Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Post reactions and questions here
Thank you for visiting VoteSmart, the election 2006 Web site created by the students of CJ 321: Public Affairs Reporting at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
- Please feel free to comment here on any of the stories posted on this site.
- Moreover, let the CJ 321 students do your election information digging. Post a question here about any of the candidates or issues in the Nov. 7 election, and ASAP, the Public Affairs Reporting students will answer it here, by themselves if possible -- or they will get the answer from the appropriate candidate or campaign manager.
-- Mike Dorsher, Ph.D., instructor for CJ 321: Public Affairs Reporting
http://www.uwec.edu/mdorsher/VoteSmart
# posted by Public Affairs Reporting instructor @ 11:33 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
As a professor who strongly encourages students to learn about the important issues and candidates on the Nov. 7 ballot, I greatly appreciate this effort.
Hearing student voices and reading student analyses of candidates makes a huge difference to peers looking for information on the upcoming election.
I would like to hear candidates positions on risks and benefits of coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin. Specifically, XCEL is considering building a plant in Tyrone (more information at http://tyronecoal.com/featured.php).
What do candidates think about such a proposal, and about sustainable energy in Wisconsin?
Hearing student voices and reading student analyses of candidates makes a huge difference to peers looking for information on the upcoming election.
I would like to hear candidates positions on risks and benefits of coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin. Specifically, XCEL is considering building a plant in Tyrone (more information at http://tyronecoal.com/featured.php).
What do candidates think about such a proposal, and about sustainable energy in Wisconsin?
I just finished listening to a few of the audios, after someone in the class recommended checking it out. Since I am a Milwaukee resident, not all of it applied to what I will be voting for, however issues such as the Civil Union/Gay marriage ban and even the death penalty ban are applicable to the vote I will be making this coming tuesday.
As a fellow student, I think it is important to get involved in real issues and concerns even as aspiring professionals. Nice job!
I look forward to checking up on you guys in the future.
As a fellow student, I think it is important to get involved in real issues and concerns even as aspiring professionals. Nice job!
I look forward to checking up on you guys in the future.
Hey, thanks for checking us out from Milwaukee, "nova"! Several of our Public Affairs Reporting students are from the Milwaukee area -- and we are trying to recruit multicultural high school students from Milwaukee to our first "Journalism & Beyond Camp" this summer at UW-Eau Claire. If you know of any, please refer them to http://www.uwec.edu/cj/JBCamp.htm
-- Mike Dorsher, Ph.D., Public Affairs Reporting instructor
-- Mike Dorsher, Ph.D., Public Affairs Reporting instructor
I talked to Paul R. Nelson last night about your question and while he wasn't aware of the plant being talked about in Tyrone he did have lots to say about sustainable energy and his plan.
Here is what I gathered from him:
He talked about Energy -- solar energy -- wind power energy and hydro electric power.. “All good things,” he said. “They deal with wind, sun and water” .
He said the most efficient is hydro electric.. Wind is a good idea ... places in Wisconsin that have wind like Fenimore and Grant County, off US Highway 18 ..
“Been by it several times,” he said. “They make power with the open plain where the wind blows a lot. If the wind doesn’t blow, you don’t have power, so it’s undependable.”
He said this could then have a natural gas back up, they won’t to beat able to heat. He also said there are environmental concerns with the wind power energy with birds..
“These are hard on birds, piles of them underneath (the wind propellers)..
He said he doesn’t like them because they are hard on migrating birds because they fly through the propellers.
He said solar is a good idea and would move forward with. He said it takes a long time to pay everything back as far as cost for the solar panels.
Solar.. Good idea .. Move forward with.. Long and long time to pay them back.. Have to look at payback..
With hydroelectric, he said the pay back is the best. With the case of Tyrone, if there were environmental studies done with no long term damage, he would support possible ways to create energy. “Running water through hydroelectric doesn’t pollute,” he said, “these are things we should be moving forward with.”
He then said, “With all that being said, the cleanest, most efficient is nuclear power. Nuclear is the long term generating power.”
He said the issue with solar energy is the cost of the solar panel and by the time it is paid for, there are maintenance issues to pay for as well. He said “at the end of the day, only way to have reasonable payback (for the Solar Panels) is by the government.”
“I would support the plant .. provided no adverse affects. But nuclear is the long range goal,” Nelson said.
-- Andy Weise, CJ 321 Public Affairs Reporting student
Here is what I gathered from him:
He talked about Energy -- solar energy -- wind power energy and hydro electric power.. “All good things,” he said. “They deal with wind, sun and water” .
He said the most efficient is hydro electric.. Wind is a good idea ... places in Wisconsin that have wind like Fenimore and Grant County, off US Highway 18 ..
“Been by it several times,” he said. “They make power with the open plain where the wind blows a lot. If the wind doesn’t blow, you don’t have power, so it’s undependable.”
He said this could then have a natural gas back up, they won’t to beat able to heat. He also said there are environmental concerns with the wind power energy with birds..
“These are hard on birds, piles of them underneath (the wind propellers)..
He said he doesn’t like them because they are hard on migrating birds because they fly through the propellers.
He said solar is a good idea and would move forward with. He said it takes a long time to pay everything back as far as cost for the solar panels.
Solar.. Good idea .. Move forward with.. Long and long time to pay them back.. Have to look at payback..
With hydroelectric, he said the pay back is the best. With the case of Tyrone, if there were environmental studies done with no long term damage, he would support possible ways to create energy. “Running water through hydroelectric doesn’t pollute,” he said, “these are things we should be moving forward with.”
He then said, “With all that being said, the cleanest, most efficient is nuclear power. Nuclear is the long term generating power.”
He said the issue with solar energy is the cost of the solar panel and by the time it is paid for, there are maintenance issues to pay for as well. He said “at the end of the day, only way to have reasonable payback (for the Solar Panels) is by the government.”
“I would support the plant .. provided no adverse affects. But nuclear is the long range goal,” Nelson said.
-- Andy Weise, CJ 321 Public Affairs Reporting student
Thanks, Andy, for your follow-up to my question about energy sustainability to be posed to candidates. I appreciated Mr. Nelson's thoughts on the issue.
I've read that bird deaths from wind turbines have been reduced significantly, and that these deaths are only a small fraction of the number of birds killed by all human activities (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/earthwise/sum04-earthwise-wind-turbines-and-birds.html).
I would have also liked to hear Mr. Brown's comments on the risks and challenges of storing radioactive wastes generated from nuclear plants.
I've read that bird deaths from wind turbines have been reduced significantly, and that these deaths are only a small fraction of the number of birds killed by all human activities (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/earthwise/sum04-earthwise-wind-turbines-and-birds.html).
I would have also liked to hear Mr. Brown's comments on the risks and challenges of storing radioactive wastes generated from nuclear plants.
I was unable to contact Ron Kind or any of his spokespersons for an interview. However, I have done some research on his energy views and some bills he has introduced in Congress. In his New Apollo Energy Act of 2006, he said he wanted to cap carbon dioxide emission at the 2000 levels and invest billions of dollars into research for clean-coal technologies
Kind, according to his campaign Web site, is very interested in promoting biofuels. He also spoke about the importance of biofuels to students on the UW-Eau Claire campus recently. A passage on the Web site talks about the capabilities of biofuels and biomass. It says biomass is used as a supplementary energy source in some coal-fired plants, which can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I am sorry I was unable to contact him or his campaign in person. I don’t have a response from Kind on a possible plant in Tyrone specifically.
-Nick Halter
Kind, according to his campaign Web site, is very interested in promoting biofuels. He also spoke about the importance of biofuels to students on the UW-Eau Claire campus recently. A passage on the Web site talks about the capabilities of biofuels and biomass. It says biomass is used as a supplementary energy source in some coal-fired plants, which can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I am sorry I was unable to contact him or his campaign in person. I don’t have a response from Kind on a possible plant in Tyrone specifically.
-Nick Halter
I just received this email from the Ron Kind campaign:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the environment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As a resident of western Wisconsin, I have always enjoyed spending time outdoors, and I continue to do so with my family through activities such as hunting, fishing, and camping. Protecting our natural resources is vital to human health, wildlife viability, sustainable agriculture, and a stable economy.
Specifically, you mentioned H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006. This bill is intended to open up federal waters off the U.S. coast to oil and gas exploration and drilling to increase domestic gas and oil production from areas offshore. There is currently a federal moratorium on oil and gas development in most federal waters that Congress has renewed each year for the past 25 years. There are exceptions, however, for portions of the Gulf of Mexico.
This bill removes the federal moratorium on drilling for 100 to 200 miles offshore, and states can ban or allow drilling from 0 to 100 miles offshore. This bill also gives coastal states 50 percent of the royalties from offshore development and many view this as a huge incentive for coastal states to allow drilling within 100 miles of the coast.
In addition, H.R. 4761 also creates a new class of "gas only" offshore leases (as opposed to an oil lease) and in my view natural gas is a clean fuel source to be utilized by the American industry and a much better alternative to the low-grade coal currently burned in the upper Midwest. Many industries rely on natural gas for energy, and this bill has the potential to increase the domestic supply of gas, thereby reducing gas prices to a level that is competitive with prices available overseas. Affordable natural gas allows industries to remain in the United States and provides needed jobs for American workers. I voted in support of this measure along with 40 of my Democratic colleagues. In addition, I also voted in support of an amendment offered by Representative Inslee that would increase the amount made available for renewable ocean energy generation from $6 million to $20 million. I am pleased to report, the House passed this amendment.
A further benefit of the bill is the creation of the Geo Fund. The Geo Fund collects revenue from offshore and onshore mineral leasing receipts. These funds will provide money for monitoring and managing fish and wildlife habitat for both offshore and onshore lands in mineral development. They also may be used for workforce training and conducting environmental reviews of offshore and onshore mineral leases.
On June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4761 and it has since been received by the Senate for consideration. While this bill is far from perfect, the Senate is negotiating an improved version of the bill that would save money for the federal treasury and open up fewer offshore areas.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to be in touch with additional comments or concerns. I also encourage you to visit my Web site, www.house.gov/kind, where you can find updated information, sign up to receive my electronic newsletter, and send me e-mail.
According to a report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, by the year 2020, only 4 percent of power plants will have installed mercury reducing equipment under CAIR. On top of this, the EPA has consistently allowed for exceptions to their own rules and allowed high sulfur diesel to be used in buses and trucks.
While I believe there is an opportunity to alter the Clean Air Act to benefit both industry, by providing long-term stable legal climate for companies to perform expensive plant modifications without fear of being sued, and the environment, by significantly reducing overall pollution from stationary sources, I do not believe the new rules proposed by the Bush Administration are the answer. The new rules may actually hinder the ability of the government to stop those companies that have repeatedly violated clean air laws and not yield the air quality benefits that are intended by the law.
Living and working with the people of western Wisconsin, I have a special understanding of the benefits reaped from a rich environmental heritage, and I have consistently supported legislation to further that legacy. I believe that careful vigilance over polluting industries is essential in order to secure a legacy for our wild places and enrich the nation's quality of life for generations to come. As a member of the House Committee on Resources, which shares jurisdiction over national energy policy, I will continue to work to foster conservation of fossil fuels, promote efficiency in motor vehicles and power plants, and expand the use of alternative and renewable energy sources.
Coal burning power plants, in particular, are still in need of effective pollution reduction. Recent moves by the Administration to implement the Clear Skies legislation have stalled in Congress because the legislation would roll back many of the effective pollution control provisions of the Clean Air Act
Cody Lundquist
District Scheduler
U.S. Congressman Ron Kind (3rd CD WI)
--Nick Halter
CJ 321
Thank you for contacting me regarding the environment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As a resident of western Wisconsin, I have always enjoyed spending time outdoors, and I continue to do so with my family through activities such as hunting, fishing, and camping. Protecting our natural resources is vital to human health, wildlife viability, sustainable agriculture, and a stable economy.
Specifically, you mentioned H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006. This bill is intended to open up federal waters off the U.S. coast to oil and gas exploration and drilling to increase domestic gas and oil production from areas offshore. There is currently a federal moratorium on oil and gas development in most federal waters that Congress has renewed each year for the past 25 years. There are exceptions, however, for portions of the Gulf of Mexico.
This bill removes the federal moratorium on drilling for 100 to 200 miles offshore, and states can ban or allow drilling from 0 to 100 miles offshore. This bill also gives coastal states 50 percent of the royalties from offshore development and many view this as a huge incentive for coastal states to allow drilling within 100 miles of the coast.
In addition, H.R. 4761 also creates a new class of "gas only" offshore leases (as opposed to an oil lease) and in my view natural gas is a clean fuel source to be utilized by the American industry and a much better alternative to the low-grade coal currently burned in the upper Midwest. Many industries rely on natural gas for energy, and this bill has the potential to increase the domestic supply of gas, thereby reducing gas prices to a level that is competitive with prices available overseas. Affordable natural gas allows industries to remain in the United States and provides needed jobs for American workers. I voted in support of this measure along with 40 of my Democratic colleagues. In addition, I also voted in support of an amendment offered by Representative Inslee that would increase the amount made available for renewable ocean energy generation from $6 million to $20 million. I am pleased to report, the House passed this amendment.
A further benefit of the bill is the creation of the Geo Fund. The Geo Fund collects revenue from offshore and onshore mineral leasing receipts. These funds will provide money for monitoring and managing fish and wildlife habitat for both offshore and onshore lands in mineral development. They also may be used for workforce training and conducting environmental reviews of offshore and onshore mineral leases.
On June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4761 and it has since been received by the Senate for consideration. While this bill is far from perfect, the Senate is negotiating an improved version of the bill that would save money for the federal treasury and open up fewer offshore areas.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to be in touch with additional comments or concerns. I also encourage you to visit my Web site, www.house.gov/kind, where you can find updated information, sign up to receive my electronic newsletter, and send me e-mail.
According to a report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, by the year 2020, only 4 percent of power plants will have installed mercury reducing equipment under CAIR. On top of this, the EPA has consistently allowed for exceptions to their own rules and allowed high sulfur diesel to be used in buses and trucks.
While I believe there is an opportunity to alter the Clean Air Act to benefit both industry, by providing long-term stable legal climate for companies to perform expensive plant modifications without fear of being sued, and the environment, by significantly reducing overall pollution from stationary sources, I do not believe the new rules proposed by the Bush Administration are the answer. The new rules may actually hinder the ability of the government to stop those companies that have repeatedly violated clean air laws and not yield the air quality benefits that are intended by the law.
Living and working with the people of western Wisconsin, I have a special understanding of the benefits reaped from a rich environmental heritage, and I have consistently supported legislation to further that legacy. I believe that careful vigilance over polluting industries is essential in order to secure a legacy for our wild places and enrich the nation's quality of life for generations to come. As a member of the House Committee on Resources, which shares jurisdiction over national energy policy, I will continue to work to foster conservation of fossil fuels, promote efficiency in motor vehicles and power plants, and expand the use of alternative and renewable energy sources.
Coal burning power plants, in particular, are still in need of effective pollution reduction. Recent moves by the Administration to implement the Clear Skies legislation have stalled in Congress because the legislation would roll back many of the effective pollution control provisions of the Clean Air Act
Cody Lundquist
District Scheduler
U.S. Congressman Ron Kind (3rd CD WI)
--Nick Halter
CJ 321
I realize this question is coming after the election, but I was wondering if somebody would have time to answer my question.
With the passing of the marriage ban, I was wondering if any other states that voted to ban gay marriage had any of the other issues involved in the referrendum (e.g. heterosexual common law marriage, abuser sentencing (i.e. different punishments for beating a significant other as opposed to a spouse), etc.)
I really struggled making my decision on this issue because I felt there were at least three different issues that all went under one "yes" or a "no."
Thanks for the help - I think you guys did a great job on the Web site.
Post a Comment
With the passing of the marriage ban, I was wondering if any other states that voted to ban gay marriage had any of the other issues involved in the referrendum (e.g. heterosexual common law marriage, abuser sentencing (i.e. different punishments for beating a significant other as opposed to a spouse), etc.)
I really struggled making my decision on this issue because I felt there were at least three different issues that all went under one "yes" or a "no."
Thanks for the help - I think you guys did a great job on the Web site.
<< Home
