Voices from the Flats – How Many Votes Will Lisa Murkowski Get in Kivalina?
By Elstun Lauesen
William Takak from Shaktoolik understands the impact of climate change. The Alaska Native Science Commission quotes him in a survey of the impact of climate change[1]. “Last Spring we only got six walrus because of the weather and the ice moving out to quick. A long time ago it used to be real nice for weeks and even sometimes for months. Now we have a day or two of good weather and this impacts our hunting. The hunters talk about the ice getting a lot thinner. It is going out too quick.”
Hannah Miller of Nome: “The seasons are getting very fast and are all mixed up. The last few years my grandmother was living she said that there was not enough time to put things away like there used to be. When we are done with the willow leaves then comes the sourdocks. These seasons are in too much of hurry now.”
In 2006, the Alaska Legislature established The Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission. In March 2008, the Commission delivered its report[2]. Among other findings, the Commission notes:
“In Kotzebue, the Commission recorded insights into coastal erosion in the region, relocation issues at Kivalina and Shishmaref…”
The report talks about the challenges of community relocation while techniques such as the use of armor rock are evaluated, citing “…As many as twenty other Alaskan Villages may suffer from similar strategic shortcomings”
While the Villages struggle with the consequences of global climate change, politicians in Washington DC have been struggling for years to develop a public policy to deal with the issue. Lisa Murkowski has changed on this issue in a dramatic way.
LISA THE GOOD. 2006-2008
In an article for Mother Jones Magazine[3], Journalist Kate Sheppard documents this change. Sheppard notes that in 2006 Murkowski broke from her Republican colleagues and stated that she not only believes that global warming is a fact, she also believed “…it is a reality that man is contributing to the current warming trend. Accordingly, it is appropriate and, quite frankly, our responsibility to take steps to curb the growth of greenhouse gases”
For the next year, Lisa worked with Senators like Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on the issue and became a co-sponsor of Bingaman’s cap-and-trade bill, the Low Carbon Economy Act.
During this period Lisa was aware of and moved by the plight of rural communities. In her introduction to the REFRESH Act aimed at reducing manmade impacts of climate change she noted“In Alaska, we have certainly seen firsthand the effects of a warming climate in recent years.”[4]
With this kind of profile it is little wonder that Environmentalists were encouraged by Lisa Murkowski The Good to believe that, with the election of BarackObama and a strong Democratic Majority in congress, real progress could be made on climate change policy. But sometime after the inauguration of President Obama, Senator Murkowski turned bad.
LISA THE BAD
The turning of Lisa Murkowski was just one-more by-product of John McCain’s appointment and ruination of Sarah Palin (I have written elsewhere that I thought Sarah was a pretty good socialist governor). When McCain-Palin lost the election, Sarah returned to Alaska as a celebrity with a national following and fund-raising power. The punditry at the time widely speculated that Sarah would have an easy shot at Senator Murkowski in the Republican primary. As a senator, Sarah would establish her bona fides (the lack of which helped pull down McCain’s candidacy) for a run against Obama in 2012 or perhaps 2016. The victory of Mark Begich over Ted Stevens provided additional trauma to Lisa who was suddenly ‘on her own’ as a Senior Senator. Lisa assumed a leadership role with the McConnell team (no doubt facilitated by Uncle Ted) and, according to the rules of that structure, she had to play ball and, in turn, would face any potential Republican challenger with a strengthened hand of plum committee assignments and national gravitas.
Unfortunately, the playbook the McConnell team was running was obstructionism and Lisa has to move hard to the Right. That meant no more maverick Global warming stuff. While Lisa was increasing her health and armor, as a gamer might put it, she still lacked the weapons and kill points to fend off an assault by Sarah and her Troll Army. This required money—and lots of it. Sarah, after all, now had a national cult following.
So Lisa turned to the only source for amassing a war chest that she knew: PACs, industry PACs including the ever-willing energy PACs. But PACs also mean quid pro quo. For Lisa, who came to the game equipped with both brains and a conscience, this had to be framed in terms of some ‘greater good’ rationalization. Given the narrow set of options open to her, it is easy to guess how her self-justification worked: oppose my own values in the short run and I can do good in the long run; an earmark here, a bill there.
But as the anti-Obama rhetoric stepped up, the McConnell team had to match that heat with political initiatives that fed raw meat to the political mob. For Lisa, her actions were defined according to both her leadership and her committee assignments. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for example, became her venue for hitting the “undo” button on cap-and-trade, which she once co-sponsored.
Most shocking to the liberals and moderates who had followed her political career was her direct assault on the regulation of the very greenhouse gases that she once said had to be reduced. Most notable was Lisa’s amendment to bar the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide. The Los Angeles Times[5]noted at the time,
Those lobbyists, particularly one named Jeffrey Holmstead, were major facilitators of campaign donations to Lisa for her re-election.
A Washington Post Story[6]also mentioned above notes working relationship between Lisa’s staff and the lobbyists:
“The maneuvering comes as The Washington Post has confirmed that two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall…In an interview, Holmstead said of the Murkowski amendment, “I certainly worked with her staff” on the exact phrasing of the measure in September.”
Politico[7] was even more descriptive of the working relationship:
“Jeffrey Holmstead, head of the environmental strategies division at Bracewell&Guiliani, and Roger Martella Jr., a partner at Sidley Austin, walked Senate staffers through the details of the amendment, via speakerphone, during a meeting held at 8:45 a.m. in Room 370 of the Hart Senate Office Building on Sept. 23, 2009…”
LISA THE UGLY, AND THE CASE OF KIVALINA
Lisa Murkowski filled her war chest with $124,500[8] from the clients of the lobbyists who helped her staff draft the so-called “Dirty Air” amendments to the Clean Air Act. Ultimately, of course, Lisa ended up facing not Sarah Palin, but a much weaker surrogate, Joe Miller,who, despite Lisa’s Right-Wing correctness makeover, beat her. Obviously the base didn’t buy it.
The question Alaskans, particularly Alaskans living in the villages along the coast have to ask is if Senator Murkowski sold you out then, will she do it again? Let’s be clear, Lisa Murkowski did sell out rural Alaskans on the global warming issue, and she did it for both power and money. A Government Accountability Office report found global warming was immanent and threatening as many as 31 Alaska villages because of coastal erosion flooding and climate change. The cost of relocation of those villages could be as high (in current dollars) as $2.4 Billion. These are public costs that will be borne by state and federal governments because, in part, the companies who so generously donated to Lisa Murkowski’s political reelection have been polluting for decades and wish to continue to do so.
What is particularly ugly about Lisa’s write-in is the manner by which it cleaves the interests of coastal villages. The write-in campaign, which is most certainly going to fail, has now pitted most well meaning Alaskans against each other in service to her hunger for power. An example of this cleaving can be seen in the example of the Village of Kivalina, a community located within the NANA region. Many of the residents of Kivalina are shareholders of NANA Corporation, an ANCSA Corporation now committed to the write-in campaign of Lisa Murkowski.
A super-PAC of ANCSA corporate donors has been formed to plow a million dollars of advertising on Lisa’s behalf. I doubt that the Corporation discussed this with their shareholders in Kivalina.
In 2008, the Village of Kivalina filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil, BP and more than 20 other oil and power companies alleging that their contribution to global warming is threatening to destroy the village [Kivalina v. ExxonMobil et al (2008)].Some of the defendants, including Duke Energy, are clients of Jeffrey Holmstead. The lawsuit, from what I can tell, was dismissed in September 2009 at the District Court level in California for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Village tried to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court but was turned down. Ironically, the argument by the defendants (in part) was that the lawsuit violated the Article III prohibition of federal Court jurisdiction over matters of politics. The issues in contention, Global Warming and its causes and solutions, were matter to be decided by Congress and not the Courts. The Court agreed. The Irony, of course, is that once the federal District Court in California agreed with the defendants, Mr. Holmstead et al began working to stanch Kivalina in congress. They blocked their liability in court but now they had to wound any congressional urges in the same direction as Kivalina and Lisa Murkowski became their vehicle. She was perfectly suited for all of the reasons discussed above, past credibility on the issue and facing political jeopardy from her conservative base. The political assault on clean air and global warming policy was perfectly aligned with the anti-government sentiment ignited by the corporate-funded tea party insurgency. Lisa could benefit greatly by climbing aboard and she did. In a word: Lisa threw Kivalina under the bus.
Since Lisa got donations from most of the defendants in that lawsuit, including Duke Energy, one of Holmstead’s clients, I wonder how many votes she will get in Kivalina?
[1] www.ser.org/files/ppt/Elaine%20Abraham%20PPT.pdf
[2] www.housemajority.org/coms/cli/cli_finalreport_20080301.pdf
[3] http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/lisa-murkowski-climate-change-double-agent
[4] http://murkowski.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=267610
[5] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/01/murkowski-greenhouse-gas-emissions-epa.html
[6] http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html
[7] http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/15/politico-lobbyists-led-meeting-on-murkowski-epa-amendment-alaska/
[8] http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=341F1A70-18FE-70B2-A8834AE647A29686
__________________________________
Elstun Lauesen is a lifelong Alaskan who has worked for 30 years as a rural develpment specialist, including in Western Alaska.
Image from AP Mary Sage
If you didn’t happen to catch Need to Know on PBS Friday, here is a link to a most amazing accounting of how the Native Corporations, at least one of them is faring….follow the money…http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/ we need to be questioning our senators and representatives, as an endorsement from the Native corporations may just be a continuation of white guy riches on their priviledges…check it out…it’s important!
Quyaana, Elstun, for starting off by mentioning/honoring our Elders. I used to work with Hannah Miller when I had the privilage of assisting with Kawerak’s Elder Advisory Board. It is critical now, more than ever, to listen to our Elders. No matter how much we follow politically or think we know about global or village events, it is their voice that needs to stand first and foremost. Without our Elder input, or village input, Leaders can get side-tracked to a point of utter shame. At the village level is where the rich knowledge and compassion for living a good and right life can be met, yet because we/they are often ignored and brushed under a rug for the sake of politics, we suffer, not only philanthropically, but with our dignity as Governments. Serving with ignorance is a sad way to run business as usual. Lord help our People to seek those who not only have money and influence, but those who can get down on their knees and actually HEAR The People! Amen!
Quyana cakneq, Maricia. You speak the truth…
Great post, Elstun Lauesen!
“Lisa Murkowski filled her war chest with $124,500[8] from the clients of the lobbyists who helped her staff draft the so-called “Dirty Air” amendments to the Clean Air Act. Ultimately, of course, Lisa ended up facing not Sarah Palin, but a much weaker surrogate, Joe Miller,who, despite Lisa’s Right-Wing correctness makeover, beat her. Obviously the base didn’t buy it.”
Pretty much sums up the whole miserable situation.
Vote McAdams! The majority of his campaign donations have come from individuals in Alaska, not from lobbyists and corporate entities…..unlike Murkowski and the Palin surrogate, Miller.
@Elstun Lauesen — you seem to be confusing the House bill with the Senate bill. The House climate bill is American Clean Energy Security Act (ACES Act) – the Senate climate bill is American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). The House passed ACES but the senate version was introduced but then fizzled (see the link to the New Yorker link I posted above).
Likewise – your claim in 13.3 that “Lisa turned 180-degrees and voted to kill the legislation” is simply false. Murkowski was one of 4 Republicans who voted to move this bill forward – whereas Landrieu (D- LA) and Menendez (D-NJ) voted against it.
While I agree that Murkowski’s attempt at curbing EPA enforcement was a dirty trick, it’s a pretty big stretch to go from ACELA to her attempts at amending the Clean-Air act and claim that Murkowski is against energy legislation…. especially when you consider that she voted for the legislation in June 09.
Sources:
Senate Committee Reports Energy Bill (where Murkowski declares her support):
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=a3fe85e3-8145-4b45-bb0b-1df967416a1f&Month=6&Year=2009&Party=0
A summary of the Senate bill:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-17-senate-approves-energy-bill
@AkIceman:I am clearly not “confusing” the two bills since I referenced them both in my comments; you ARE clearly prevaricating, however, for reasons I know not–perhaps you are a Murkowski staffer or one of her lobbyist friends. In any case, the point of the article stands: Murkowski supported cap-and-trade legislation BEFORE she was threatened from the right and now she opposes it. She changed and she threw Kivalina under the bus. Now she is willing to throw Alaska under the bus by electing Joe Miller–all in service to her ego in the form of a hopeless write-in campaign.
I assure you… I’m not a paid staffer. I’m nothing more than an undecided voter who likes to argue. Thanks for the discussion – I’ve learned a lot.
As for cap-and-trade… Murkowski never supported the House bill – and neither did Begich (http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/8718107/article-Begich–No-cap-and-trade-for-carbon). Murkowski supported the Senate bill – but the senate bill died in July. As for McAdams… we really don’t know what he thinks about it becuase he hasn’t said. His website makes no mention of it and questions to him regarding cap and trade have been avoided.
“Since 2001, there’ve been 858 fires and explosions on Gulf oil rigs, with 69 deaths, 1349 injuries and numerous small spills” (Federal minerals management)
“For decades, we have been drilling the gulf with very little incident” (Senator Lisa Murkowski)
And for the argument against drilling in the Chukchi, it’s not only the large mammals that we need to fear for(like what is commonly commented on in the paper and as forth), but the microscopic phytoplankton biomass, that they depend on…and that area is said to be the richest upwelling in the world… the reason why the whales go up there in the first place!
You do realize that both Begich and McAdams support off-shore drilling in Alaska don’t you? Don’t try & turn this into a partisan issue — after all it was the Obama administration that opened up numerous areas to drilling that had previous been closed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html)
This is really good, Elstun. I had always thought of Lisa as a moderate person but she seems to have undergone a big change in her climb to the top of the R ladder. I even had a dream about speaking to her one on one last night. I really do want to bend her ear before deciding on my vote. I want to tell her to stop trying to pretend she is the most conservative person in DC and return to working across the aisles (like Ted did) and use logic and science when she votes on issues of the environment. Oh and I’d tell her we DO need health care reform–but one that doesn’t still leave our health in the hands of Wall St.
Thank you, WinBeach; best of luck in your soul-searching ;))
politians are the worst two face liars in Alaska and the nation,when politians don’t believe in conflict of interest,the corporations will rule this nation,after there done here,they will challenge the world.
This is an excellent article. I hope it gets read in every village. If anyone wants to photocopy and distribute it, I’m willing to help. Go Scott!
@Pinwheel: I also meant to tell you that it is an interesting analysis that you provide. You are right–the impact of the military in shaping the demographics and settlement patterns of the territory/state of Alaska is profound. One example: Fairbanks (my home town) was almost a self-sufficient community in the 1930s. Numerous truck farms grew produce and there were two dairies and two butcher shops from producing stock as well as supplements of game meat. Three bakeries operated year round to supply the town with bread and pasteries. 7 small breweries kept the community in good beer. A couple of blacksmiths turned into small foundaries that manufactured raw and finished metal parts out of what we would call ‘recycled’ materials generously supplied by United States Smelting Refining & Manufacturing Co. which owned most of the producing gold mines in the Fairbanks area. The Alaska Railroad supplied part-time work as did the University. The fur trade, fishing, hunting and woodcutting provided supplemental income. The military was absent except for the Army Signal Corp that had a small detachment in Chena. Sig Wien started his air service flying fresh farmed food and beer from Fairbanks to the gold fields of Nome. Fairbanks was an export economy! Then came the military in WWII. The construction of the Alcan changed Fairbanks forever. The construction of Ladd (now Ft. Wainwright) and Eielson military installations brought thousands of new ‘outsiders’ into Alaska. After the war, the cold war continued defense spending in Alaska/Fairbanks. Soon the arable farm land was sold off for subdividing nd developing housing. Construction paid well in silver dollars at the end of the day. And the inauguration of the Pan Am flight from Seattle made it cheaper for new supermarkets to sell milk from Seattle and the locals went out of business or sold off to developers for a large retirement stake! Fairbanks lost its self sufficiency and the city fathers called it progress. Crazy, eh?
I found this report, and these associated threads, very good. I feel sure that somewhere within this were observations that the original “cap & trade” incorporated the Stevens language that the Army Corp of Engineers would provide the necessary support for the reenforcing and/or relocation of the threatened villages, in perpetuity without ever having to come back to Congress for more money, and that was what was trashed with the Omnibus bill. I’m just guessing here, but I’m thinking that there was a deal within the alternative bill that Senator Begich felt could be adjusted in the future, that a deal could be brokered here for him to get some positives on his side for the future. (Also that is how the US Senate/House work. I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine.) Don’t forget, in January Senator Begich will be the Senior Senator from the State of Alaska.
The basis for Stevens intent in the original bill goes back to before statehood. This election has been a fabulous opportunity for all of us to learn about the development of the State of Alaska from the Territory. President Eisenhower was loath to give up Alaska’s critically strategic position. He wanted to hold practically all of the north and west for the US Government. ( And militarize it.)
I don’t want to say that wiser men prevailed, but something like that transpired. Deals. The US imposed an (for that time) extraordinary force onto the Alaska landscape in advance of the vote for Statehood. To this day there are citizens in Alaska who firmly believe that the special voting ‘ward’ created for the US military is what allowed for the succesful Statehood vote. Continuing the bent of this theory, based on facts of the Alaska Statehood Act, until further notice Uncle Sam has complete responsibility to assist in the development of a new State.
As an aside, imagine if in 1820, Salem, Plymouth or Marblehead MA had been threatened by 5 years of destruction from shore erosion because of storm systems from the N. Atlantic. The industry, textile and fishing and every other commodity and transportation system necessary for contemporary existence was immenently threatened. Even the young US Gov. would have come to the aid of the young, productive colony (read state). To this day the US Gov steps in when natural disasters threatens or completely compromises an economic engine. (With the exception of Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil Spill, which was not a natural disaster by cause but by effect.)
All of this is to say that based on the time limits of Stevens original legislation and this Omnibus legislation hopefully Senator Begich and hopefully our Senator McAdams can prevail to restore the critical assistance for western Alaska.
By the way,we could have an entire delegation representing the energy innovation necessary for the greater State of Alaska, outside our “beltway”, (US 1, Seward, Glen, Parks Highways) and use our military for support and defense of our own citizens, for considerably less money, by the way,
Senator Begich is sponsoring S.1566 – Arctic Climate Adaptation Act which provides funding to support the kinds of infrastructure and relocation financing that had been provided for in the Waxman-Markey that was awaiting Senate Action when Lisa Murkowski helped kill it in the Senate. So Mark is trying to find a scaled back and directed solution in the face of persistent obstructionism by McConnell-Murkowski vis-a-vis cap-and-trade.
Again, Lisa deserve NO VOTES from coastal Alaska!
Lisa Murkowski is in no way responsible for the mess in Kivalina. Come on now, this is reaching.
@julie: The “mess in Kivalina” as you put it is the result of many factors, much of which is (the Village of Kivalina and authorities cited in article agree) global warming. In 2006, Lisa Murkowski accepted that man-made methane and carbon dioxide emissions were a major contributor and national policy had to be established that regulated those emissions. This is Lisa Murkowski talking, not me. Part of the solution to the “mess in Kivalina” had to be forced carbon reduction through regulations and cap-and-trade incentives. This was Lisa Murkowski’s perspective through Barack Obama’s election.
Do you agree with Lisa? Do you?
I will await your response before continuing.
Climate change from carbon emissions, really? Decades ago a bunch of scientists fauxed a report in order to fast track funding and now the media has blown it out of proportion. Global warming based on the carbon emission theory is a hoax!
There are other reports that state this climatic change is occurring because of the solar cycles, this report has been shunned by mainstream science. The scientists who published this report have literally been laughed off the face of our planet. To make it all worse the media has blasted us non-stop, you see it every where everyday, climate change, global warming, melting ice, carbon taxes, yadda yadda the list goes on and on. we’re getting bombarded by this until….yes, until we believe it. Open your minds. Is climate change carbon based? Not hardly. Wake up people.
Ice Burg, you’re melting….melting….
HA!
I still think there is a voting block that has been overlooked. I know of moderates, independents, and non partisans who took the republican ballot in the primary to vote “against” Lisa with the belief that Joe Miller would be the easier target in the general. They feel she sold out and became part of the problem by walking lock step with the party of no.
Lisa’s decision to stay in the race has muddied the waters slightly. McAdams still has a shot if he can keep getting his name and message out there. It’s a shame that some of the big endorsements such as NEA are going to Murky. She’s a sell out!
The NEA endorsement came early in the race–before McAdams was barely out of the starting gate. I think many (if not most) teachers and folks involved with education and improving the lives of kids will be voting McAdams–despite the early NEA endorsement.
We have such a wonderful opportunity to flush dynastic politics down the john here in Alaska. I sincerely hope that both rural and urban Alaskans (and the rest of us somewhere in between) get rid of the assholes who have been pitting us against each other all these years.
I’m disgusted with all the powerful people in this state who could have prevented the decay and the despair evident all over Alaska, but went fishing at exclusive lodges with all their friends from back East instead. Well, their neighborhoods are well kept and protected. They can afford the price of gas to get to work and fuel to heat their homes. That’s all that matters, right?
Joe says rural Alaska has had enough because billions went to the regional Native corporations, he isn’t concerned that perhaps that money was misdirected – which seems obvious to even the most casual observer. Lisa says the Native corporations are just getting started… or more specifically she means all the non-Native middle men have gotten rich by now and they’re finally ready to give some up (out of the kindness of their hearts) to the villages.
The rest of (somewhere in between) think that Alaska’s enormous wealth in both natural and human resources is being squandered by all of the above.
Try again… Miller says that they 8(a) program should go away.
McAdams says that only small changes take place (“I want to continue the 8(a) program largely as it is, though some reforms are necessary to ensure transparency and accountability, including increased documentation of shareholder benefits.”
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/15/1384044/2010-senate-candidate-scott-mcadams.html#ixzz12TvWvbIy)
Murkowski supports it but says : “I am concerned about reports that some Native corporation 8(a) entities are not in compliance with applicable federal regulations. I also think that Alaska Native corporations bear the burden of demonstrating to Congress that these contracts provide meaningful benefits to Native corporation shareholders.” http://www.adn.com/2010/10/03/1484373/candidates-share-opinions-on-native.html )
No difference b/t McAdams and Murkowski.
That said — why are progressives defending a program that gives billions in defense contracts to native corporations? Oh the irony.
Murkowski says one thing and does another.
She says “not in compliance” because what they are doing is LEGAL, thanks to Uncle Ted. She doesn’t want to change a damn thing.
I have some measure of faith that Scott will look at the whole thing very critically. I think he knows how to follow the money. The abuses will become evident once he has some time digest it. I also think he can tell when he’s being shined on – and that’s all these big ANC execs do. Charm and smarm ya. They are beginning to look ridiculous with their robo-responses to all the “benefits to their First Alaskan shareholders” mantra. Most people aren’t blind to what’s really going on, well maybe Mark Begich is but he’s up for re-election next go around…
Joe doesn’t want any small business or minority to have any kind of government subsidy. What he doesn’t get is that 8(a) as intended would actually work to stimulus local economies, much more organically than massive billion dollar contracts bundled together. It’s true that small businesses employ the most people, but it’s utterly false that the federal, state or local governments try to even that playing field. In fact, most of our elected leaders feed off the big money, not the small stuff.
When he was getting his masters in economics he only read the shit from the 50’s and 60’s. It’s clear he has no concept – whatsoever – about economic development.
What is in the best interest of the native villagers…?…..I hope they will be considered…
Sorry to interrupt Elstun’s fine writing. If you have not yet seen Rhonda McBride’s new story at KTUU about fires erupting in the Republican Central Committee, it is a must read:
http://www.ktuu.com/news/akpolitics/2010election/ktuu-2010elect-miller-personnel-records-101410,0,465365.story
I don’t have the link but Scott McAdams was on the “Ed Show”, Schultz, MSNBC,
this afternoon, Alaska time. Ed wants Scott back. Good exposure.
Rhonda McBride’s story begs the question: what are these “proxy votes”? Does anyone believe Randy Ruerduerch (sp?)?
Interesting article…. but it leaves out a few pertinent points. To begin with – the lawsuit filed by Kivalina residents was pretty much instantly thrown out of court and has since fizzled. Furthermore while the Village council seems happy to continually fight NANA – most of the villagers are NANA shareholders and many will vote how NANA tells them to do so.
However that’s not the real issue with this article. The real issue has to do with Section 117 of the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. When the erosion of Kivalina first became an issue Stevens successfully pushed for Section 117 which allowed the Army Corp of Engineers erosion projects to be fully funded at full Federal expense. Furthermore it did not require that those projects be justified by using the traditional benefit-cost ratio test. However when Begich was elected he chose to vote for the Omnibus Bill which revoked the authority of the Corp to work fully funded on these projects . (Murkowski and Young voted against this bill.) As a result of the repeal of section 117 most of the erosion control work has ceased in Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet.
Ah, akiceman, you reveal your true political colors here.
Is it possible erosion control is somewhat futile against a rising ocean and climate change in some places and some ways? Perhaps sharing the funding leads to better projects in the long run? And some thought about reducing the source of the problem?
You guys are like a broken record… if someone disagrees with you they are instantly labeled as a republican troll. The kind of bogus political rhetoric is no different then tea party tactics.
Lauesen wrote a fine article — but he neglected to mention the repeal of Section 117 and Murkowski’s opposition to that. Furthermore it’s a little presumptuous of him to declare “I doubt that the Corporation discussed this with their shareholders in Kivalina.” Perhaps he could have called the village council (907-645-2153 / E-mail kivalina@aitc.org ). Native corporation are pretty open with their shareholders and NANA has been good to the village of Kivalina.
Can’t speak for Kivalina and NANA but almost wet my pants laughing at ” Native corporation are
pretty open with their shareholders…”
Mine has nothing to with shareholders except when it’s time to vote for boardmembers and to pass out dividends… that’s the way for-profit corporations work. The board could care less what shareholders think most of the time.
The charities it endows are where one finds shareholder services …
I have to speak up for akiceman here. People on this board are getting less concerned with the facts and more concerned with partisan BS. Ultimately it’s damaging to the progressive cause.
Thank you Julie. Being labeled as a Miller troll is getting old. Try looking at the facts & debating instead attacking the messenger.
@Alaska Pi: perhaps you’d care to share what native corp you are a part of. My guess is that your native corp does a lot for your tribe & that they would disagree with your statement about them not interacting. In the case of kivalina there are two villagers on the NANA board so I’m going to take a wild guess and say they knew about NANA endorsing Murkowski.
akiceman – I just read the comments and there were some interesting points you brought up. But your obnoxiousness and holier than thou attitude completely turns me off so I do not have any interest in continuing the conversation. The only thing I will address is that your “guess” about Alaska Pi’s native corp is absolutely incorrect, as it is also my corp. I have heard a lot of dissent in Southeast over Sealaska and others also throwing their support to a candidate w/o shareholders knowledge as well since this is where I live. You sound like you might be somewhat familiar with one corp and its shareholders – that’s it – so guessing isn’t a good idea.
Why should this all be shouldered by the federal government IMO it should be shared.Alaska has more than enough oil money to take care of the problem but does nothing expects the Tax payers from the lower 49 to fully fund things for them.I agree the feds should help after all we all pay federal taxes but Alaska should share in the cost.
As for the long run… I agree – but addressing climate change won’t happen overnight (especially given a spineless democrat party) – and neither will attempts at reversal. Kivalina and Shishmaref don’t have that long.
And before you go off on the Murkowski tangent I suggest you read recent article addressing the Obama / Democrats approach to Climate Change legislation. The fact is the Obama administration’s gifts to the energy industry were just as nefarious as Murkowski’s attempt at reducing EPA enforcement.
Here’s a quote: “Obama issued new nuclear loan guarantees, and delayed implementation of carbon caps, without coordinating with the Senators who wanted to dangle these favors in exchange for industry lobbyists’ backing of their climate change bill. The biggest giveaway was the President’s massive, and spectacularly ill-timed, announcement that he would open up the entire Eastern Seaboard to new offshore drilling, saying, “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills.” That was just a couple of weeks before the greatest oil spill in history.”
You can read much much more here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza
http://www.progressive.org/rc101310.html
The correct term is “democratic party.” If you’re going to be a troll, try to be an educated troll.
Are you going to dock points for spelling too? Please… Try focusing for once on the message instead of playing the Rove / messenger card.
@akiceman: Still, the big unanswered question is where anyone will find the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to move these threatened villages away from the storm surf. The source of federal funds would have been the carbon-limiting legislation that the “Good” Lisa supported in early 2008 but later opposed. The measures would have provided billions of dollars for Alaska climate-adaptation projects,with the money coming from sale of carbon-emission rights to private companies. But guess what? Lisa turned 180-degrees and voted to kill the legislation after she started getting PAC money from the defendants in the Kivalina lawsuit. THAT is the point of the article. In Kivalina, villagers can look across the channel to an area on the mainland where they’d like to move. It’s important that the new site have barge access for unloading freight, and that the new village be built with inexpensive operation in mind. The erosion control will buy time, but the real solution to the rising ocean is relocation.
You can hardly blame Murkowski for the failed passage of the energy bill. As we’ve read again and again all week the republican party cannot be blamed for this gross failure.
Murkowski did stress that any climate bill should “Include provisions for adaptation ” – and that adaption was a nod to funding for native villages. (http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20090924/senators-argue-over-murkowski-bid-block-epa-action-climate-change)
Furthermore – could you please provide a source for your claim: “where anyone will find the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to move these threatened villages away from the storm surf. The source of federal funds would have been the carbon-limiting legislation that the Good Lisa supported in early 2008 but later opposed. The measures would have provided billions of dollars for Alaska climate-adaptation projects,with the money coming from sale of carbon-emission rights to private companies”.
From what I can tell this isn’t mentioned anywhere in the “American Clean Energy Leadership Act ” (if that’s what you’re referring to).
@Akiceman: The reference on the source of funding for relocation came from a comment that Chuck Kleeschulte made to the Anchorage Daily News in 2008. ACELA was still in mark-up in the Senate being worked on by both Murkowski and Bingaman. The specific provision was from the House Side in Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Bill (ACES). Chuck was referring to the provision in ACES carried over in the Senate Bill that goes like this:
“…2 percent would be used to help the U.S. adapt to the negative effects of climate change from 2012 through 2021, scaling up to 4 percent from 2022 through 2026 and 8 percent thereafter; half would be spent on wildlife and natural resources and the other half on other adaptation concerns, like public health…”
That is the source of the Billions for climate adaptation I referred to. And Lisa was for it before she was against it, which is a subtext of my article…
This is interesting in light of all of the native support — corporate native support — that she’s been getting. Total b.s. & infuriating.
Did Lisa even bring cookies? Hard to believe that she could be held in more contempt than the grifter gov, but w/her write-in effort she has sunk that low in my books.
I may be in the lone star state these days, but my political donations and political heart are still with Alaska — the state where I was born & raised.
http://www.adn.com/2009/03/04/710992/bia-to-send-20000-to-aid-emmonak.html
She did help and it was somewhat better than cookies.
She has, however , undone that good with all her horsepunky obstructionism since then.
I am more than mildly irritated that my Regional Corp has taken part in the super-PAC thingy to support her write-in bid. Matter of fact, I’m mad as could be.
I want corporate America out of elections, including the ANSCA Regionals!
Thank you for this post Mr Lauesen.
I hope it is spread far and wide , especially in the villages…
I will be passing it on as well as I can.
Bet she brought plastic cookies–remember, plastic’s made from petroleum!
It’s more important than ever to get honest, critically-thinking politicians into position to help keep the people safe and fed in the immediate future; and help to find ways for them to survive more changes in the climate that will be coming. Changes that will be impacting us all.
Miller, phhht. Murkowski sold out – she shouldn’t be considered because she would be ‘the better of two evils’, we can’t afford it. McAdams is the best choice, the only choice. He understands the importance of the climate problems. And he is within reach. And the people, especially those in rural areas, need to be informed somehow.
Bravo, boodog. I’m confident that McAdams would be a fierce fighter for the interests of Alaska’s bush community. I too worry that many out there would be led to believe that Lisa is the necessary choice. The McAdams trumpet needs to be played loud and clear so that all of Alaska gets the message.
And Elstun, thanks for this great, informative article.
You’ve reminded me of an old Broadway tune. If I dedicate it to Irishgirl will she be offended or happy? One never knows how American creations will affect others. But I’ll take the chance on her good humor and the knowledge that she knows no offense was intended! 🙂
How are things in Kivalina?
Are the walruses still sleeping there?
Do they still swim down to the local cove?
Through seaweed beds, iceberg floes and polar bears?
How are things in Kivalina?
Is that tundra still frozen there?
Does that fisher with the twinklin’ eye
Come whistlin’) by
And does he (she) walk away,
Sad and with no catch there?
So I ask each shrinking ice floe
And each seal along the way,
And each fisher that comes a-whistlin’ (a-sighin’)
By the bay
How are things in Kivalina
This fine day?
Amazing! You did this off the top O’ your head? You are talented, my friend…
Yep, had to be the top of my head–the rest of me is underwater due to global warming. 🙂
I bet she’ll love it, Baker’s Dozen- I do!
And thank you, Elstun Lauesen, for a great article.
One of my favorite musicals! Lovely and bravo!
That was truly lovely…thank you…!
Ooh…Brigadoon! What a magical place, and a wonderful musical- especially the film version.
I know for a fact that my home village generator wouldn’t of complied with the lower particulate count as proposed in the clean air. I also know that the filtration systems needed were NOT affordable because the cost of the Korean fuel was getting out of hand.
At the request of my home village leaders, I studied with them to see how my village would be effected. My degrees are in the high sciences so they asked me. I do not live there anymore, but am always honored to join them in research missions.
Ever feel like your between a cliff and a disappearing beach with no climbing gear or floatation device?
This is a good write up. Quyana, sir, QUYANA
I have so much to say about this but I got to get the hubby.
I’ll be back when the household calms down.
Very well written article! I used to like Lisa as a politician, but she has really dissapointed me these past few years. Your analysis paints a clear picture why I feel the way I do.
I’ll be voting my conscience this year – McAdams!
“What is particularly ugly about Lisa’s write-in is the manner by which it cleaves the interests of coastal villages (and other Alaskans)” True words. Two of the major players in Lisa’s campaign are reported to be the firefighter and teachers unions. Lisa has vowed over and over that she means to repeal the Health Care Reform act and her history shows she will obstruct any further attempts to address health care. These unions have good health care benefits – for now. Others are not so fortunate. Labor solidarity takes a far second place to short-term political expediency.
Just got a bill today for a little emergency eye treatment–too many zeros after the first big number on that bill. Any Congressperson obstructing real health care reform ought to lose their job–that would be you, Lisa.
I would hope there is someone in every village concerned who would print out copies of this excellent posting by Elstun Lauesen and hand out to all residents. Also, make sure the article is stapled to the surface of every available wall. This needs to happen at once….in time for everyone to ask questions and understand the issues involved. They have to understand how and why Lisa has changed.
At the same time, hand out an article about Scott McAdams–who he is, his stand on the issues, etc…let village residents know he would truly be a friend in Congress for Alaska.
Thanks, Jenin: yes! I am linking it everywhere I can and hoping the ‘tundra telegraph’ does its magic! Quyana!
Nice write up.
Look I’m gonna get toasted for this… But there was
no way my village would of been able
to comply with the EPA using the Clean Air Act. There was no way we would of been able to comply with the particulate filters needed for the village generator. The cost was way out of reach. Good grief we could barely cover the costs for our Korea fuel. Sad.
I traveled with my village leadership to Senator Lisas office to talk compliance with the Clean Air. I don’t live in my village anymore, but they do know I have a high science background (chemistry, BS level… Masters in ______… sorry I like my anominity and my inability to spell… sigh). Anyway, it was sad to know my village wouldn’t be able to survive with the originally composed legislation.
Ever feel like your stuck between a rock and hard spot?
I discussed some sort of exemption for village generators (heavy sigh). I also remember discussing with my village leaders that requesting a appropriation to help pay for the Particulate filters if it passed.
I often ask, how will folks in my village vote? (and I won’t say which it is, so don’t ask). I know Lisa loves them. Good grief she has plently of thier art. All appropriatly valued for under $500 (bitch, I know it is worth more than that! But my good hearted peers back in the village gave it to her)… Gotta love that campaign reporting!
Okay I’m getting pissed at life and need to go take a walk…
Quyana for this write up. I know you have heart about this. I know the picture is wider.
I’ll be back later to read comments.
No toasting here…
This is another piece of it all…
A very important piece.
Waiting for you to come back and say more.
Well now I know where my draft response went.
Ah.. Stumble…
My cleaned up response is a couple posts below.
Appologies to all. And to the Senator for calling her a b**ch.
~sigh~
Powerful piece. On global warming it may be too late. Can the damage be reversed? Right now we need clear headed thinking on to deal with the problem. We are not getting that from our leaders. I’m really embarrassed that these folks can potentially take over our government. Not just here in Alaska, but these other bubble heads whose vision is corporation first, screw the little guy. I was impressed by the patience of the democratic opponents explaining fundamentals to the ill informed.
If Palin is nominated for president the dumbing down of American is complete.
Nice one, Elstun. But will this get read in the villages?
Hey WC, love your blog.
I love your blog too, WC.
I for one will see that it gets printed out and put up for our villagers to read!
It’s so important that the rural residents understand this. Too many of them vote as their Corporation tells them – even if it means cutting off their noses dispite thier face.
As a shareholder in SE I agree with your comment. I have never followed our directors with every decision and am voting for Scott McAdams. I am trying to reach as many friends as I can to let them know that a write-in campaign never works.
McAdams is the only candidate to say that climate change is real. It is important to have this kind of leader in the U.S. Senate so that we can improve our economy and take care of the land in Alaska and all that we love about it.