recent paper on the problems with the GDP he summed it up this way:

There are no deductions involved: all economic activity is accounted as if it were of positive value. Social harm is added to, not subtracted from, social good. A train crash which generates £1bn worth of track repairs, medical bills and funeral costs is deemed by this measure to be as beneficial as an uninterrupted service which generates £1bn in ticket sales.

I doubt many would argue any measure of "progress" which, all things being equal, views a train wreck and a train that runs consistently on time as both having identical value isn't seriously flawed.  Of course, should the train wreck generate more economic activity it will be reported as "economic growth", which under the GDP model is rarely if ever reported as anything but good.  Any measure of progress relying even in part on economic activity derived from human suffering should strike most people as not merely flawed, but disturbing.

Fortunately, the GDP isn't the only game in town any longer.  Nobel Prize winning economists and world leaders as prominent as French President Sarkozy are proposing changes to the way we measure growth that take into account human well being and don't simply assume increased economic activity always means human progress.  In a country like the US where most of the wealth is now concentrated in the hands of less than 10% of the population, increases in GDP can be taking place while 90% or more of the population receives no benefit or is actually seeing wages and benefits like health insurance coverage decline.  As proof I point to the last ten years.

Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking with Wayne Martinson of the Utah Population and Environment Coalition.  His group is working on a Utah Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) that has the very real potential of better assessing our well being and quality of life than simple statistics reflecting ups and downs in economic activity within our state. 

The initial draft of the Utah GPI will probably be out sometime this spring and will be something Utah policymakers should take a serious look at when it becomes available.  The GPI certainly holds the promise of at least beginning a discussion about what values we should be using beyond just the number of dollars changing hands when determining the true state of our quality of life in Utah and the nation.  I for one look forward to reading the report the Utah Population and Environment Coalition comes out with and praise their efforts to tackle the question of what truly constitutes progress. 

Monday, January 11, 2010

Reflecting upon activism as the International Year of Biodiversity begins

Wolf Today the UN Secretary General will be in Berlin to kick of the International Year of Biodiversity.  Eight years ago in Johannesburg nations pledged to reduce the rate of extinction by 2010.  Instead, the rate has reached around 1,000 times natural levels.  As a result, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will also be marking our failure to reverse a trend which, if it continues, will sooner or later catch up to us.

Seven years ago next month I wrote an Op-ed explaining my reasons for becoming an environmental activist.  Entitled Environmental Activism as Homeland Security: The Fallout Over Utah, I wrote not only of the development of my by then ongoing love affair with Utah's natural environment, but of nuclear testing's toll on the environment and people I had come to love and of the debate over shipments of radioactive waste into what was then Envirocare's facility in the West Desert.  Re-reading my Op-ed of nearly seven years ago and reading of our failure to reduce biodiversity loss as promised eight years ago in South Africa, it is impossible to ignore how little the debate has shifted.

Today it is Energy Solutions, not Envirocare, and it is depleted uranium instead of lower level waste.  While nuclear testing has not returned, there was a push for its resumption in response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty still is not law.  To this day America maintains more than 9,000 nuclear weapons ready to launch at the push of a button.

As climate change promises more severe droughts in the future throughout our region, Utah and Nevada stand poised to sign an agreement which ultimately would allow the aquifers beneath the Snake Valley to be sucked dry.  Such a huge diversion of water threatens native plants and wildlife and would very likely spread dust clouds over the Wasatch Front the likes of which we have never seen.

It all sounds like a recipe for despair.  Indeed, I readily admit to struggling to keep despair at bay myself.  But I remain an activist because I have to believe we can change the course of history.  We are not destined to foul our nest beyond habitability.  A species that has found a way to destroy all life on earth must also be capable of finding the means to save it. We can find a way to live peacefully with each other as well as with the life we share this planet with.  To deny this is to conclude our big brains fate us to destructiveness rather than compassion and this I simply cannot accept.

Which brings me to the Citizens Education Project (CEP) and why I have chosen to dedicate the next chapter of my life to this particular organization.  CEP co-founders Steve Erickson and Rob Jensen and other CEP volunteers have already demonstrated what is possible with few resources and a lot of hard work.  I can't help imagining what an organization dedicated to promoting real solutions can do with even more resources and commitment on the part of larger numbers of people.

In the days ahead, we will be asking people to join with us by making a small monthly donation to the CEP to help us achieve our goal of 1,000 donors giving an average of just $10 a month to the CEP by the end of this year.  Others who deny the crisis we face in their annual conferences enjoy both corporate backing and the ears of many policy makers.  Together, we can demonstrate the backing of people who care about the future of our communities, state, nation and world and are committed to solutions instead of denial can be even more powerful. 

Thank you.  I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead. 

Craig Axford

Friday, January 8, 2010

Utah Democratic Party issues statement on Craig Axford's departure & new position with Citizens Education Project

 

Utah State Democratic Party

Press Release

Party Deputy Director to become Executive Director for local non-profit

Craig Axford to lead Citizens Education Project

Craig Sunday in Denver 023

Salt Lake City, UT – After nearly four and one-half years with the Utah State Democratic Party, Deputy Director Craig Axford has taken a position as the Executive Director for the Citizens Education Project (CEP).  Axford came to the Utah Democratic Party as party of then DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s 50-state program in September of 2005. 

Over the course of Axford’s time with the State Party he has organized state conventions and caucus meetings, worked with local county parties and traveled much of the state for county conventions and other events. 

“We are sorry to see Craig go,” said Chair Wayne Holland.  “We wish Craig all the best in his new job and are confident he will do a great job.” 

CEP co-founder and board member Steve Erickson welcomed Axford as the organization’s new executive director saying, “Craig will bring new energy, a new perspective and focus, and a strong set of skills and experience to the organization and its mission.  Craig’s leadership can take CEP to a new level, marshal new resources, and engage younger people.”

The CEP has been in existence since 1997 operating as a grassroots volunteer organization.  Since its founding it has worked on water resource issues, fought the possible resumption of nuclear testing during the George W. Bush administration, and blocked prison privatization in Utah. 

“The Citizens Education Project has done phenomenal work over the years” says Craig Axford.  “I am honored to have the opportunity to work with the wonderful board and activists that have brought the CEP so far.  We look forward to building the CEP into a stronger organization that will provide a progressive policy alternative to the Sutherland Institute that is needed in Utah and the region.”

# # #