By Joe on 9/9/2009 2:48 PM

As if there were any serious question, it seems that Virginia Uranium, Inc. (VUI) will now fund the technical study to determine whether or not uranium mining can be done safely in the Commonwealth.  After the news broke, there was a fair amount of accusations that this would bias  the study in some fashion.

I just want to clear the air here that I agree with Virginia Uranium, Delegate Kilgore, and the National Academies of Sciences that this arrangement will not bias the study.  In fact, the worry surrounding this is obfuscating a more grave threat down the line.

But first, a little background.  Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.  This was enacted in 1982, when mining companies began to lease land for uranium exploration from Pittsylvania to Fauquier County.  A uranium study group was commissioned, and although they eventually recommended lifting the moratorium, there was such a degree of uncertainty about the results of the study that the General Assembly declined.  Shortly thereafter, the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters occurred, and the price for uranium plummeted.  With no one continuing to pursue uranium mining in Virginia, the moratorium has remained in place (For more background on this issue, read the Virginia Conservation Network’s white paper).

However, one of the largest uranium deposits on the east coast sits under Pittsylvania County, and with uranium prices rising again, Virginia Uranium has been pushing to review the moratorium.  This past session, the Coal and Energy Commission created a sub-committee to do just that.  It was determined that there should be two studies:  A technical study, to determine whether it is possible to safely mine the uranium, and then a socio-economic study, to determine what other impacts lifting the moratorium would be.  I tend to think of these as a study of can we do it, and a study of should we do it.

After trying to secure government funding for each of these costly studies, Delegate Kilgore eventually decided to accept money VUI had been offering for the first one.

Now, why won’t this bias the study?  First off, the money will effectively be held in escrow by Virginia Tech.  That means VUI cannot somehow string along the funding, only continuing to give it if they see results they like.  Second, the group that will actually be tasked with studying this is the National Academies of Sciences, a very well-known and respected organization.  To throw the results of this study for about a million dollars simply makes no sense, as they risk destroying a reputation which garners them much more than that a year.  Another way to think about it is a referee throwing a game for a $10 bribe, when he makes $100,000 a year: It may be possible, but it is incredibly unlikely.

Now, while everyone fusses about this issue, there is a small note that makes me incredibly concerned.  Virginia Uranium has stated on multiple occasions that they would not fund the second study.  However, if we as a government cannot find the funds for the first study, how likely are we to find funding for the second?

What I can easily foresee occurring is that we will have a completed technical study, which shows that we can technically do this.  However, we cannot find revenue for the “should we do this” study.  Unwilling to waste their initial monetary and time investment, VUI pressures the legislature to make a decision based upon only the first study’s data, which looks good.  The sub-committee passes a recommendation to lift the moratorium, and as anyone who has worked at the General Assembly knows, the legislature as a whole will likely sign off on the findings of the sub-committee.

To avoid this, we will need to prevent a sub-committee decision until both studies have been completed.  Advocacy groups across the state will need to work to not only remind the sub-committee of their obligation to also study the socio-economic ramifications of mining, but also to possibly assist the state in finding sources of revenue for the project.  If the alternative is no second study, we might not have much of a choice.

By Joe on 9/1/2009 2:32 PM

Washington Post writers Steven Mufson and Jennifer Agiesta wrote an article on the climate change bill that I've been mulling over for the past few days, and I think it shows us where the opposition's "death panel" messaging is going to come from.  Entitled, "On Energy, Obama Finds Broad Support," I'm initially pleased to see some of these margins.  Below are the main questions asked:

These numbers look great on the surface.  A majority of Americans support energy reform, even under the impression that they may not see any net job increases and would have to pay more in utility costs.  In this sense, there seems to be an understanding that the way we use energy is not sustainable in the long-term, and that changes will need to be made on behalf of future generations.  Aside from the basic moral decency that encourages this ideal of sustainability, I have to credit the environmental movement as a whole for creating the level of awareness required to get us to this point.  However, even for decades of messaging about the link between our actions and the environment, public support is tenuous.

What jumps out the most to me about the polling is not found above.  Instead, it is found here:

Although Americans want to shoulder their fair share of caring for the Earth, many families are still struggling to make ends meet.  In addition, there is still the general fear of government bureaucracy and infefficiency, which makes us typically wary of any major governmental program expansion.  Finally, we still have the other issues of the national debt and healthcare reform which many believe (in the case of healthcare, untrue) will result in separate cost increases they will need to find a way to deal with.  All of which leads to this graph.

The higher the cost, the lower the level of public support for the climate change bill.  The key though, is that this line doesn't look like it is a linear decrease, but rather radically shifts somewhere between 10 and 25 dollars a month.

Essentially, as Matt Zogby listed over at Article XI, we overwhelmingly support the idea of alternative energy and energy conservation.  But it can't cost consumers a lot, or else it simply isn't worth it right now.

Which leads to messaging.

There have been some anti-reform efforts going on in the way of advertisements, substantial contributions to key legislators, and astroturfed citizen rallies.  Related to those, much of what has been getting picked up in the media has been disinformation and fearmongering, sadly shifting the conversation away from those legitimate critiques of the current bill which should be addressed.  But remember, all of this is still flying under the radar in a way, as healthcare is dominating the discussion.

When healthcare reform gets resolved, we will see all eyes (and money) turn toward our nation's energy plan, which is is when the real fight will begin.  And if you think that those vested interests that are opposed to the bill won't pass off lies as incredulous as the "Death Panels" talking point for healthcare, just wait.

The advantage is that we can see from this polling what their talking heads will all be saying:  This bill will cost consumers 25, 50, or even 100 dollars a month.  The topline polling shows that we have already won the general question of whether we should do something, but we have yet to convince the public of how.  Our weakest point is currently the cost to consumers, and so if we want to see this climate bill passed, we will have to ensure that the true cost to consumers stays low, and that they know it.

We advocates in the environmental community may have always had a bit of a problem with effective messaging, but this is one situation where we simply cannot allow ourselves to be outmaneuvered.  To do so would guarantee a legislative loss.

By Joe on 8/30/2009 11:40 PM

As you might have noticed, Virginia Interfaith Power & Light has gotten a bit of a facelift.  What you are viewing now is what I like to call website 1.0.  Over the coming weeks, we plan to continue to expand on the initial framework change we've made, particularly in regards to the following:

• New "Resources" menu tab, including energy calculators and denominational contact information.
  
• Expanded information withing the "Public Policy" section, including dedicated pages for each policy item we're working on within each of the three major fields of climate change, energy production, and energy efficiency.
  
• The production of a monthly newsletter for all Virginia Interfaith Power & Light members.
  
• Cleaned up URLs that are smaller and less filled with techno-jargon.
  
• A cleaner blog system to allow for easier commenting, syndication, and forwarding.
• General aesthetics, such as content-specific banner images.
  

This list is not in any prioritized order, and you should see many of these items implemented within the next week (the URL cleanup), while some others will probably come at the end of the month (the newsletter).

In the meantime, this blog will become the focal point for much of our news and policy discussion.  We hope that you will take the time to regularly come by and see what new items have been posted.  If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to leave a comment.

With that, thank you for reading!