To Be Afraid of Dubaic Dinosaurs

There is a dilemma making its way to the dinner tables of industrialized countries more and more today in the 21^st Century. Amen. It is a problem that affects every family worldwide. I take that back. It exempts those Dubai-ians, who are rightfully excluded from most problems facing the globe. The reason for this, obvious- after all life becomes distinct, these people will remain prehistoric Dubaic dinosaurs, perfected by riches and the incredible evolution that capital causes. And any previously insurmountable conflict that has plagued the natural world (from colon cancer to Noah’s wave to Apocalypse to the 5 o’clock traffic jam) could certainly be bought off and dispelled with a wave of their Golden Palms. And if any problem becomes so large the Dubai-ians can rest assured that they will always have requisite insurance in order to buy a new world- and if this is in doubt, look no further than their current paradise.

No this new dilemma does not involve a single baby of Dubai, though the problem I speak of faces every other current and future generation. It is something that poses an imminent threat to all life and indeed this Earth which, Lovelock has hypothesized, is also living. It is something that we didn’t see back when Natale Olivieri sold Tru-Fruit soft drinks in Richmond, Virginia during the Staggering ‘30s. Still to this day, we cannot see it in our bibles.

I foresee a day when human waste builds and molds and devours and eventually surmounts even the transient skyscrapers. I see it brighter than any sun. I have Trash Fever.

The Europeans say once a substance or object has become waste, it will remain waste until it has been fully recovered and no longer poses a potential threat to the environment or to human health. Water pollution causes approximately 14,000 deaths per day and 750,000 people in China die every year as a result of pollution-related diseases.

Oh, but I can assure you- these numbers are just pixels on a screen, only faintly recognizable to the brain. Our minds cannot comprehend the fury that would result from the total inebriation of the circle of life. Neither can the world.

So even though we are the most terrific species on Earth (or at least the most cubicle tested species on Earth) there’s little hope that we can overcome such an environmental degradation as we’ll see in 40 years.

And that’s nothing to get tied up about. After all, there is no precedent for such a day of reckoning and if there was such a day, the entire religious community surely would have seen the warning signs.

Needless to say, this planet is disposable. It is not heaven. And there are a few justifications I have for such an assumption. Life here is not one large Burger King ball-pit. Life here does not always have equitable plumbing or dentistry. People here are normal- everyone is not born with an operatic range (I’m not even going to mention that some amongst us cannot even sing); we don’t wear white robes or even see beauty in tennis. So you see there is no heaven on Earth. And anyways, species extinction isn’t so bad when you get to go to heaven.

Coal-based fuel plant proposed for Butte; Schweitzer says many hurdles remain

The article covered a Florida entrepreneur’s angle of coal production in Montana. William Bruce, president of EcoSphere Energy of New Smyrna Beach, apparently sees coal extraction as an inevitable endeavor, so he has proposed a 160- to 170-megawatt plant in Butte that would be "the most environmentally friendly coal plant that has ever been built." His plans include the creation of a 130-acre algae farm that would turn coal into electricity, ethanol and biodiesel. According to the article, “microscopic organisms would consume the greenhouse gas as they grow. The algae then would be harvested, and the oils extracted and used to produce biodiesel.” Montana’s governor and secretary of state each met, along with their aides, to discuss this opportunity with Bruce on Friday December 30.

First of all, the article commended the work of Governor Schweitzer and the Montana Secretary of State for their initial steps to sidestep partisanship. Their efforts to think outside the oil-box are equally commendable in my mind. Breaking our dependency on foreign oil is no simple task. But I don’t think they’re distancing our dependency for the right reasons. I’ve listened to climatologist Steve Running describe Global Warming as the trial of my generation- this country, and indeed the world, must part with 80 percent of our carbon emissions in 43 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested policies that factor in the current science and this simple fact. An elected official like Schweitzer has to decide what is in the public’s interest. For example- is it in the interest of my neighbors and I to hand out state subsidies to King Coal in order to develop carbon fighting substances like this algae? Or is it more sensical to employ that creative focus (and public funding) to develop sustainably?

My opinion on this matter is established. It’s foundation- we have one Earth, and one Montana, state and national governments have a responsibility to promote the general welfare, and I take this to include the public’s environment. Environmentalists do not base their opposition to coal and oil on political grounds- meaning they don’t play with the environment for political reasons. And this issue is no different. Government has the right to regulate industry’s illicit spewing of toxins into the public atmosphere. For me it’s that simple.

The other issue that Montanans who are pro out-of-state industries (including Governor Schweitzer) point out consistently is that Montana will be unable to recover from a coal-less world. In Montana, coal-fired power plants generate two-thirds of the total electricity produced in the state but the Energy Information Adminstration reports that "Just over one-fourth of Montana's coal production is used for state electricity generation; Montana delivers the remainder to more than 15 states." Doesn’t this make the argument that we won’t be able to turn on our own light-switches in Montana irreverent? With this in mind, does it make any sense for our state government to claim eminent domain of our coal? Why do officials list reasons for sustaining our dependency on such a fossil fuel when there's no need to produce the amount we're producing for other communities in other states?

The question of short term vs. long term prosperity arises. Short term economic gains based on resource extraction and electricity generation vs. long term “bright green” technologies that help us develop sustainably, where we distance ourselves from the thought that “oh, we’re going to face the same struggle of developing tech 20 years down the line.” The struggle between Montana’s environmental community and national corporations is historical. Since the establishment of the Coal Severance Trust, we have defended our resources from raping by external interests. We need the green thoughts of other states, but we should not sacrifice our environment for their short-term. I see the encroachment of

I attack this article’s bias on the basis that it failed to research this Florida Company that is attempting to sway our politicians. This article was published online in the Great Falls Tribune where readers are able to comment. One reader, Florida Treefrog, had some of the same concerns about the lack of research that went into this article. This person said, Hi, I'm a Florida energy activist - just checked and there IS a registered corporation in Florida called EcoSphere Energy Solutions, based in Stuart, FL, but very little info on the company is available through the Dept of State, corporations. Have found no info on "William Bruce". I've checked with other energy activist friends, and no one down here has ever heard of Bruce or the corporation. The coal industry wants to make liquid fuels out of coal, but their claims of “clean” don’t add up. Relying on coal-derived liquid as an alternative fuel could nearly double global warming pollution for every gallon of transportation fuel produced and used.
Coal to liquids is snake oil.

Panel hears drawbacks of coal-to-liquids facilities by Karl Puckett, Tribune Staff Writer

The Montana Legislature’s Energy and Telecommunications Interim Committee met in early November to discuss the feasibility of building two of the proposed coal-to-liquids facilities- one close to Bull Mountain near Roundup and the other at the Great Falls Malmstrom Air Force Base. One of the key ingredients to such a power plant is water and this is the main reason why, in the desert-climate of Montana, the legislature is taking a more active role in evaluating the state’s potential for more fossil fuel accommodation. Experts vary about how much water it will take; estimates range from one to seven barrels of water per barrel of fuel. The committee, which met on the premise that they would further educate themselves on the issue, seemed to leave the meeting with more questions than answers about the future of Montana coal reserves.

There are several things to know about the coal-to-liquids technology. It’s proven. During World War II, Germany perfected the science because they were forced to create an economy based on sustainability because the country was confronted with oil sanctions. During apartheid, South Africa also used the science effectively and the article mentioned them as having a developed coal-to-liquids program. The problem with the Fisher Troppe method is that there are still questions that have remained unanswered for over 60 years- even the softest environmental groups are asking that before the resource is development further (and before our state becomes as dependent on the development as officials are talking about) we research all the coal facts. Brett Doney, President of the Great Falls Development Authority, said that the committee has a steep learning curve and he’s right; this state- with plentiful 120 billion tons of coal reserves, state government pressure to set up an alternative to Middle Eastern oil and the possibility for subsidizing the industry- has a lot of work to do to ensure the public that our investments are going to work for us in the future. Brian Schweitzer, being a key player in state politics as head executive, has a significant role in our future energy policies and supports the technology full-heartedly. Denny Rehberg was also mentioned in the article for his introduction of legislation that set up 10 pilot coal-to-liquid programs throughout the country. Chuck Kerr’s (President of Great Northern Properties, which owns and manages coal reserves) conclusion that “Challenges include finding locations with enough water and dealing with the complex nature of the technology” is an obvious indication that current research is not finite or satisfactory. Brady Wiseman mentioned that, aside from research, Montana needs a state-of-the-art legal framework for the industry to operate within. The article did not mention the unproven science of carbon sequestration, which is what has Montana and out-of-state coal developers antsy. I suppose this was one of its biases.

To learn more about this topic, use the google. Activists in this state will be talking and writing about energy development for years to come. What will and won’t work can only be proven by action. But I have an increasing faith that the public will have a larger concern with the environmental repercussions of coal than they did in the latter half of the 19^th century with other resource development.

Arcology

In nature, as an organism evolves it increases in complexity and it also becomes a more compact or miniaturized system. Similarly a city should function as a living system. Arcology, architecture and ecology as one integral process, is capable of demonstrating positive response to the many problems of urban civilization, population, pollution, energy and natural resource depletion, food scarcity and quality of life. Arcology recognizes the necessity of the radical reorganization of the sprawling urban landscape into dense, integrated, three-dimensional cities in order to support the complex activities that sustain human culture. The city is the necessary instrument for the evolution of humankind." - Paolo Soleri


Arcology is a theory created by Paolo Soleri several years ago and the word is a combination of architecture and ecology. The basic idea of arcology is that societies need to miniaturize to survive. Many economists, architects, and ordinary Joe shmoes are coming to acknowledge this more as time passes.


The reasons for the need of a more complex, smaller society are quite obvious. Urban sprawl wastes land, labor, capital, and time as we are voraciously devouring the planet's resources to meet our wants and needs. Arcologies would only use up about 2% of the surrounding land as compared to urban sprawl, which uses about 60%. Since the environment outside of the city would be, for the most part, uninhabited, it would be used to promote the production of agriculture. Certain solar architectural techniques would be put into use to reduce the amount of energy used, and the use of green energy would also be implemented.



In Soleri's "City In The Image Of Man", he states




"Such a structure would take the place of the natural landscape inasmuch as it would constitute the new topography to be dealt with. This man-made topography would differ from the natural topography in the following ways:
It would not be a one-surface configuration but a multilevel one.
It would be conceived in such a way as to be the carrier of all the elements that make the physical life of the city possible—places and inlets for people, freight, water, power, climate, telephone; places and outlets for people, freight, waste, mail, products, and so forth.
It would be a large-dimensioned sheltering device, fractioning three-dimensional space in large and small subspaces, making its own weather and its own cityscape.
It would be the major vessel for massive flow of people and things within and toward the outside of the city.
It would be the organizing pattern and anchorage for private and public institutions of the city.
It would be the focal structure for the complex and ever-changing life of the city.
It would be the unmistakable expression of man the maker and the creator. It would be diverse and singular in all of its realizations. Arcology would be surrounded by an uncluttered, open landscape (Soleri, 1969, p. 13)."

Nudging Space

That is just simply the basics. The theory of Arcology runs even deeper. The reason a society must miniaturize to survive is because, when looking at an organism, such as a cell, or a particle of matter such as an atom, one sees that these two subjects are made up of even smaller particles which exist for their for individual purposes, but must work together to keep the structure stable. Even in nature, though competition is an element (Darwin was certainly right about that), and the idea of "survival of the fittest" is perpetually present, the there is also need for harmony, and for each species to have a certain function in the ecosystem. A society should function in a similar fashion. An Arcology is NOT a utopia or much less a form of communism (an idea which is unfortunately cultivated by a - dime - a - dozen sci-fi novels and the media - even those who are said to have personally interviewed Soleri). Soleri himself described Utopia as "The emblematic example of the great deception of self- sufficiency... Even when unpretentious it shows an arrogant sort of blindness toward the reality in which it is inescapably nested in", and self-sufficiency as "An abused label hiding 'fundamental' deception... The whole of reality is the only instance of self sufficiency, but only if one accepts the fact that it is a dynamic, a process..."




There are those who say that there is no such thing as Global Warming, or that it is not caused by humans. Even if these claims were true, to continue in this lifestyle is to slow evolution. We are (I should hope) better sheltered, more knowlegable, and practice better hygeine than our Cro-Magnon ancestors. It is a part of the evolutionary process to strive for a better future.

Obviously.

The New World Trade Center

Soleri incorporates into arcology the concept of M.C.D.

M.C.D. stands for Miniaturization, Complexity, and Duration. Paolo Soleri states "In the universe we belong, a universe in which Space-time is the agent "manipulating" the media, Mass-Energy, into Being, the MCD triad is critically determinant in creating Being, the past. MC is the binary methodology by way of which reality is inching toward self-consciousness, the mind. As mass-energy is unrelentingly stirred by space-time in ways that generate more and more information-knowledge (complexity) contained in less and less space-time (miniaturization), reality witnesses the mineral memory at first, then the genetic memory and "finally" the cultural memory. Duration is taking hold, in the sense that the past (reality) sees more and more fragments of itself being "relived", being remembered. Perfect remembering is tantamount to a Second Coming. The day I will be remembered in all the details of my becoming that day I will be resurrected. It goes without saying that this could only happen in a reality "purged" of space-time. We call this reality the past. The past as the only being."

Basically, because of the complexity of the universe (compromised of mass energy and space-time), we need to evolve with it, or fade into obscurity. This can be done by becoming more complex, (through miniaturization) and through learning over Time (duration). This should lead to perfection, which would not create a Utopia, but spur a resurrection, or a Second Coming (not necessarily of Christ, but more of humanity and nature). This is the paradigm of arcology. Mass-energy (remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed) is moved by space-time due to the things we learn and experience. The past is the only thing that exists, in Soleri's opinion, because everything that we say or do is automatically in the past. The accumulation of our memories and experiences creates reality and becomes truth, and only when we come to "remember" ourselves (self-revelation) will we evolve thus, be able to have a wider scale of revelation in life as a whole, which will bring life anew.

The Urban Effect, according to Soleri, " is the effect generated by M.C.D. The evolution of the urban effect is the best document of the synergy the M.C.D. paradigm is proposing. All organisms are per se like different stages of the urban effect and … [the Urban Effect] the highest of all transfigurations of matter into mind."

This is the methodology of arcology. In other words, the Urban Effect is brought about by M.C.D. and it is the resulting intellectual and spiritual development, as well as economic prosperity. This is when it changes into "mind over matter", where matter (the physical) is transfigured into mind (the intellectual and the spiritual).

Following the Urban Effect is Aesthetogenesis which is "A process generating a reality in which all components, beside being the means to the self-revelation achievement are also ends to themselves (the meaning of self-revelation). A final state of grace that only the mind can generate via evolution." This is the aim of the arcology. A final state of grace.
And what is the source of the above concepts? The Omega Seed.

Yet another quote derived from Soleri: "As the seed is functionally and emblematically the encapsulation of that which an organism will become, the (universal) Omega Seed is the ultimate encapsulation of all the "information-learning" generated by the evolutionary development. Information-learning that in this extreme case is the "lived" experience of evolution, contained as it is in this ultimate seed. This content , expects animation from the exhaustion of mass-energy, space-time characteristic of the "infinite" M.C.D. present at the end of space-time: the animation of Self-Revelation , i.e., of Resurrection."

One way of putting this mouthful of a message is that the Omega Seed is a collection of conscious. Every thing that is learned through out the existence of space-time is reality, since the past is the only reality. If this is the case, then the Omega Seed is the afore mentioned "lived" experience of evolution (after the "Resurrection", which brings the end of space-time and the exhaustion of mass-energy, life is sprung from this "Omega Seed"). The Omega Seed is the hypothesis of arcology. The Equity Imperative, described by Soleri as, "A state in which all the components of evolution, if and when Self-revelation of reality is achieved, find themselves not only documented but relived in all their specificity, means that have finally transcended into ends." It is the effect of Aesthetogenesis.

Soleri emphasizes the need for frugality claiming, "As things and events are the endless variations that life is able to generate within the space-time sequences (the presents) one could define frugality as the most sophisticated use of space-time. The ability reality has to generate, has found in the mind …The more complex the event, the more stringent is the coordination of the elements entering in the making of it… The MCD paradigm is frugality made operative. The extreme instance is the Omega Seed event "within" which, in a nullified spacetime, the whole cosmic experience from beginning (Big Bang) to end (Big Crunch) is revealed to itself… Frugality is a process of internalization because MCD is fundamentally a processor of the outer into the inner. This is why frugality has it over materialism now expressing itself in a hedonistic hyper-consumptive society. Frugality is a necessity capable of resolving itself into a virtue."

BP America Inc., ConocoPhillips, Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Illinois Clean Coal Institute, Japan Coal Energy Center, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Repsol YPF, Schlumberger Limited, Shell International Exploration and Production, U.S. Department of Energy are currently funding coal sequestration research at
an estimated cost of $1.5 million. This may be misleading because the agreement prescribes 50% of the funding by the U.S. DOE, but nevertheless the research is being conducted and at a hefty subsidation. Broadly I support this project- sponsoring coal research of national and international corporations is perfectly acceptable and it underlines my view that carrot at the end of the stick relations between business and government is necessary. American corporations will see the light- that it's in their interest and it's the public's interest to create a progressive energy portfolio.

That being said, this project's summary as described by Coal-Seq II are to:
• Develop and validate reliable predictive models
for ECBM/sequestration.
• To identify the best geologic/reservoir
environments and operating strategies for
ECBM/sequestration projects.
• To provide a single resource on global R&D and
demonstration activities for the consortium
members.

I think it's great that we're subsidizing sequestration research, because right now we don't have any finite science that can catch up to policy wagon. At the national level there's no recognition (or is it any apathetic response?) of global warming. The Clean Coal Power Initiative, under a guise of eliminating sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018, is a step. However it's a failure by the national government to issue the first step of problem solving- recognition. But I digress...

There are time constraints to this issue and there are reasons to proceed with caution. I'll adress the former and in a roundabout way come back to caution.

In March 2002, President Bush embarked on a $2 Billion, 10-Year Clean Coal Initiative. His Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said back in the day that the United States could not turn its back on cheap coal development. Sure, that's understandable. Abraham has a responsibility to industry as well as the environment. I hope he understood in 2002 and that he understands that today we need answers; we need a national energy policy because Global Warming holds a significant weight in our future practices. Can $2 billion satisfy the needs of energy research? And just for the sake of comparison, what fraction of the Iraq war is this sustainable energy venture costing Americans? What would the energy portfolio of the United States consist of if we weren't guarding the Persian Gulf?

Until the national government and electrical industries fork over the capitol and scientifically prove that carbon emissions from coal gasificiation and sequestration will not leak from beneath the soil carpet, i can't think of a justification for just plowing straight ahead with a national energy policy designed to empower more use of fossil fuels. The Missoula Independent nailed it in Can We Bury Global Warming when they said, "The search for a solution to the climate crisis demonstrates that we need to know a lot more about what lies beneath us."

"We have enough energy resources and green technology in the United States to enable us to stop relying on foreign dictators to supply us with fuel. Along with a smart strategy in Iraq, our energy independence can make us stronger and safer."
When my elected officials say these sort of things, i can't help but smile. It makes me believe in our system and believe that people like the James Lovelock's (see last month's Rolling Stones article) don't know where it's at anymore. It makes me believe that we are not One Too Many Mornings and a Thousand Miles Behind.

"Mr. President, let's create hundreds of thousands of jobs in America by producing our own clean fuels -- bring our men and women home -- and stop spending money in Iraq," said Schweitzer.

I may paint him like a stick in the mud, but my opinion of the governor of Montana is a positive one overall. He has had some major energy successes. His response and the reactions by members of his staff to partisan-line attacks regarding proposed coal development are mostly commendable.

When 8 Republicans from the MT legislature wrote to Schweitzer expressing dismay at the chief excecutive's lack of support for "our shared goals of a stronger economy and more high-paying jobs in Montana" in late September, 2007, he responded vehemently- “I’m still bullish on coal. We’re not proposing any new old-technology coal plants." This was a powerful statement- he knocked the legislators down a peg.

Montana's governor has proven it's possible to speak from the gut, and more importantly to speak for the future interests of the environment as well as the economy. He's been and must remain a force against more than 19 million metric tons of greenhouse gases that coal plants expell, Montana's irresponsible contribution to climate change. For this gusto we owe him much credit- he has many great ideas and i can see that he genuinely cares about the future of this state.



Score one for the environment, right? Not entirely.



Until his administration avoids slippery statements like "What we're proposing is coal gasifications plants," he doesn't deserve the full support of true greens like me. He also needs to realize that marginalizing people such as myself with statements like, “If there was still a phone booth in Helena, they could have their meetings there" (which was directed at a group i support, the Montana Environmental Information Center), won't get him any closer to resolving any energy problem he can think of.

The Montana-state government that governs best in 2007 is the one that makes leaps and strides to rid our fossil fuel-stained backs of foreign resource dependency. He's got the right ideathere, and i'm optimistic that he'll soon feel the pressure of a truly sustainable state economy based on zero-carbon emission standards and take action to make the future of job of Montanas a helluva lot eaier.

I have yet to interview Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer, but from my research it's becoming increasingly apparent he assumes that...

1. 1. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates are unrealistic. The EPA reports that if coal-to-liquids technology replaced the dirty petroleum fuel sources, the effect on greenhouse gas emissions would be an increase of 4% even with the implementation of current carbon capture and storage methods. It would appear that the only advantage of coal to liquid technology is the security issue since we have lots of coal. Beyond that it is even more of a boondoggle than corn ethanol.
3. 2. The IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) coal plant would produce cheaper energy than the 4 cents/kWh that the Judith Gap Wind Farm already produces.
5. 3. Wind potential in Montana does not have the potential to produce enough electricity for the entire state 70 times over.
7. 4. Coal-fired power plants would employ a significant number of Montanans. When in fact the job-creating power of renewable energy is 3-5 times that of fossil fuels. (source: University of California Berkeley Meta-Study, 2004)

5. The capitol investment needed for such a Green Revolution would create a mighty big strain on our economy. "Rosie Revisited: A U.S-Led Solution to Global Warming" provides a blueprint for the United States' carbon dioxide emissions by revealing that by 2025, we can reduce those gases 80% below 1990 levels.

I've heard too many Chicken Littles' running around screaming,

Environmentalists are too pathological, too idealogical to deal with this energy crisis. If not coal, then what? they say.

How will your local community run without us? The coal developers say that.

There's a basic economical rebuttal to this.

In Montana, coal-fired power plants generate two-thirds of the total electricity produced in the state but the Energy Information Adminstration reports that "Just over one-fourth of Montana's coal production is used for state electricity generation; Montana delivers the remainder to more than 15 states."

With this in mind, does it make any sense for our state government to claim eminent domain of our coal? Why do officials list reasons for sustaining our dependency on such a fossil fuel when there's no need to produce the amount we're producing for other communities in other states?

And if we do decide to make a killing in the marketplace, shouldn't we focus our energy on assuring Montanans and our neighbors that what electicity we're sending out is something we can be proud of- something that is produced ethically? Or to put it simply- why in the hell wouldn't we take action to create enough renewable energy to fuel our body politic before making enough to line our pockets with the dusty, dirty, old news stuff?


The question is not, 'Do we give each type of energy producer an equal chance to compete in our eventual energy policy?' because this framing assumes that

A) people are taking into account energy production vs. environmental cost

and

B) all forms of energy generation emit the same cloud (or no cloud) of CO2 into our atmosphere

And if you were to consider this first question and assume the risk we put to our state's environment (and in fact the very Earth we live and recreate with) you put a dollar amount on our Mountains, our Parks, our Rivers and our Streams.

The thing that scares me the most is his upfront assertion that private industries have even the slightest responsibility to public wellfare. He defended this assertion in May of 2005 when he said the following about state-owned coal reserves in Otter Creek, Montana- "So clearly we can move mountains in terms of bringing private resources to bear here. The state can help in training people to run it, siting pipeline and bringing financial instruments to bear.''

I take this to mean that with oversight provided by residents of Montana, we can ensure the ethical treatment of our creeks.

Something tells me there's nothing new about this. From about the mid-ninetienth century up until 1900 this state saw the rapid extractions of every piece of gold, copper, silver, etc. the Robber Barons could find. These bastards left numerous calamities for the public, some of which (ie. the Milltown Dam) are en-route to being solved today in 2007! Historian K. Ross Toole uncovered this- it is no secret!

So why, with this expansive history dictating time and again that out-of-state interests bamboozle the public with claims of employment and quick profits, would we subject our environment to more of the same?

Is one governor going to come along and change things by offering in one hand a promise of good land stewardship while picking away at our coal reserves with the other?

Climatologist Steve Running once told me that just because the black rock is there does not mean we have to exploit it. There was a fantastic song that i've heard Pete Seeger sing called "Don't Ask What a River is for."

The Chorus goes like this-

Come a rink-a-tink a-tink-tink bubbling on

Don't ask what a river is for

Come a rink-a-tink I think for a million years

Let's ask for a million more

On the Oregon-Idaho border

You can find a big trickling stream

They call her "Old Hell's Canyon"

But to me she's a heavenly dream

Chorus)

Oh, the farmers down about Lewiston

They say, "What a terrible waste

That water sure could grow good crops"

We say "Don't be in such haste"

(Chorus)

And the power boys over in Portland Town say

"We need electricity"

But you damned the Snake ten times already

Why don't you let the rest stay free?

(Chorus)

And the power boys over in Idaho say

"Oh, what a terrible waste"

We say "Take a trip to the Pentagon

If you like to do somethin' 'bout waste"

(Chorus)

So come along to the Idaho border

Be you black or brown or just tanned

Take a trip on the old white water

And be glad for a beautiful land

Come a rink-a-tink a-tink-tink bubbling on

Don't ask what a river is for
Come a rink-a-tink I think for a million years
Let's ask for a million more

What Governor Schweitzer is truly asking the citizens of Montana to do is to regress into the times of the Anaconda Copper Mine when we left our future to non-Montanans. Thanks, but no thanks governor.

Let's take the additional costs and look at them from the perspective of investments for the day when fossil fuels will seem as unneccesary to Montanans as subway fare.