Pa. political activist Gene Stilp (and his pig) to retire

Gene Stilp has inflated his last pig, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette‘s Kate Giammarise reports

Mr. Stilp, 64, a longtime Harrisburg activist, a frequent filer of ethics complaints and lawsuits against legislators, a master of political props and protests, and a general thorn-in-the-side of Capitol politicians for many years, has said he will be retiring from activism to focus on health concerns and other activities.

The Dauphin County resident is perhaps best known for his most famous prop, a giant inflatable pig, which he used to protest the Legislature’s 2005 late-night pay raise. The pig became a frequent sight at the Capitol and elsewhere, and the 25-foot-high pink porker has reappeared over the years at other protests of Legislative perks.

“Gene is brilliant at bringing attention to an issue — through his props, through his theatrics, and through his passion,” said Steve Miskin, a spokesman for the House Republican majority, which has frequently been the object of Mr. Stilp’s criticisms.

“His heavyset porcine friend [the pig] flew over my district office parking lot from time to time,” recalled former House Speaker Bill DeWeese, perhaps one of the most infamous of Mr. Stilp’s targets. DeWeese served prison time for using state employees to illegally perform campaign work.

“I am blessed with enough of a sense of humor to have always reacted with a chortle. I don’t hold him in any disesteem or vexation,” DeWeese said."

The full story: Pennsylvania political activist Gene Stilp will retire | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

************************************************************************************************ 
important graphic


   Was this post of value to you?
   Click here for free updates 

Pa. political activist Gene Stilp (and his pig) to retire Read More »

This story will turn the stomachs of solar energy lovers

Photo credit: Power Partners/MasTec

**Update: In Related Stories below, NJ Herald’s Rob Jennings discusses the political fallout**

What a mess. One that has taxpayers in three New Jersey counties facing tens of millions in bonding defaults.One that could give solar energy a black eye.One that could send the Koch Brothers somersaulting in joy.

NJ.com writers Ben Horowitz and Seth Augenstein yesterday reported:

The concept behind the massive solar project sounded simple enough: borrow $88 million to install panels on public buildings in Morris, Somerset and Sussex counties and then sell excess electricity, using the revenues to pay off the debt.

The concept was called the "Morris model," held up nationally as an example of how to produce renewable energy through public-private partnerships. It was the second project of its kind and the previous one was hailed as a success.

But now, nearly four years later, taxpayers could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars the counties owe bondholders, after work ground to a halt amidst cost overruns and lawsuits.

What’s more, the $88 million that must be repaid to bondholders for the 71 projects could cause "unmitigated disaster" to the three counties, according to court filings. 

Contract lawyers will love it. Solar energy advocates will cringe. Read the full story here

This story will turn the stomachs of solar energy lovers Read More »

Judge tosses coastal damage suit against oil companies

coastal erosion

The Associated Press’s Kevin McGill reports:

A lawsuit filed in 2013 by a Louisiana flood board that sought damages – potentially in the billions of dollars – from scores of oil, gas and pipeline companies over erosion of the state’s fragile coast was thrown out Friday evening by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Nanette Jolivette Brown dismissed the suit in a complex 49-page ruling rejecting the board’s contention that, under federal laws, the energy companies had a duty to protect the flood board from the effects of coastal erosion.

"We don’t think this is going to be the last word on it," James Swanson, a lawyer for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, said in a telephone interview. He said attorneys for the flood authority were studying the ruling. He said attorneys had not yet decided on their next move, but that the case would likely wind up at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The flood authority, which oversees New Orleans-area levee boards, had claimed in the lawsuit that coastal drilling and dredging activities contributed to the loss of coastal wetlands that form a natural hurricane protection buffer for New Orleans.

The lawsuit caused a political furor in Louisiana. The suit’s backers said it was necessary to hold energy companies accountable for decades of damage and that it was one of the state’s few hopes for funding coastal protection and restoration efforts with an estimated price tag of at least $50 billion over the coming decades.

Gov. Bobby Jindal and oil industry leaders condemned it as an attack on a vital industry and said it undermined the state’s efforts to protect and restore the coast. The Legislature passed a bill to kill the lawsuit although a state judge later declared that law unconstitutional, a ruling that was under appeal.

Related environmental news story:

Flood authority flexes technical muscle, and Corps of Engineers responds – The lens
Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:23:01 GMT
But for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, it was vindication for the reforms that birthed it after Hurricane Katrina. Read more …

********************************************************************** 

important graphic


   Was this post of value to you?
   Click here for free updates 

 

Judge tosses coastal damage suit against oil companies Read More »

'Climate skeptics' or 'Climate deniers' What’s your label?

"For those opposing the science surrounding the issue, are they “climate change deniers” or merely “skeptics”? And what about “warmistas” vs. “lukewarmers”?

Justin Gillis, the New York Times climate columnist (yes, they’ve got one of those) examined the question in a recent  piece that’s received a good deal of attention.


BY DEGREES
Here’s a portion of it:

“In the long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to call the various factions has been going on for a long time. Recently, though, the issue has taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures and counting.
“The petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead.
“Climate scientists are among the most vocal critics of using the term “climate skeptic” to describe people who flatly reject their findings. They point out that skepticism is the very foundation of the scientific method. The modern consensus about the risks of climate change, they say, is based on evidence that has piled up over the course of decades and has been subjected to critical scrutiny every step of the way.
“Drop into any climate science convention, in fact, and you will hear vigorous debate about the details of the latest studies. While they may disagree over the fine points, those same researchers are virtually unanimous in warning that society is running extraordinary risks by continuing to pump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
“In other words, the climate scientists see themselves as the true skeptics, having arrived at a durable consensus about emissions simply because the evidence of risk has become overwhelming. And in this view, people who reject the evidence are phony skeptics, arguing their case by cherry-picking studies, manipulating data, and refusing to weigh the evidence as a whole.

“The petition asking the media to drop the “climate skeptic” label began with Mark B. Boslough, a physicist in New Mexico who grew increasingly annoyed by the term over several years. The phrase is wrong, he said, because “these people do not embrace the scientific method.”

Almost anything written about climate change seems to provoke a spirited response. So, too, this piece which drew 299 reader comments.
You’ll find the full column–and the replies–here. Use the comment box below to tell us what YOU think. ********************************************************************** 

important graphic


   Was this post of value to you?
   Click here for free updates 


'Climate skeptics' or 'Climate deniers' What’s your label? Read More »

Yet another natural gas pipeline proposed in New Jersey

The number of proposed new natural gas pipelines in New Jersey has risen to five.


By our count, here are the present candidates:

1. PennEast pipeline carrying natural gas Pa’s Marcellus Shale region to a point north of Trenton.

2. Diamond East which would follow a parallel route a few miles to the east of Penn East.

3. Pilgrim Oil pipeline carrying Bakken shale oil from Albany, N.Y., to Linden. 

4. South Jersey Gas pipeline traversing sections of the Pinelands in Atlantic, Cape May and Cumberland counties

…and now, Pipeline Number Five, detailed below by Tom Johnson in NJ Spotlight:


“New Jersey Natural Gas wants to build a 28-mile high-pressure gas transmission line through parts of Burlington, Ocean, and Monmouth counties, a project the utility says will increase resiliency and redundancy for customers in one of the fastest-growing areas in the state.


“The Southern Reliability Link aims to provide a secondary feeder line into the southern portion of the utility’s franchise territory, an area hard hit by disruptions that lasted up to eight weeks after Hurricane Sandy devastated much of its infrastructure, particularly along the barrier islands in Ocean County.
“Currently, the Wall Township utility obtains approximately 90 percent of the gas needed to supply its more than half-million customers from an interstate pipeline in Middlesex County. The proposed pipeline, beginning in Chesterfield in Burlington County, would largely run along roads and then through about 10 miles of the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst before ending in Manchester, according to utility executives.
“The utility has yet to submit applications for permits to the Pinelands Commission, state Department of Environmental Protection, and New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. Nevertheless, it hopes to begin construction by the end of the year and have it in service by the end of 2016, Wyckoff said.”

Read the full story here 


Related energy and environmental news stories:

Commission holds hearing on proposed natural gas pipeline – Citizens Voice
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:01:06 GMT
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is holding a series of hearings on potential environmental impacts of the proposed $1 billion, 108-mile, 36-inch diameter pi …Read more …

Opposition Greets Proposed Marcellus Shale-Trenton Pipeline
Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:14:48 -0800
They are unmoved by the pipeline companies’ arguments that they are delivering affordable, life-sustaining energy to millions of customers. Most towns on PennEast’s route in New Jersey are not now served by natural gas …Read more …

The State We’re In: The Garden State, or the pipeline state? – NJ.com
Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:35:37 GMT
New Jersey is currently awash in proposals for the construction of new pipelines. They will transport gas and oil from supply sources, crossing this state we’re in …Read more …

PennEast Pipeline construction to generate more than 12000 jobs, company says – NJ.com
Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:16:56 GMT
The bulk of the economic windfall would be felt in the four Pennsylvania and two New Jersey counties where the pipeline is proposed, according to the study, cond …Read more …

Penneast’s study says pipeline will have long-lasting economic impact – NJ.com
Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:17:55 GMT
The study was done by Drexel University School of Economics and Econsult Solutions, Inc., both in Philadelphia, Pa. for PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC. Penneast has prop …Read more …

********************************************************************** 

important graphic 


   Was this post of value to you?
   Click here for free updates 


Yet another natural gas pipeline proposed in New Jersey Read More »