MN PUC Hearings June 18-19, 2018

Tags

Line 3, MN PUC, Pipeline

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is in the final hearing days prior to coming to a decision on whether there is a Need for Enbridge’s proposed new Line 3 pipeline to transport Tar Sands oil from Canada through Minnesota.  This report is on the first two days’ of hearings (of a possible six days… originally scheduled for four).  Unfortunately, I will be unable to watch the hearings live next week so will be catching up as I can, hopefully before the final decision is made.

How to summarize all this information?  As I watched the hearings, I captured over 5000 words on Opening Statements alone!  But I will try to make this report as brief as possible while still covering highlights. A good but even more brief summary was published by the Bemidji Pioneer.

Enbridge starting the day by offering three new incentives during their opening statement, though without details, it’s unclear whether these will be viable, credible, and/or useful.  What did they offer?

Enbridge said it would buy renewable energy credits to offset energy use after a new Line 3 is in service. In addition, Enbridge offered to work with those concerned about the old Line 3 to set up a trust fund to decommission all old pipelines in Minnesota.  Finally, Enbridge would put a guarantee in place by its parent company, Enbridge Inc., to ensure there would be cleanup money available in the event of a spill.  ~MPR News coverage

It remains to be seen whether these offers will make a difference.  Enbridge was scheduled to release a detailed document on these offerings but it has yet to show in the record.  It seems it may release today meaning a very small window for their opposition to review it, likely causing further legal delays.  [There was another surprise document put in the record last week, a letter from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which will be discussed in this weeks’ hearings.  It seems rules are being violated left and right in this process.]  It has been argued that, with fossil fuels companies hanging on in a dying industry, the parent company guarantee would be meaningless if Enbridge, Inc. goes bankrupt.  Their work on decommissioning could take years, if not decades, and would require additional permit approvals.  And buying offset credits is hardly going to make a difference to Minnesotans when their pipeline leaks into our environment.  Nor to our grandchildren who will inherit an unlivable planet due to climate change brought on by our continued addiction to hydrocarbons.

It was made clear that Enbridge wants things both ways.  They want the PUC to believe that the current Line 3 is so unsafe that a full replacement is the only way to return to safe operations while simultaneously maintaining that they can safely operate the existing Line 3 for another 15 or twenty years if needed.

That said, opposition parties spoke to the willingness to live with an existing Line 3, even with its failings, rather than adding a new corridor for a completely new Line 3 because the existing Line 3 is almost out of time.  While a new line will run for another 20-40 years or more, the existing Line 3 will certainly shut down within 15 years (the term to which Enbridge did studies on the integrity dig information), 10 years (when Leech Lake easements expire in 2029 and they tell Enbridge to remove the pipe from their land immediately), or even 5 years or shorter if Enbridge or the DNR realize safe operation of the line is no longer possible and the company shuts the line down or the DNR revokes Enbridge’s license for operating.

I was surprised that Kevin Prentis for the Laborers made no mention of the removal of Line 3 and the jobs that would supply to his constituents. He did make sure to comment on the new corridor noting: Spreading risk around is more fair and environmentally just than putting it all in the same corridor!  (SMH)

Bill Grant, Deputy Director of the Department of Commerce, made their stance very clear – they see no reason to grant a CoN.  He noted that Enbridge is asking for 340 miles of northern Minnesota to be released to a private company via eminent domain.  As such, it is their burden to prove need for this line is needed with data and statistics that defy scrutiny, not just their word and claims from their supporters.

The following is from the ALJ report and summarizes the demand data failings.  Mr. Earnest testified on behalf of Enbridge and Dr. Fagan on behalf of the Department of Commerce.

Demand for Refined Product

581. Dr. Fagan’s second criticism of Mr. Earnest’s analysis is that Mr. Earnest ignores demand for refined product and assumes that consumer demand will remain unchanged for the entire forecast period (until 2035).

582. Mr. Earnest does not deny that his analysis completely ignores refined product demand. He confirms:
     • Dr. Fagan is correct that the demand for refined product does not play a role in the analytical modeling for assessing utilization of the Enbridge Mainline. This is fundamentally because the Enbridge Mainline transports crude oil, not refined product, and it is the demand for crude oil that will drive the utilization of the Enbridge Mainline, not refined product.

583. Mr. Earnest explains that, because he sees “no direct connection between Minnesota (and Midwestern and U.S.) crude oil runs and refined product demand,” he found “little utility in providing a refined product demand forecast.”

584. Dr. Fagan disagrees. According to Dr. Fagan, under the economies of oil markets, demand for refined products drives refineries’ demand for crude oil.  Dr. Fagan explained that, with very few exceptions, no one consumes crude oil except a refinery; and a refinery does not consume crude oil unless refined products are expected to be sold profitably. It follows that demand for refined products drives demand for crude oil, and is, therefore, is a driver of the price of crude oil. This means that weak demand for refined products can lead to lower prices for refined products; lower prices of refined products can lead to lower refinery margins (lower profitability), which impacts the viability of some refineries, which, in turn, can lead to lower refinery demand for crude oil. Thus, by focusing only on crude oil supply (as reported by Canadian oil producers) and totally ignoring refined product demand (local and global demand), Dr. Fagan concludes that Mr. Earnest’s analysis is materially flawed.

585. The ALJ agrees. It is commonsense that reduced demand for refined products would impact the price, supply, and profitability of crude oil. By ignoring the demand for refined products — and focusing only on the supply of Canadian crude — Mr. Earnest’s analysis ignores an important factor in forecasting the need for additional transportation of crude.

When it comes to apportionment (not receiving all oil nominated as being needed) causing problems for MN Refiners, the ALJ reported: 1) “Applicant has presented no evidence that Minnesota refiners are being harmed by apportionment or that these refiners are not receiving the oil supplies they need.” and 2) “Minnesota refiners’ comments simply state that reduction of apportionment will improve their ability to access crude oil supplies and will benefit them. They did not present any evidence of harm.”

The ALJ also noted on Reliability that Enbridge has assured us “it can continue to operate Existing Line 3 in a safe and reliable manner”, while also noting that a new line is more reliable than an old line.  However, in line 731 of her report: “Because much can change by 2035, it is important to consider what will happen to the new Line 3 if global demand for oil significantly decreases as some parties’ experts have projected; and the cost of oil is too low to make Canadian tar sands oil extraction and export profitable. The Commission should give serious consideration to the possibility that if oil prices continue to decline and Canadian oil is no longer profitable or in sufficient demand, Minnesota could be left with abandoned infrastructure”.

In her conclusions I love this line:

890. The ALJ further finds that the impacts on Minnesota’s natural resources could be mitigated by: (1) a route alternative that utilizes the existing Mainline corridor where impacts have already occurred and the risk of contamination can be contained to one, existing corridor; (2) a permit that does not allow for abandonment of roughly 300 miles of steel pipe; and (3) a route that does not open a new pipeline corridor through some of Minnesota’s most precious water and natural resources – a new corridor that could be used to locate or relocate other pipelines before or after 2029, when Enbridge’s Mainline easements expire.

Mr. Grant later made it very clear that Enbridge, rather than making a business decision to discontinue the pipeline on its own, is putting decision on the PUC – not an appropriate ask of the State of MN.  This decision belongs with company executives in Calgary and having it pushed off on the PUC has seemed inappropriate to the Department of Commerce all along.  He further says that: A lot has changed since the Alberta Clipper case and PUC issuance of an order in 2014.  We were seeing a lot of refinery capacity expansion then, but not now. The late 2015 US policy change to allow global exports was a game changer causing DOC to think differently on demand for oil as a function of Minnesota’s need and looking at how to answer CN requests from companies for MN to support the process.  (When it comes to the apportionment issue…) One state agency cannot do a full Environmental Impact Statement AND determine demand forecasts as well. This is a failing of DOC and the record and they own this.  Even with the deficiency noted by the ALJ, none of this changes the fact that Dr. Fagan provided with, what ALJ agrees, are material flaws in the Embridge analysis – whose burden it is – to prove demand.  Since Enbridge bears the burden of proof, the DOC cleared the threshold to Deny the CN.   Perhaps an independent forecast would have proved the demand fallacy but it is not there.  Perhaps tellingly, Lange replied, “Not sure enough doubt has been cast.”   She then noted that the ALJ asked why the DOC didn’t reach out to the refineries.  This was refuted by Julia Anderson, counsel for the DOC, who noted that it was Enbridge, not the ALJ, who asked this question.  In responding, she noted the first letter of response from Flint Hills Refinery was addressed to the DOC.  Flint Hills, not being a party or subject to discovery for this case, along with the additional and concurrent case load she bore, led to a lack of resources to dig deeper proactively.  However, Flint Hills filed three letters.  And in none of them did it state that they had been harmed by apportionment.

I was disappointed that no one brought up that the fossil fuel companies are looking to sell as much as fast as they can before someone realizes we only have a couple GigaTons of CO2 to go and we’ll have to stop selling it completely if we are serious about the 2°C idea.  Bill McKibben did the math back in 2012.  At that time, we could burn only another 565 gigatons of CO2 and remain under 2°C.  At that time, we had 2795 gigatons in proven reserves – five times the amount we have space left to burn!  His more recent article (2016) showed a continuing concern with the math of climate change.  Based on Rystad data (frequently referenced in this PUC hearing), and the new goal of 1.5°C set by world leaders in Paris in 2015, we can only burn another 353 gigatons of CO2.  Yet we have 942 gigatons worth of CO2 in the currently operating coal mines & oil and gas wells.  So we’re gonna overshoot if we use up all we have found, let alone if we continue pursuit of more fossil fuel sources.

Winona LaDuke gave a challenging, common sense based opening statement for Honor The Earth noting:

• She represents the Home Team – her people have an 8000 year history in this land.
• The Canadian economy is frontier economy, a flawed economy.
• Half the world does not have water – we still do.
• Good corporate citizens do NOT make messes. The PUC needs to tell Enbridge to clean up their old mess before making a new one. $2B to clean up OLD mess is JOBS.  Green Jobs for the future of MN, not a Canadian pipeline company.
• Six pipelines is enough.
• 12 cities suing on climate change.  Major corporations being sued. $6.15B in divestment. No one wants a Tar Sands pipeline.
• 68,244 people submitted comments against Line 3 to the PUC.  There were only 3,756 supporters. [Love seeing Dawn and Maurice in this below post.]

While several Commissioners stated that they did not know yet where they would land on the question of Need, it seemed to be that they often used the language of Enbridge, not the language of the opposition.  They would state assumptions about rail being more unsafe than pipeline, even after just hearing input that rail, while experiencing more spills per barrel than pipeline also allowed for more easy cleanup of much smaller and known releases. In fact, rail was finding renewed support in the industry as a cheaper alternative to pipelines as they can transport crude without the added dilbit (chemical soup that allows the sludge to flow), meaning more crude can be shipped on rail per barrel than in a pipeline.  Some companies are actually rolling the crude into solid balls that can ship in open containers and, even that shipped in closed containers, should there be a leak, would not actually release from the car as it is solid, especially in the cold temps we often see in Minnesota!  Yet the Commissioner’s statements continued to reference Enbridge’s assumptions for rail safety, crude oil demand (based solely on supply), and what Enbridge says is in the best interest of society as a whole.

I am hoping that the tide is turning for the fossil fuel industry. People are recognizing that we need to move to renewables and that in their end game, we need to hold the fossil fuel companies responsible for their infrastructure.  California recently denied a new gas pipeline calling it “unnecessary” and forcing the company to conduct expensive safety testing on the existing pipeline rather than replacing it.  This will also save customers from having to pay a monthly increase to support this new build.  In addition, US News & World Report is urging a stop for financing for the Line 3 project, calling it a “potential disaster”.  The article reports on a recent commitment by Crédit Agricole which pledges to take into account climate change and vows to exclude hydrocarbons that pose the biggest threat to the environment, specifically mentioning oil sands, and notes: “Wall Street darling JPMorgan Chase and French behemoth Crédit Agricole are set to renew a $625 million line of credit for Enbridge Energy Partners, the subsidiary building the U.S. portion of Line 3, on June 29th. …  Banks can’t claim to want to avoid financing Line 3 while they continue to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the company building it.”

Meanwhile, the PUC Hearing process has received much criticism on its recent hearing procedures.  Did you know participants are barred from bringing in water bottles even though the hearings are an all day affair?  Even a woman with medical condition that requires access to water was denied this basic human need.  Meanwhile the Commissioners sip their lattes… But even worse are the ways their ticketing process was being abused.

“Once the doors finally opened on Tuesday, a couple of dozen teenagers (or very young adults) wearing “Minnesotans for Line 3” T-shirts got their tickets and promptly exited the building as a group, never to return to the meeting. They effectively ate their tickets so that no authentic members of the public could take those spots. …

Some who had spoken with the kids in line — trying to strike up a conversation about Line 3 — learned that they didn’t know what Line 3 is, or were “not allowed” to talk or were there because it had “paid really well.”

 

Despite the PUC’s knowing that this had happened, and despite numerous complaints about 26 empty seats in the main room that could have been filled by the overflow audience, staff members were rigid about the ticketing policy. ~ Star Tribune article linked above

The charge is that the PUC could have found a larger venue, in light of the packed hearing rooms throughout the last year of this Line 3 process.  I have charged many times that the PUC does not appear to be truly interested in hearing the public input as I have faced many difficulties and obstructions in finding data throughout my investigations.  It would seem that, if they truly represent Minnesotans, there should be as many of us in the room as we would like to encourage civil participation.  Their actions in this last step of the process do not convey an attitude of encouraging public involvement.

Perhaps their final decision will redeem them.

Book Review: “What Every Person Should Know About WAR” by Chris Hedges

Tags

Death, military, rape, war, weapons

While this book is dated, being published in 2003, it remains relevant in the clarity it brings to the facts of war.  Most striking in Chris Hedges‘ introduction are a paragraph about the book content and a closing about how hard it might be to read.  I highly recommend it for anyone seeking to join the U.S. Military or National Guard.

I think the review by Goodreads was quite accurate:

Utterly lacking in rhetoric or dogma, this manual relies instead on bare fact, frank description, and a spare question-and-answer format. Hedges allows U.S. military documentation of the brutalizing physical and psychological consequences of combat to speak for itself. …

This profound and devastating portrayal of the horrors to which we subject our armed forces stands as a ringing indictment of the glorification of war and the concealment of its barbarity.

Some of the things I learned (again, based on this 2003 edition):

• From 1940-1996 (war & peace cycles, arms race of the cold war), America spent $16.23 Trillion on military ($5.82T on nukes), versus $1.7T on health care and $1.24T on international affairs. [So… if we’d spent all the money we spent on military/war instead on programs for our citizens, this could have become a pretty nice place to live.  Reminds me of Vonnegut, aptly enough as we discuss war, who noted, “The good Earth — we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”]
• The U.S. is the world’s largest arms manufacturer, supplying almost half of all arms sold in the world market.  [This might be why they hate us…]
• One is more likely to abuse your spouse if in the military.  The Pentagon has disclosed that an average of one child or spouse dies each week at the hands of a relative in the military.  [Wonder what the current statistics show…]
• Artillery shells can kill you by heat, blast effect, or shrapnel, which sprays ~200′ in all directions and can strike at twice the velocity of an AK-47 round (1,798 meters/sec or almost 6000 feet/second).
• Explosions create pressure waves moving at 6000 miles/hour.  In enclosed spaces, even a hand grenade can cause serious internal injury.
• Pressure can rupture air sacs in your lungs meaning, even if you think you are fine, you have have respiratory stress up to 48 hours later that can be fatal. Your organs can rupture even if your skin is not broken.
• Land mines of 30-grams will blow off your foot or damage it so it will require amputation.  A 150-gram land mine will shred your legs to midthigh.
• Fragmentation mines are often interconnected in a series of three to six mines and have explosion velocity of about 1000 meters/second (3280 feet/second).
• Hand grenades can be lethal to a radius of 150 feet, explosing a thousand fragments at 2000 meters/second.
• If you are hit by an explosive that does not detonate, and the surgeon thinks you can survive and the round will not detonate, it will be removed.  [Else, you just sit there until you die?  They shoot you in the head?  This left me guessing…]
• Incendiary devices are quite awful.  Magnesium and thermite burns are small but deep.  Phosphorus can burn for hours and has toxic effects on liver, kidneys, and heart. Napalm burns more of the body and often suffocates its victims as it burns for a long time creating toxic vapors.
• Dumdum bullets were so devastating that they were outlawed in 1899 at the Hague Conference.  New M16A2 bullets are even more damaging.
• Exit wound from a 5.56 mm (0.22″) dumdum bullet can leave an exit wound of 4″ diameter.
• Guns are the most effective weapon as they most likely take a soldier from the battlefield.  1/3 of hit soldiers die, 1/3 are removed from battlefield (many permanently discharged) and 1/3 return to battle quickly.
• There are many Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) from nuclear to biological to chemical (often referred to as NBC).
• Nukes can kill you in many ways from the blast, to thermal radiation, to initial and residual nuclear radiation, to electrical power surge.  Typically you will die within 2 weeks from nuclear exposure.
• The only nation to ever use a nuclear bomb was the U.S.  In fact, we detonated TWO bombs in short order on Hiroshima (4/6/45) and Nagasaki (4/9/45) killing 64,000 and 39,000, respectively.
• Botulinum nerve toxin is the most toxic substance known to science, though sarin nerve gas can kill within minutes (asphyxiation, sweating, drooling, vomiting, dimming of vision, heart failure, epileptic seizures).
• When you kill someone, you likely go through several emotional reactions, generally sequential but not universal: freeze up (unable to pull trigger), kill with possible exhilaration due to adrenaline (which can create a “killing addiction”), followed by remorse/revulsion, and finally rationalization and acceptance.  If you cannot rationalize your killing it can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
• About 2% of the population are considered “natural killers” (3-4% of men and 1% of women) and these typically account for up to 50% of the killing done by a military unit.
• It is harder to kill when you are afraid because, when afraid or angry, you think not with the forebrain but with the midbrain, which harbors a deep instinct against killing one’s own kind.
  • “The military combats this with repeated training.  You will be rewarded for being able to overcome this instinct. It is the same principle used to train dogs.” ~ p. 77
• Most military personnel are NOT decorated for bravery.  Only 1.8 M decorations were awarded in WWII for a force as large as 8.3 M in May 1945.
• If an officer gives a command that you believe is illegal, you must refuse to execute it.  However, refusing to follow a lawful order in combat, even if you believe it will get you killed, can result in a court-martial, or military trial.  [Court-martial is a jury of 12 officers, not your peers, while a special court-martial is just in front of a judge.  This contribution is from Dan.]
• Troops kill officers in every war, usually for recklessness or incompetence.  This is referred to as “fragging” since Vietnam where at least 600 officers were murdered by their own troops.  An additional 1400 officer deaths could not be explained suggesting that 20-25% of all officers in Vietnam were killed by enlisted men.  [Makes one wonder why the government is so loathe to take care of military folks once they return.  We have trained them to kill efficiently and effectively…]
• 77% of all combat vehicles lost int he Gulf War were destroyed by friendly fire, or weapon fire coming from one’s own forces.
• Combat stress, a negative reaction to combat, occurs in 15-30% of soldiers during and immediately after combat.  This condition may result in negative behaviors such as raping, torturing, or killing noncombatants (civilians, chaplains, or medical personnel) or prisoners.  Alternatively, you may resort to drug or alcohol abuse, refuse to fight, or injure yourself.
• A combat high is when a large amount of adrenaline is released into your system and is equated with getting an injection of morphine – “you float around, joking, having a great time, totally oblivious to the dangers around you”, an intense experience… “if you live to tell about it.”
• Chapter 7 covers capture, torture and rape, though I was concerned that all the rape figures given were of women: In Kosovo, approximately 20,000 women were raped between 1992 and 1994. In Rwanda, between 250,000 and 500,000 women were raped during the 1994 genocide.”  [What about the men that were raped???]  Also interesting to note that, while rape is a war crime, the UN notes: “Rape remains the least condemned war crime.”  It was only declared a crime against humanity in 1993…
• It was noted that in peacetime, US military personnel are less likely to commit rape than male civilians of the same age.  [Not sure I believe that, except that perhaps it is a result of being segregated by sex in the service.  Again, why is rape assumed to be only against women?  A 2014 RAND study found that women in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were 1.7 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than women in the Air Force (as reported here) and reported this:
  

  An estimated 20,300 active-component members were sexually assaulted in the past year, out of approximately 1.3 million active-component service members

  • This includes approximately 1.0 percent of men and 4.9 percent of women.]
• The last words of most dying soldiers are calls for a mother (wife or girlfriend).  [See women?  They do need us! 😀 ]
• There is a possibility that your body will not be recovered (if you die over water or geographic, climactic, or political conditions prevent it).  Or if the enemy steals it.  And, if they do, they will likely take anything of value from your body, including possibly an ear or finger, even though mutilating the dead is a violation of the general laws of warfare. [Is it funny to anyone else that there are “general laws of warfare”?  I mean, how can we have some level of civility on something that is brutally focused on killing in the name of righteousness?]
• The process of notifying the family includes instruction to not physically touch the family members in any way unless they suffer shock or faint.
• Your body will be prepared for burial by trimming the nails, shaving the face, suturing wounds, restoring distorted features, disinfecting your orifices and stuffing them with cotton (destroying maggots and other insect larvae), removing gas from your head, chest and abdomen, draining your fluids and replacing them with preservatives.
• Prior to being sent to the one person who receives your personal effects, these items are reviewed to remove anything the officer in charge believes will cause “embarrassment or added sorrow, including anything obscene, unsanitary, multilated, burned, or bloodstained.  All letters, papers, photos, and videotapes are screened.  [Wonder how they determine which are photos of your girlfriend and your wife…  Or husband and boyfriend, as the case may be.]
• A bonus to military service?  “The U.S. government pays for your body’s transportation, religious services, grave site, and other burial expenses. It provides a free tombstone.”  Per the Department of Veterans Affairs: “Veterans discharged from active duty under conditions other than dishonorable; Service members who die while on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training; and spouses and dependent children of Veterans and active duty service members, may be eligible for VA burial and memorial benefits.”
• Post combat procedures should include a discussion of what happened during the war including performance of ceremonies or rituals to simulate the “long march home” thus giving time to process the war experience prior to returning to civilian life.  [Found this online: “During and after the U.S. invasion of Panama and the Persian Gulf War, U.S. Army mental health teams conducted a number of unit debriefings, although there was no formal doctrinal mandate or training program. With the deployment to Somalia in January 1994 of U.S. Army division mental health and combat stress control detachment teams, critical event debriefings became common practice. They were conducted following deaths in a unit from enemy action, accident or suicide, or after other distressing events involving deaths of civilians or mass casualties of multinational force allies at U.S. medical facilities.”]
• The return home is typically awkward as the family adjusts to the soldier’s return.  There are greater risks for physical disorders as well as drug-related disorders and alcoholism, depression, hysteria, and hypochondria in combat veterans.
• This 2003 assessment indicated only a slight increase for combat vets in committing suicide.  [More recent studies are conflicted.  One showed similar percentages of military and civilian suicide rates with “no link to combat deployment and suicides”:

  Those figures translate into a suicide rate of 17.78 per 100,000 person years for those who did not deploy and 18.86 per 100,000 person years for those who did — a difference that is not considered statistically significant.

  Multiple deployments appeared to influence the rate somewhat, with those who deployed more than once experiencing a rate of 19.92 per 100,000.

  Among those who separated early, however, the rate difference was significant. Those who separated from the military without having deployed had a nearly rate of 26 per 100,000 person years rate and those who had deployed had a rate of 26.48 per 100,000 person years.

  …

  The civilian rate, adjusted for age, gender and socioeconomic factors similar the the military population, is 18.8 per 100,000, according to Army and National Institutes of Mental Health calculations.
  Subgroups at highest risk, besides those who had served less than a year, included Marines who did not deploy and separated from the Corps early, with a rate of 32.6 per 100,000, and Army soldiers who deployed and separated — 28.1 per 100,000.

  while another finding significant increases in suicide risk (but overall lower risk of death in general, surprisingly enough) compared to the civilian population:

  Among deployed and non-deployed active duty Veterans who served during the Iraq or Afghanistan wars between 2001 and 2007, the rate of suicide was greatest the first three years after leaving service…
  Compared to the U.S. population, both deployed and non-deployed Veterans had a higher risk of suicide, but a lower risk of death from other causes combined. Deployed Veterans also had a lower risk of suicide compared to non-deployed Veterans.]

• The book also reports no increased likelihood for homelessness noting: “Although one third of America’s homeless are veterans, 250,000 on any given day, studies indicate that neither military service nor exposure to combat are related to an increased risk of homelessness.”  [More on homelessness below…]
• On comradeship, it is unlikely that soldiers will stay in touch with their comrades.  It seems that while “friendship creates ‘a heightened awareness of the self’, … comradeship is predicated on ‘the suppression of self-awareness.'”    While in combat, soldiers may love each other like brothers.  But once combat is over, “when other experiences intervene and common memories dim, they gradually become strangers.”
• Yes, you do get to keep your uniform.  However, when disposing of it, “you are to make sure no nonveteran acquires it.” [Yeah, that always happens. 🙂 ]

I found the figures on homelessness surprising as I was under the impression that a larger percentage of our homeless were ex-military.   Perhaps part of the issue is classification as the “veteran” population does not include those dishonorably discharged.  Another issue is data availability.  For example,  domestic violence providers are prohibited from providing data in accordance with the Violence Against Women Act, leading to potential underestimates of homeless women and children.  And it seems we’re having more women homeless vets since the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

This link has housing situation information, though also dated (from 2009).

• In 2008, foreclosures in military towns were increasing at four times the national rate.
• About 8% of vets are paying more than half their income for housing – a high risk for homelessness.
• While veterans make up about 10% of the adult population, they make up 30% of the homeless population.
• Nearly 20% of Iraq/Afghanistan vets return with PTSD or mental health issues – both of these are highly correlated with a risk for homelessness.

VETERAN HOMELESSNESS resource from April 2015 noted:

• Just under 40,000 vets are homeless with these demographics – largely male (91%), single (98%), live in a city (76%), have a mental and/or physical disability (54%) and are between the ages of 51 and 61 (43%) – so lots of Vietnam era vets.
• While we’ve made great strides since 2010, the problem is still ongoing.  New Orleans announced in January 2015 that they’d ended veteran homelessness and since then, 3 states and 60 communities have joined them.

You can find a detailed 2017 report here.

The Financial Services Committee in DC reported 5/17/18 “It has been reported by the Department on Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that from 2008 to 2016, the number of people experiencing homelessness has declined.”  The information on this website is a bit misleading as the current Housing and Urban Development report (December 2017) reports homelessness is recently going back up, including for vets.

• Homelessness increased for the first time in seven years. The number of people experiencing homelessness increased by a little less than one percent between 2016 and 2017. This increase reflected a nine percent increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness in unsheltered locations, which was partially offset by a
  three percent decline in the number of people experiencing homelessness in sheltered locations.
• Between 2016 and 2017, the number of veterans experiencing homelessness increased for the first time since 2010. Nonetheless, homelessness among veterans dropped 45 percent since 2009. The two percent increase during the past year was almost entirely accounted for by increases among unsheltered veterans in major cities.

The good news is that families with children may be finding homes (or their kids are aging out or going out on their own as the data appears to be new for unaccompanied homeless youth).  This may be due in part to the Supportive Services for Veteran Families’ (SSVF), initiated in 2011, that aims “to rapidly re-house homeless Veteran families and prevent homelessness for those at imminent risk due to a housing crisis.”  [Though I noted that Volunteers of America is a supporter in this effort – a 501c3 which is also a “ministry”.  So much for the separation of church and state…]

There were over 500,000 homeless people in January 2017 based on the annual Point in Time figures.  Note that Part 2 of this report for 2017 will come late in 2018.  You can find a link to recent annual reports here.  While figures were much improved from 2010-2016, we’re now seeing an uptick of 1% in homeless individuals.  1% may not sound like much but we’re talking about 5,000 people.

So, I learned a lot reading this book, dated as it was.  It was a departure from Hedges normal fiery rhetoric… but as informative as ever.  I would recommend it for anyone considering joining the military service or National Guard in the U.S.  It gives an accurate description of what to expect as it answers many of the questions someone might have when considering enlistment, especially in this age of perpetual war.

Enbridge vs. Faith Leaders on the Upcoming PUC Decision on Enbridge’s Line 3 Proposal

Tags

activism, Enbridge, Faith Leaders, Line 3, Pipeline

So the final round of Public Utilities Commission hearings happen this week.

I’ve spent many hours reading about the pros and cons submitted on this Line 3 Proposal in Minnesota and I must say that I found the recent letter from the Interfaith Leaders to be quite inspiring.

Yes, five hundred fifty-four Faith Leaders.  554!!  Their names and information are included on the letter to the PUC and I can provide the full document to anyone interested.

Their main points include the fact that approving Line 3 would continue the “long tradition of taking positions against politically marginalized Indigenous communities” and that Enbridge’s “history of pipeline spills” could bring devastation to wild rice areas. “Even if there were no spills (an implausible outcome), this pipeline would be a massive new investment in fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when the threat of climate change requires a new direction.”  They note: “All signers of this letter wish to join together in stating our clear opposition to Line 3 and ensuring it is never approved.  We are ready to open a new chapter in how we treat our environment and and how we relate with our Indigenous neighbors.”

Enbridge too put out a letter recently, which they chose to print as full-page ads in many Minnesota newspapers.  They noted their commitment to “protect communities and the environment” and to “bring opportunities and lasting economic benefits”.  I’m not sure how they reconcile their commitment to protect communities with their pursuit of a lawsuit that is seeking tens of millions of dollars from Clearwater County alone. And their notorious history of oil spills has done nothing but harm the environment.  When it comes to job opportunities, most of the jobs will go, not to Minnesotans, but to outside experts.  And the economic benefits will mostly bypass America entirely, instead filling the pockets of Canadian business owners.

The Enbridge letter fails to mention that 1) the Tar Sands products they want to push through Minnesota will almost entirely go to foreign markets, having little effect on gas prices in Clearwater Country, 2) their preferred route will pass through forty-one wild rice watersheds potentially affecting 4000 acres of wild rice, 3) they are actually ignoring Tribal Sovereignty as all five affected Indigenous Nations are opposed to the New Line 3, and 4) their proposed route may affect less populated areas of the state but the people in this area are no less important than those along the I-94 corridor.

Enbridge says they will “work with any landowner who would like us to remove the old line from their property” but has made no strides in a month’s old request from Red Lake Tribal Council to immediately remove their pipelines from Tribal lands. They also fail to mention that they have yet to put in writing to the State of Minnesota how they will guarantee financing to clean up any spills that will occur here when their New Line 3 fails.  With the Canadian Tar Sands pipeline in South Dakota failing after only seven years of operation, this is a valid concern, especially since Enbridge’s lawsuit hopes to snatch from our coffers what amounts to over two years’ worth of Clearwater County revenues.

The question should not be, “What is the best way to transport Tar Sands oil through Minnesota?” but “What is the cleanest way to provide Energy for our Future?”

Gardening Fun

Tags

DIY, Helping others

I have been having lots of fun playing in the dirt… some for the Harn Homestead and lots more volunteering to help others.

After such a slow coming spring, I worried that our gardens would not have enough time to finish.  But, as Char assures me, even if you don’t plant until July 4^th, the garden WILL make it (apparently one year they had a really late planting but still had a good harvest).  And it now feels like mid-summer with all the HOT weather.  Sometimes I’m amazed it’s just barely June!  We just never really got much of a Spring…  But things are growing, and fast!

Part of the process is cleaning up the past year’s growth.  Connie and I have recently spent time at our 89-year-old neighbor’s place working on cleaning up gardens.  And then we spent some time at Farm by the Lake, a local venue for shows, weddings, readings, and overnights.  Their garden beds were in need of cleanup and, because they do so much to bring culture to our little rural community, we were glad to help with a bit of gardening.  The property, on Lake Lomond in Bagley, was gifted by Bagley native Richard C. Davids, a naturalist, author, editor and teacher who wanted Farm By The Lake to provide a space where “we can find renewal with the land, with another, and with God.”  I’ve attended music shows, storytelling events, a writing workshop, and their annual craft fair, which also features lots of musicians.  It’s a lovely space currently being cared for by friends Dawn and Marty.

Before:

 

After:

 

You see, in the last photo, Connie “inspecting” my work, finding it acceptable. 😀

As a member of Shevlin Garden Club, Connie and I also recently did a Sunflower planting event where we helped children plant seeds at the Clearwater County History Center (CCHC).  From their website:

The museum is located in the former Shevlin School, a two-story brick structure built in 1911. The school closed in 1991 and the historical society “History Center” opened in 1996. The grounds also include several historic buildings: the first log school built in the county in the late 1880s, a school built in 1936 by the local WPA crew, the Ebro Depot (a small transportable depot- the size of a box car), and The Halvorson cabin (a two story log cabin from 1904). Two additional buildings on site house larger tools, machinery and miscellany. Exhibits are changed on a 12 to 18 month schedule, with different themes and topics covered each year.

We ended up having a wonderful day, even with a cold rainy morning.  The CCHC hosted a dairy event in the morning where kids made butter and ice cream and, just as they finished up their sundaes, the rain let up so we could plant the sunflower seeds!  Connie Nunemaker and Nancy Ames showed the kids how to turn up the soil and then hoe trenches for the seeds.  Then Connie explained spacing and the kids planted all five rows.  The outside rows feature Teddy Bear Sunflowers, a shorter variety, while the inside row is Sunburst, a very tall sunflower variety.  In between, we planted Ruby Moon and Autumn Beauty sunflowers, some of which present with red coloring.

Why do we do it?

First it’s nice to know we’re helping plants look their best by removing tall grasses and old growth.  Maybe it’s something to do with my apparently-increasingly-more-prevalent-each-year-OCD, but I am liking more order than chaos.  [Perhaps to combat the ‘chaos’ of not being able to control my aging??]  I like seeing the plants without all the grass encroachment.  And while I admit I do NOT have much issue pulling out grasses, I still struggle with the cultural idea of the ugliness of dandelions!  They are much harder to pull…

Another benefit we can bring is to relocate some of the bird-dropped seeds to more appropriate places and this allow more space and better proliferation in new locations.  Connie collected a spruce and a couple little pines to relocate.  Would they be fine without us?  Well, surely they would all duke out a co-existence.  But in a few years, that large oak growing among the flowers might bust through the concrete barrier poured years ago to contain the bed. We have one of these to relocate too – but that will be another day.

We are hopeful to help Dawn as she works to bring the flower beds back to what Richard Davids intended at Farm by the Lake.  It will be a multi-year project but will be fun to watch as things transform.   It will be extra fun and a bit easier if we can find more community support for the project. So far, Dan has committed himself and I’ll be recruiting soon!

Plus it feels good to be with the plant nation! They are lovely and if you listen close, you might hear them saying hello.  And, did you know?  Dirt has some kind of Prozac-type effect on people?  It apparently has some kind of component that makes us feel happy.  It’s just anecdotal for me so far but there might be something to it!  [And I much prefer the natural way to the idea of popping pills.  Who knows what else those might be doing!?!]

And speaking of anecdotal, it seems that the friends I have that talk with their plants, giving them love and attention, really seem to have better luck with abundance and growth.  I believe these plant beings hear us and appreciate us when we help and love them.  As such, I’ve been talking to the Sungold and Grapes just outside our front door every day. And I head out to see the Raspberries several times a week to tell them how big they are getting!  Hopefully they will soon be joined by the squash, beans, argula, beets, peppers and such that I seeded last week.

 

And of course there is the satisfaction of seeing the final result. The Sunflower event at the CCHC included a Sunflower growth chart where several kids marked their heights.  It will be fun at the end of the summer to see how the sunflowers surpass the kids in annual growth!

 

Plus, helping to clean up a couple of my neighbor’s flower beds resulted in a delicious lunch!  Can’t beat that!

 

Gardening is the gift that keeps on giving.  Seeing the plants thrive, enjoying the beautiful flowers, watching pollinators enjoy the food, and harvesting the veggies throughout the season.  I’m looking forward to great rewards for all my garden work.