During the past month or so, the campaign of Senator John McCain has placed ads that have appeared in the top and bottom advertising bars on this blog.  I don’t have a problem with that.  But I do want to explain my position on the race vis-a-vis this blog.

First, this blog is a completely unpaid gig for me.  I do it because I love it.  And I decided to place the blog within the Monroe Evening News family of blogs because the Evening News is a venerable local institution that deserves its tremendous reputation in the community.  The fact that my blog is within the Evening News environment means that more people read it and hopefully take a more active interest in our local environment and hiking spots.

Now I presume that the Evening News makes some money from advertising on the blog.  And I have zero problem with that.  I have received a small amount of technical assistance from Evening News staff.  And I can’t imagine that the money generated from all of the blogs is anything more than a very minor amount.  I have gotten “paid” by the blog in the sense that it has allowed me to start some paying gigs as a free-lance writer for some local publications.  And it has paid me in allowing me “inside the door” when covering certain environment-related local events.

Of course, the money that the Evening News makes from the blog comes from advertisers.  And some of these advertisers are political candidates.  John McCain’s campaign has been foremost among these political advertisers.

So, I am in a bit of curious position.  The blog covers a topic that is inherently political.  Parks don’t just happen.  And our region’s environment will never be greatly improved without monetary and organizational efforts from local, state and federal governments.  And some politicians are better than others in supporting environmental causes.

John McCain is generally on the more environmentally-friendly side of the Republican Party.  He has taken positions supportive of efforts intended to fight global warming.  Still, the Republicans have basically made war on environmental protection during President Bush’s eight years.  On the whole, I would classify McCain as slightly hostile to the environment, given his membership in the Republican Party.

I am by temperament a center-left Democrat.  But I believe strongly that environmental and outdoors issues are issues that both Democrats and Republicans can and must come together on.  So, I have tried to make the blog somewhat aloof from the usual internet political harangues.  I have considered endorsing a candidate on this page.  But I have not done so.  At least not yet.

And I want my readers to be aware that the McCain ads on this page are NOT an indication of my views nor an official endorsement from this blog.

Michigan’s bottle deposit bill has been a blessing and a curse.  The bill does help to keep Michigan’s roadways cleaner than those found in other states.  More than 90% of Michigan’s returnables are recycled.  And the law is kind of like Canada and its national health care system.  It is something that makes Michigan the state that it is.  Who didn’t watch Seinfeld with pride when he tried to scam the state’s bottle deposit law.

But the law has also made Michigan more lax in terms of curbside recycling.  Our state tends to lag behind others in total recycling efforts.  Michiganders seem to think that the bottle deposit bill exempts us from other reasonable efforts.

And the law only covers carbonated beverages.  The Lansing State Journal has a pessimistic update on efforts in the Michigan legislature to expand the bottle bill to water, sport drinks and tea:

Dennis Schornack, executive director of the Michigan Recreation and Park Association, said passing the law isn’t the issue - retailers are.

“If the Legislature would put this up for a vote, we would bet that it would pass,” Schornack said.

But, he said, retailers aren’t in favor of expanding the bill because it would add costs. They include providing an automated return machine - which can cost upwards of $10,000.

“I doubt that will happen in the Legislature. I don’t think there is support for it, at least in the Senate,” Valde Garcia, R-Howell, said. “There are health issues that store owners are concerned about. All kinds of germs collect in those bottles.”

Fred Savage, one of the owners of Goodrich’s Shop-Rite, 940 Trowbridge Road, said his store would suffer if the current law is expanded.

“We’re just a little old-time grocery store that doesn’t have much room to expand. Something would have to give,” Savage said.

Mary Dechow, chairperson of the Michigan Recycling Partnership, said the proposal is the wrong approach in going green.

She is touting an alternative solution - the “Penny Plan.” The plan will place a penny fee onto every retail transaction more than $2, with the exception of fuel and prescription drugs, utilities and vending machine sales.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080807/NEWS04/808070336/1005/NEWS04

The 800-pound gorilla in the room within our region is the unnecessary division of government between cities, townships, counties and other localized municipalities.  It might be fun to watch L. Brooks Patterson moralize about Kwame Kilpatrick on TV, but it is disastrous for the region long-term.

In terms of hiking and greenspace, the division results in incredibly obvious park-planning shortcomings.  Bikers who start in Adrian have a great eight-mile route to the NE almost to Tecumseh.  Then they hit Raisin Township and the trail ends abruptly less than a mile from a fine urban trail system in Tecumseh.  The township is simply unwilling or unable to pave a half mile of trail.

In NE Monroe County, a visitor to the Pointe Mouillee State Game Area has more than 20 miles of trail to hike.  Just to the north, visitors to Lake Erie Metropark can walk for another 20 miles on the Huron River Trail and Downriver Linked Greenways system.  But do the trail systems connect?  No.  I’ve stood at the property line between the two areas of greenspace and wondered at the fence that separates the two.  Why aren’t these public areas connected?  The reason, of course, is the lack of a comprehensive regional plan.

The Detroit Free Press has a story about this issue.  I recommend a read:

Most of America lives in large metropolitan areas with economies the size of nations. Yet governments — local, state and national — behave as if it’s the wild, wild West, a land of isolation, unconnected settlements and battles over resources.

Those days are gone. The United States is no longer a nation of farms or singular cities and suburbs, but one of interconnected metropolitan regions that cross city, county and even state lines. Local governments must become more regional in how they deliver services, tax residents, and plan investments and developments.

Government at all levels needs to push smart policies that sustain regional economies and encourage local officials to think, plan and act beyond their borders. The next president — working with governments, mayors and other regional leaders — should develop a policy for metro areas that includes incentives to encourage shared services and even government mergers.

Covering only 12% of the land, the nation’s 100 largest metro areas produce two-thirds of the jobs and three-quarters of the economic output, reports the Brookings Institution’s MetroPolicy study. These metros, ranging in population from 500,000 in Lansing to 19 million in New York City, are home to two-thirds of Americans. They harbor the roads, railways, shipyards and airports that connect the nation’s metropolitan economies to each other and to the world.

Still, our political boundaries — and our political thinking — are more suited to the America of covered wagons and small farms. In Michigan and other Midwest states, for example, pint-sized township governments, developing out of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, now provide unnecessary layers of government that impede efforts at regional cooperation.

Read the full article here:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/OPINION01/808100360/1069

It is, of course, an election year.  And no other Congressional race in Michigan is likely to be as competitive as the 7th Congressional District.  The 7th is a traditionally Republican district that includes Grand Ledge, Battle Creek, western sections of the Ann Arbor metropolitan area and Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties.  The district has been hit extremely hard by the recession.  And the incumbent, Republican Tim Walberg, won against a poorly-funded organic farmer by only 4% in 2006.

Democrats have done a good job of using wedge issues in the district in the past.  Doug Spade, the state senator from Lenawee County ran his reelection campaign in 2006 based largely on the issue of Canadian trash exports to Michigan.

Mark Schauer seems to have found his own wedge issue in the form of royalties paid by oil and gas companies to drill on state land.  Michigan currently receives one-sixth of the gross proceeds from mineral extraction.  Schauer hopes to increase that to one-half via a bill in the Michigan state legislature.  He also wants to shorten the life of leases on which no drilling activity takes place.

One potentially controversial aspect of the Schauer proposal is the idea that the new state revenue will be used to fund renewable energy projects.

Why is this controversial?  Well, Michigan voters passed a constitutional amendment several years ago that dedicated all state revenue from mineral extraction on state land to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.  This has been a stable source of revenue for local park and land preservation projects in communities across the state.  Diversion of these funds to green energy projects could be an attack on this VERY IMPORTANT source of local park revenue.

Of course, this is probably just an example of election-year politics.  How would Schauer get this proposal passed by a Republican-controlled state senate?  How would Schauer get around the constitutional amendment?  These are quite high walls to climb.  But for Schauer, the issue gives him another way to drive a wedge through support for Walberg at a time when the incumbent congressman supports offshore drilling and construction of a nuclear power plant in his home district.

Here are excerpts from an Associated Press story on this subject:

Schauer doesn’t expect oil and gas companies to like the plan, some of which is still being written. The increase in royalty fees would apply only to new leases, he said, and give taxpayers a “fair share” of the value of public land.

Michigan collected $64 million in oil and gas royalties in the last budget year.

Companies sign five-year leases, and the state has the option of doing two one-year extensions. Schauer said he’s concerned about wells where oil has been found but isn’t being pumped. He’d like companies to have a “fairly narrow window” to act or see their leases expire.

Nationally, oil officials have pointed out that many leased lands are still being explored and may not contain oil and natural gas.

Companies can spend several years after they negotiate a lease securing the permits and other approvals it needs to begin actual production. Or companies can determine that developing a particular tract doesn’t make economic sense.

In many ways, the state legislation is an extension of the national debate surrounding high gasoline prices and soaring energy prices.

Republicans in Congress are angry that Democrats blocked them from a vote on allowing more offshore oil drilling and increasing domestic oil supplies.

Democrats have faulted Republicans for obstructing their efforts to, among other things, press oil companies to develop the leases they have on 68 million acres of federal lands and offshore waters. Schauer is running for Congress against Republican incumbent Tim Walberg of Tipton, who wants to lift the offshore drilling moratorium.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/METRO/808100344/1409/METRO

Does the man stand for anything?

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.  –  Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that’s what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7119350&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1

I am - probably - going to vote for Barack Obama this Fall, but I am completely disenchanted by the almost complete disregard that Obama’s core supporters seem to have regarding Michigan and its most important industry.  We are all hoping and praying that the Big Three find some sort of soft landing.  We have only seen the start of our suffering if either GM or Ford go down.

So, the following thread at dailykos is particularly dispiriting.  This paragraph from kos’s thread intro. is particularly revealing:

For years, Democrats outside of Michigan tried to coax Detroit into making more fuel efficient vehicles. The automakers, the autoworker unions, Republicans, and Michigan Democrats all fought those efforts tooth and nail. Successfully.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/1/115613/5287/729/560665

Kos goes on to predict the demise of the domestic auto industry and basically blames everyone in Michigan for the fall.  So, here are my questions: Do Obama’s supporters actually care about Michigan’s working and middle class families?  Why is Barack Obama so anti-union?  Will Obama do anything to help save a much smaller, but still incredibly important domestic auto industry?  Why do Obama supporters slam down so hard on people who they will need votes from in November?  Do they actually want to win Michigan?  Do they really think that Obama can be president without Michigan AND Ohio?

Obama is almost a complete mystery to me.

The Christian Science Monitor has a recommended review of national park acquisition policy under the current Bush administration.  The budget for purchases of private inholdings within national park boundaries is one-third less than it was prior to Bush’s election to the presidency.  Excerpts and link:

Threats to wildlife, open space, and cultural treasures – not to mention the prospect of a hotel popping up to despoil a natural vista – exist on up to 1.8 million acres of privately held parcels that the National Park Service would like to buy but cannot, according to a recent study by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), a nonprofit advocacy group.

That huge backlog, which includes private land awaiting purchase inside parks (called “inholdings”) as well as neighboring parcels, is partly due to the glacial rate at which they’re being acquired. That reflects a lack of funds for land purchases – and a shift in priorities, observers say. Despite their potential historical value and proximity to parks, these inholdings and adjacent land are often unregulated and, many fear, vulnerable to development.

Park Service land-acquisition budgets were cut from $147 million in 1999 to just $44 million this year, a 70 percent drop. Most parks have had little funding for land acquisition for years. Yet there’s a limit to how long even public-spirited land-owners like Fitzgerald are willing to wait.

“Time is a real factor here,” says Greg Caffey, chief ranger at Petrified Forest National Park, gesturing over the park fence to a large excavator that has been digging up petrified wood on private land next to the park. “If we go another 10 or 15 years,” he says, “a lot of the scientific value of the land around us – including Mike Fitzgerald’s land – will be lost.”

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/07/29/why-us-parks-put-land-purchases-on-hold/

The Great Lakes Legacy Act, a source of federal funding that has helped to clean up Trenton’s Black Lagoon and other shoreline areas, has been passed by committees in both the U.S. House and Senate with levels of funding tripled from past years.  Detroit News excerpt and link:

WASHINGTON — Key Senate and House committees voted Thursday to reauthorize a federal program to clean up toxic sediments in rivers and harbors feeding into the Great Lakes, and triple its appropriations to $150 million annually.

“The Great Lakes are plagued by toxic contaminations in the tributaries flowing into the Great Lakes,” said Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, the original author of the cleanup program. “And if we do not remove those toxic contaminates from the river sediments, they will eventually find their way into the lakes, and it will be impossible to clean it up.”

The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2008 reauthorizes the cleanup program for five years and increases the authorization of funds from $54 million to $150 million per year.

More here…

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/POLITICS/808010348/1409/METRO

The archived broadcast of Wednesday’s U.S. Senate testimony in support of the proposed River Raisin Battlefield National Park is available at the link below.  The text of William Braunlich’s testimony is also available at this site:

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=326e7534-974b-95f1-3dc0-fcc5a32223c1

The Detroit News has an overview of Michigan’s largely pessimistic voting population as the Fall election looms.  Among the interesting results are majorities that support offshore drilling and nuclear power.  Excerpts and link:

Seven in 10 voters said soaring fuel costs — at $4.09 a gallon for regular this week — are having a significant or major impact on their lives and are swaying two-thirds of residents to back offshore drilling in Florida, California and other states with ocean shorelines.

Nearly half said they’d even favor drilling for oil and gas along the Great Lakes.

Also, 60 percent of poll respondents support additional nuclear plants to provide electricity. The U.S. hasn’t licensed a new nuclear power plant in three decades.

John Sally, a 53-year-old Internal Revenue Service agent from Wyandotte, agrees that the nation has to think nuclear.

“Nuclear power is comparatively safe and should be considered as an alternative. It’s nice to say let’s stick with coal, but look at the hazards associated with coal,” said Sally, whose father, uncle and grandfather died of black lung disease after working in the coal mines in Pennsylvania.

Just under 60 percent of Michiganians in The News/WXYZ survey said they are driving less; 11 percent are altering vacation plans; 10 percent are cutting back on extras such as entertainment and dining out and 3 percent are taking the bus, carpooling or using other mass transit. Another 4 percent said they’re actually scaling back on necessities.

More…

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/POLITICS01/807230381