Texas Wind Farm Funded by China, US Stimulus Package
Posted by Carol Sonenklar on November 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm
A worker builds wind turbines at a GE factory in Shenyang, China. (image: ge.com)
China has been investing in US clean energy projects and many are not happy about it. Last week it was the announcement that China-based ENN will be teaming up with Duke Energy to bid on contracts for utility-scale solar farms and large commercial solar projects in the US.
This week it’s China’s role in a large-scale wind power project in Texas, reports the New York Times. Many unhappy readers wrote to the newspaper after learning that China, along with a coalition of other investors, will be financing the project. The outrage is over the possibility that some of the monies might come from the $22 billion of the economic stimulus package marked for clean energy projects and, more importantly, new jobs.
Although the project will create a few hundred jobs in the US, many more—approximately 2,000—will be created in Shenyang, China, where the 240 new wind turbines will be manufactured by A-Power Energy Generation Systems. The 600-megawatt wind farm will be the largest Chinese investment in US renewable energy, and is expected to cost about $1.5 billion.
The angry letters prompted a politically expedient response from Cappy McGarr, a managing partner with U.S. Renewable Energy Group (US-REG), a partner in the Texas wind deal along with an Austin-based wind developer, Cielo Wind Power. McGarr emphasized that the wind farm will go far in helping the US attain energy independence. Without this international partnership, he said, the project would not have been possible, and the resulting jobs and revenue would not exist. He added that many of the parts for the turbines would be made by General Electric.
Reaction to the project has not been positive. Douglas McIntyre at Daily Finance called it “a sad day for the U.S. renewable energy business,” and said, “it’s a sign that the campaign for America to rely less on fossil fuels is gaining some traction, but the tools to allow it to happen will be marked ‘made in China.’”
The Wall Street Journal’s coverage was more neutral, pointing out that Chinese companies will be involved in the sort of higher-value services that white-collar America needs. Seeking Alpha wonders if one of the best places to work in the future may be at a US subsidiary of a Chinese company.
About 330 jobs will be created in Texas as a result of the project, according to the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory JEDI (Jobs and Economic Development Impact) analysis. About 734 indirect jobs will also be created.
Michael Kanellos at Greentech Media weighed in with a discussion about how the deal represents a significant shift from the past several years, when China wanted to remain anonymous about its investments. This, Kanellos maintains, is more proof that China wants to make a serious mark in green energy in the US.
But China has been making a mark in the renewable market in the US for some time; they were just much quieter about it. Russ Choma, a reporter with the Investigative Reporting Workshop, a nonprofit investigative journalism project attached to the American University School of Communication in Washington, told the New York Times that China has long dominated the solar panel manufacturing industry, of which 95 percent of its total output is exported to the United States and Europe.
Choma also noted that when it comes to stimulating the economy, it is the manufacturing that matters. He points to a 2004 study from the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a research institute based in Washington. The institute found that every 1,000 megawatts of installed wind capacity had the potential to generate as many as 4,300 jobs, of which about 3,000 are created at the manufacturing level.
But until that happens, we can expect to read more letters like this one that appeared in the Times.
“Thank you for killing the U.S. windmill industry,” wrote a reader from Chicago at the Times’ Green Inc. blog. “Thank-you, U.S. industrialists and financiers, for having us buy these things with financing and grants emanating from money borrowed from China.”
Friday, November 6, 2009
Question Period- H. Theriault M.L.A.
From Saveournurse blog:
Here is a transcript from Hansard taken from yesterday’s (Nov 4) question period
HEALTH – CARE: DIGBY AREA – SHORTAGES EXPLAIN
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday it was announced that the emergency department at Digby General Hospital will be closed every Monday and Wednesday in November because of a doctor shortage. Health care access in Digby has already been compromised as a result of the firing of a very capable nurse practitioner that we have to deal with. Now we have to deal with ER closures on top of this. My question to our Premier is, why isn’t this government providing accessible health care to the people of Digby, Digby Neck and Islands?
THE PREMIER: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I know that the situation that his constituents face is not the best circumstances that we could find in the province but this, as he knows, goes back a long way.
The department, the minister and departmental staff are doing what we can do in order to address the shortages that you point out. As I pointed out before, this is not the kind of thing that is going to be resolved in every community overnight. What you need to know, though, is that there is a plan, that the adviser is in place, that the departmental staff are aware of the challenges that are there. They are doing the appropriate consultations to try to make sure that we’re able to provide the services that your community needs.
MR. THERIAULT: Mr. Speaker, today in the Public Accounts Committee my colleague, the member for Halifax Clayton Park, questioned the Department of Health official about the Corpus Sanchez report, what was meant by a shared service model for the Annapolis and Digby ERs. The official reply was that the shared service model may allow one of the two ERs in the region to remain open full time.
It is possible that one of these ERs will be kept open at the expense of the other. My question to the Minister of Health is, will she accept the recommendation from the South West Nova District Health Authority that would see the ER at Digby General reduced to something less than the 24/7?
HON. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the member for the question. As the Premier indicated, we are very aware of the challenges that have existed in this area of the province for a considerable period of time.
We have encouraged, with the advice from the district health authorities, that they look at various ways, various models of providing services to meet the needs of the population but, Mr. Speaker, in no way are we going down the road to close emergency rooms in the Annapolis Valley or in the Digby area. Our objective is to provide good emergency room services in that honourable member’s community and in the surrounding communities.
MR. THERIAULT: Mr. Speaker, this government’s lack of action leads us to believe that it’s not concerned about the well-being of the people of Digby, Digby Neck and Islands. The Minister of Health should prove this isn’t the case by meeting with the people of this area and taking meaningful action to improve health care accessibility in that area.
My question to the Minister of Health is, will the minister commit to personally holding a public meeting in Digby this month to address the concerns regarding accessibility to health and the nurse practitioner who is being fired?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, last week I met with the warden for the area, and other concerned citizens from the area, who have been involved with a liaison committee between that community’s clinic and the district health authority. It is my intention to visit various parts of the province to meet with health care providers, to look at and learn more about the issues that I and my department are expected to be working on. That schedule will very much be dependent on the amount of time I have to put in with respect to dealing with the H1N1 pandemic situation, but I want to assure the honourable member that, in the not so distant future, I will be making a visit to his community and I’ll advise him of when I’m in the area.
Here is a transcript from Hansard taken from yesterday’s (Nov 4) question period
HEALTH – CARE: DIGBY AREA – SHORTAGES EXPLAIN
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday it was announced that the emergency department at Digby General Hospital will be closed every Monday and Wednesday in November because of a doctor shortage. Health care access in Digby has already been compromised as a result of the firing of a very capable nurse practitioner that we have to deal with. Now we have to deal with ER closures on top of this. My question to our Premier is, why isn’t this government providing accessible health care to the people of Digby, Digby Neck and Islands?
THE PREMIER: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I know that the situation that his constituents face is not the best circumstances that we could find in the province but this, as he knows, goes back a long way.
The department, the minister and departmental staff are doing what we can do in order to address the shortages that you point out. As I pointed out before, this is not the kind of thing that is going to be resolved in every community overnight. What you need to know, though, is that there is a plan, that the adviser is in place, that the departmental staff are aware of the challenges that are there. They are doing the appropriate consultations to try to make sure that we’re able to provide the services that your community needs.
MR. THERIAULT: Mr. Speaker, today in the Public Accounts Committee my colleague, the member for Halifax Clayton Park, questioned the Department of Health official about the Corpus Sanchez report, what was meant by a shared service model for the Annapolis and Digby ERs. The official reply was that the shared service model may allow one of the two ERs in the region to remain open full time.
It is possible that one of these ERs will be kept open at the expense of the other. My question to the Minister of Health is, will she accept the recommendation from the South West Nova District Health Authority that would see the ER at Digby General reduced to something less than the 24/7?
HON. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the member for the question. As the Premier indicated, we are very aware of the challenges that have existed in this area of the province for a considerable period of time.
We have encouraged, with the advice from the district health authorities, that they look at various ways, various models of providing services to meet the needs of the population but, Mr. Speaker, in no way are we going down the road to close emergency rooms in the Annapolis Valley or in the Digby area. Our objective is to provide good emergency room services in that honourable member’s community and in the surrounding communities.
MR. THERIAULT: Mr. Speaker, this government’s lack of action leads us to believe that it’s not concerned about the well-being of the people of Digby, Digby Neck and Islands. The Minister of Health should prove this isn’t the case by meeting with the people of this area and taking meaningful action to improve health care accessibility in that area.
My question to the Minister of Health is, will the minister commit to personally holding a public meeting in Digby this month to address the concerns regarding accessibility to health and the nurse practitioner who is being fired?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, last week I met with the warden for the area, and other concerned citizens from the area, who have been involved with a liaison committee between that community’s clinic and the district health authority. It is my intention to visit various parts of the province to meet with health care providers, to look at and learn more about the issues that I and my department are expected to be working on. That schedule will very much be dependent on the amount of time I have to put in with respect to dealing with the H1N1 pandemic situation, but I want to assure the honourable member that, in the not so distant future, I will be making a visit to his community and I’ll advise him of when I’m in the area.
Activism Elsewhere
From newmatilda.com
tasmanian politics
4 Nov 2009
Drumming Out A Failed Government
By Amy Tyler
Tags:tasmanian politics tasmania pulp mill gunns direct action democracy civil disobedience amy tyler Democracy has not been looking good in Tasmania, but a recent protest showed that the fight against the Gunns pulp mill might actually revitalise the state, writes Amy Tyler
People call Tasmania inward-looking. But having recently returned here to live I find the "clean, green island" is a microcosm of the political turmoil shaking our nation and world. As our federal MPs debate the pros and cons of an emissions trading scheme and world leaders meet to address climate change, the people — that is, us — continue to grapple with the everyday effects created when societies' deepening environmental values find increasing expression in the political sphere.
These values are transforming political, legal and social institutions in places all around the world. In Chile — not known for its high environmental standards — pulp mill executives can now be prosecuted and convicted for environmental crime, and in the UK, climate change activists have argued in the courts that their actions have been necessary to prevent a greater crime, thereby avoiding or reducing their punishment.
Tasmania often feels far away from these changes, yet on Sunday 4 October, I attended a rally in the small gold mining town of Beaconsfield where such values were very much in evidence. The protest was against the extraordinary support the ALP state Government is still providing for the Gunns Limited proposal to operate a bleached kraft pulp mill in northern Tasmania.
It was one of the more creative rallies on this issue. The protest had primarily been organised by a group known as TAP (Tap into a Better Future), who are described by member Sandra Murray as a group of grey-haired retirees supportive of sustainable development. For many of them, the personal involvement in environmental politics dates back to their participation in the Tasmanian Franklin Dam protests.
The way they had chosen to express their frustration at being continually ignored by their elected representatives was to "drum them out", bringing pots and pans from their homes to bang loudly, in a form of expression that has helped bring down failed governments in Argentina, Ecuador, Spain and Iceland. The protest had been organised to coincide with what is known as a "travelling Cabinet". This involves the Cabinet visiting different parts of the state, holding interviews with constituents. Ostensibly a form of community participation, the cabinet members are supposed to be in town to listen to concerns of constituents. Pointedly, however, the majority of the Cabinet members arrived through the back door and meetings were by appointment only. Those residents with appointments sedately wove their way between the protestors wielding pots and pans to meet their Premier.
There were some 500 people lining the street banging drums, whistling and chanting. Protestors had been told by TAP spokesperson Bob McMahon to "bring their rage".
For many of these residents, the struggle to participate effectively in the pulp mill assessment process has been going on since 24 February 2005, when Gunns Ltd announced that Long Reach, on the Tamar River (near George Town) was its preferred site for a pulp mill.
Over this time, Tasmanians have learned that the output of the mill would be in the range of 500,000 to 1,300,000 air-dried tonnes of pulp per annum. The external factors include, among others: 64,000 tonnes of effluent pumped into the Bass Straight and into the pathway of endangered migrating humpback whales, annual consumption of 4.5 million tonnes of native and plantation wood, 26 to 40 billion litres of fresh water annually, 287,244 extra log trucks on Tasmanian roads and a drifting rotten egg smell with the subsequent compounded health problems.
The considerable size and investment of the proposed mill took the proposal outside regular planning processes and required that the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) undertake an independent assessment of the project.
To many observers, at that stage it looked like the process was working. The RPDC has a statutory obligation to encourage public involvement. The former ALP Premier Paul Lennon said the independent assessment would provide the Tasmanian community "unfettered public and parliamentary scrutiny".
However in 2007, after many accusations of political interference, Gunns Ltd decided to pull out from the RPDC process. Their withdrawal came before the public release of the report written by the head of RPDC Simon Cooper who had written to the then premier advising that the pulp mill was "critically non-compliant".
Rather than demanding Gunns Ltd comply with due process, the Tasmanian state government passed the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill 2007 — one day after Gunns announced its withdrawal.
This is the part that has many Tasmanians really angry. With Gunns Ltd's withdrawal from formal RPDC process, its fast-tracking support through Parliament and the profound silence from the federal government, opposition to the mill might have been expected to collapse. But the behaviour of the government led to cries that democracy had failed and the voices of the Launceston community got louder.
In the time since, it has become clear to me that the failures of Tasmania's government have actually forced its democracy to gain strength.
Three months after the passing of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act, 10,000 people marched down Launceston streets. Anyone who has visited Launceston knows that for a protest to happen in our streets then it must be a pretty big issue. For it to be 10 per cent of the population means it's huge.
The problem for the Government, and for Gunns, is that this insistence by the people that their representatives respect due process and pay attention to their wishes is not going away. Sunday's protest in Beaconsfield confirmed for me that what is under threat is not our democracy but a government unable to cope with the demands of an environmentally complex democratic constituency.
One of the groups represented at the protest was a recently formed organisation called "Pulp The Mill". According to their spokesperson, Tamar Valley organic walnut farmer, Lucy Landon-Lane, this group arose from the need its members saw for people to undertake civil disobedience.
Pulp the Mill member David Godfrey-Smith explained that while he is "not a protestor ... this is the only option left for us to show our depth of feeling this issue". The 21 people who chose to be arrested along with Godfrey-Smith for breaking the exclusion zone stood silently as they awaited police, dressed in white and holding signs calling for a Royal Commission into the corruption surrounding the mill proposal.
One of the group's aims is to demonstrate to a historically cowed Tasmanian community that protests are not necessarily violent and being arrested does not make you a criminal. This type of protest is critical, as the grip of Gunns Ltd on the social, cultural and political fabric of Tasmania has meant, in Richard Flanagan's words, that to "question, to comment adversely, is to invite the possibility of ostracism and unemployment ... a subtle fear has entered Tasmanian public life; it stifles dissent, avoids truth".
In the short time that I've been back, I can already understand the importance of the group's objective in opening people's minds to the legitimacy of dissent. Handing out postcards in the Launceston mall, the reactions of the community are fascinating. Those who are not against the mill will say so in loud voices, with comments like: "I would sign that love ... but I'm all for it!" Those who do sign, will usually do it in a conspiring manner, with whispered confessions that they've never been arrested before, but on this one — well, they're ready.
Harder for environmentalists like myself, are comments like those made by a lady haggard with daily worries who said I ought to be "ashamed" to be anti-pulp mill when men like her husband are "struggling to find work". It is this sort of comment that makes you realise that while the pulp mill debate is apparently about jobs it is actually about vulnerabilities: often those who see a need for the mill are some of the most economically vulnerable in the local community.
Having to protest is not ideal — being arrested even less so. However, there is more to these protests than just stopping the pulp mill. Indeed, the sidelining of the RPDC and the subsequent limitations on the formal participation of ordinary people and community groups have forced Tasmanians to become more politically active and much savvier.
TAP member, Sandra Murray explains that the protests are testimony to the strengthening of a community that "does what it needs to do. It's not anarchy but the use of might". Moreover, after Gunns withdrew from the RPDC process, TAP membership grew, and now there are "those of us who truly don't want it to be there (and) those who have come on board because they want to ensure that we are a democracy".
These are the concerns that have caused people like scallop fisherman John Hammond to reassess environmental issues in democratic rather than conservationist terms. As he said, speaking at a rally held after the RPDC abandonment, "if being a 'greenie' is wanting clean air and clean water, then count me in".
The inability of the ALP Government to democratically acknowledge deepening environmental values has contributed to its fall in support. Meanwhile, protests like Beaconsfield's prove that the Government faces a choice over the pulp mill: respect legal avenues for democratic participation, or deal with protesters who will break the law rather than be silenced.
tasmanian politics
4 Nov 2009
Drumming Out A Failed Government
By Amy Tyler
Tags:tasmanian politics tasmania pulp mill gunns direct action democracy civil disobedience amy tyler Democracy has not been looking good in Tasmania, but a recent protest showed that the fight against the Gunns pulp mill might actually revitalise the state, writes Amy Tyler
People call Tasmania inward-looking. But having recently returned here to live I find the "clean, green island" is a microcosm of the political turmoil shaking our nation and world. As our federal MPs debate the pros and cons of an emissions trading scheme and world leaders meet to address climate change, the people — that is, us — continue to grapple with the everyday effects created when societies' deepening environmental values find increasing expression in the political sphere.
These values are transforming political, legal and social institutions in places all around the world. In Chile — not known for its high environmental standards — pulp mill executives can now be prosecuted and convicted for environmental crime, and in the UK, climate change activists have argued in the courts that their actions have been necessary to prevent a greater crime, thereby avoiding or reducing their punishment.
Tasmania often feels far away from these changes, yet on Sunday 4 October, I attended a rally in the small gold mining town of Beaconsfield where such values were very much in evidence. The protest was against the extraordinary support the ALP state Government is still providing for the Gunns Limited proposal to operate a bleached kraft pulp mill in northern Tasmania.
It was one of the more creative rallies on this issue. The protest had primarily been organised by a group known as TAP (Tap into a Better Future), who are described by member Sandra Murray as a group of grey-haired retirees supportive of sustainable development. For many of them, the personal involvement in environmental politics dates back to their participation in the Tasmanian Franklin Dam protests.
The way they had chosen to express their frustration at being continually ignored by their elected representatives was to "drum them out", bringing pots and pans from their homes to bang loudly, in a form of expression that has helped bring down failed governments in Argentina, Ecuador, Spain and Iceland. The protest had been organised to coincide with what is known as a "travelling Cabinet". This involves the Cabinet visiting different parts of the state, holding interviews with constituents. Ostensibly a form of community participation, the cabinet members are supposed to be in town to listen to concerns of constituents. Pointedly, however, the majority of the Cabinet members arrived through the back door and meetings were by appointment only. Those residents with appointments sedately wove their way between the protestors wielding pots and pans to meet their Premier.
There were some 500 people lining the street banging drums, whistling and chanting. Protestors had been told by TAP spokesperson Bob McMahon to "bring their rage".
For many of these residents, the struggle to participate effectively in the pulp mill assessment process has been going on since 24 February 2005, when Gunns Ltd announced that Long Reach, on the Tamar River (near George Town) was its preferred site for a pulp mill.
Over this time, Tasmanians have learned that the output of the mill would be in the range of 500,000 to 1,300,000 air-dried tonnes of pulp per annum. The external factors include, among others: 64,000 tonnes of effluent pumped into the Bass Straight and into the pathway of endangered migrating humpback whales, annual consumption of 4.5 million tonnes of native and plantation wood, 26 to 40 billion litres of fresh water annually, 287,244 extra log trucks on Tasmanian roads and a drifting rotten egg smell with the subsequent compounded health problems.
The considerable size and investment of the proposed mill took the proposal outside regular planning processes and required that the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) undertake an independent assessment of the project.
To many observers, at that stage it looked like the process was working. The RPDC has a statutory obligation to encourage public involvement. The former ALP Premier Paul Lennon said the independent assessment would provide the Tasmanian community "unfettered public and parliamentary scrutiny".
However in 2007, after many accusations of political interference, Gunns Ltd decided to pull out from the RPDC process. Their withdrawal came before the public release of the report written by the head of RPDC Simon Cooper who had written to the then premier advising that the pulp mill was "critically non-compliant".
Rather than demanding Gunns Ltd comply with due process, the Tasmanian state government passed the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill 2007 — one day after Gunns announced its withdrawal.
This is the part that has many Tasmanians really angry. With Gunns Ltd's withdrawal from formal RPDC process, its fast-tracking support through Parliament and the profound silence from the federal government, opposition to the mill might have been expected to collapse. But the behaviour of the government led to cries that democracy had failed and the voices of the Launceston community got louder.
In the time since, it has become clear to me that the failures of Tasmania's government have actually forced its democracy to gain strength.
Three months after the passing of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act, 10,000 people marched down Launceston streets. Anyone who has visited Launceston knows that for a protest to happen in our streets then it must be a pretty big issue. For it to be 10 per cent of the population means it's huge.
The problem for the Government, and for Gunns, is that this insistence by the people that their representatives respect due process and pay attention to their wishes is not going away. Sunday's protest in Beaconsfield confirmed for me that what is under threat is not our democracy but a government unable to cope with the demands of an environmentally complex democratic constituency.
One of the groups represented at the protest was a recently formed organisation called "Pulp The Mill". According to their spokesperson, Tamar Valley organic walnut farmer, Lucy Landon-Lane, this group arose from the need its members saw for people to undertake civil disobedience.
Pulp the Mill member David Godfrey-Smith explained that while he is "not a protestor ... this is the only option left for us to show our depth of feeling this issue". The 21 people who chose to be arrested along with Godfrey-Smith for breaking the exclusion zone stood silently as they awaited police, dressed in white and holding signs calling for a Royal Commission into the corruption surrounding the mill proposal.
One of the group's aims is to demonstrate to a historically cowed Tasmanian community that protests are not necessarily violent and being arrested does not make you a criminal. This type of protest is critical, as the grip of Gunns Ltd on the social, cultural and political fabric of Tasmania has meant, in Richard Flanagan's words, that to "question, to comment adversely, is to invite the possibility of ostracism and unemployment ... a subtle fear has entered Tasmanian public life; it stifles dissent, avoids truth".
In the short time that I've been back, I can already understand the importance of the group's objective in opening people's minds to the legitimacy of dissent. Handing out postcards in the Launceston mall, the reactions of the community are fascinating. Those who are not against the mill will say so in loud voices, with comments like: "I would sign that love ... but I'm all for it!" Those who do sign, will usually do it in a conspiring manner, with whispered confessions that they've never been arrested before, but on this one — well, they're ready.
Harder for environmentalists like myself, are comments like those made by a lady haggard with daily worries who said I ought to be "ashamed" to be anti-pulp mill when men like her husband are "struggling to find work". It is this sort of comment that makes you realise that while the pulp mill debate is apparently about jobs it is actually about vulnerabilities: often those who see a need for the mill are some of the most economically vulnerable in the local community.
Having to protest is not ideal — being arrested even less so. However, there is more to these protests than just stopping the pulp mill. Indeed, the sidelining of the RPDC and the subsequent limitations on the formal participation of ordinary people and community groups have forced Tasmanians to become more politically active and much savvier.
TAP member, Sandra Murray explains that the protests are testimony to the strengthening of a community that "does what it needs to do. It's not anarchy but the use of might". Moreover, after Gunns withdrew from the RPDC process, TAP membership grew, and now there are "those of us who truly don't want it to be there (and) those who have come on board because they want to ensure that we are a democracy".
These are the concerns that have caused people like scallop fisherman John Hammond to reassess environmental issues in democratic rather than conservationist terms. As he said, speaking at a rally held after the RPDC abandonment, "if being a 'greenie' is wanting clean air and clean water, then count me in".
The inability of the ALP Government to democratically acknowledge deepening environmental values has contributed to its fall in support. Meanwhile, protests like Beaconsfield's prove that the Government faces a choice over the pulp mill: respect legal avenues for democratic participation, or deal with protesters who will break the law rather than be silenced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
