Off the tracks
To the editor:
As a 23-year-old professional and member of the Baton Rouge community, I consider myself a part of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s target audience. However, his recent decision to decline a possible $300 million in rail funding [Daily Report PM, Sept. 2] has left me utterly disappointed. I expected progress and innovation from him. This is the same game Louisiana has been playing for too long—the same game he promised to change, and that he still can.
It is without question that a rail line from New Orleans to Baton Rouge would stimulate the economy and create countless opportunities for further growth, let alone eventually allow for us to connect in with Houston and Atlanta as part of a larger southeastern high-speed rail system. The value of a rail system as a hurricane evacuation method should be enough encouragement in itself for us to apply for the funding. Add in the incredible additional benefit the rail would bring in tourism, business development and decreased road congestion, and it’s a no brainer—hence why states all over the country are pushing for these same rail systems.
I urge Gov. Jindal to reopen the application, as there is an overwhelming majority of his constituents in favor of the rail system. I ask that he allow for the local communities and the economic development entities to analyze the system and determine the best way to make it an economically sustainable transportation method—which can be achieved. Declining the funding is the kind of “nonprogress” that made me wary of coming back to Louisiana after college; please don’t confirm my fears and continue to repel our nation’s young and brightest.
We need to be on the forefront of innovation—would Dallas, Austin, Nashville, San Francisco or Seattle turn down rail funding? Of course not, and we should not either. Gov. Jindal asks us to “once again believe in Louisiana.” With all due respect, and as a fan of the governor, I want to—but with this, he is not helping. Help make us believe in Louisiana. I ask that he please reopen the application—for all of us. Otherwise, we will all continue to see an out-migration of Louisiana’s best and brightest searching for out-of-state jobs and schools that bring us to places which encourage the kind of progress and innovation that our generation is looking for.
Prescott Bailey, Baton Rouge
Check that card
To the publisher:
Thanks so much for your update on the card check issue [Daily Report AM, Sept. 8]. I was very disappointed in a recent article [Daily Report PM, Sept. 2] that mentioned a poorly attended news conference that was held by LABI, the Baton Rouge Chamber, ABC and others. The spokespersons for these groups represent literally thousands of businesses in the state—virtually all of which oppose card check! It was never our intention to have a bunch of business owners crowding a room, holding signs and chanting. That may be appropriate for the unions and may have been what the reporter was looking for. Thanks for putting the business perspective on this very important issue.
Randy Hayden, Baton Rouge
No bias here
To the editor:
I want to respond to Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell’s letter [“Letters,” Sept. 8] that asserts the Center for Energy Studies at Louisiana State University is biased because of financial support from oil and gas companies and that this bias was reflected in a recent conference on the effects of the greenhouse gas bill recently passed by the U.S.House of Representatives.
Oil and gas companies and their employees are major financial contributors to the academic departments of the University in the Colleges of Engineering, Business and Basic Sciences—a practice LSU encourages enthusiastically—but not to the Center for Energy Studies. In fact, the major sources of external funds for LSU’s coastal initiatives cited positively by Commissioner Campbell are Shell Oil and Chevron.
The center’s studies and activities primarily are financed by research grants and contracts from federal agencies or state or local governments. Our research reports are public documents and many form the basis for articles published in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. The Center for Energy Studies receives less than 1% of its operating budget from the oil and gas industry. That 1% comes through sponsorships of two annual conferences and modest contributions for general support. For the past five years, the center has hosted the largest Louisiana-specific renewable energy conference in the state.
The staff of the center consists of research professors who are evaluated with the same criteria and are subject to the same standards of conduct and objectivity as all other members of the LSU faculty. They are experienced and accomplished scholars. One is the immediate past president of the American Association for Energy Economics, the field’s principal professional association; another is a member of the National Petroleum Council, the official advisory group for the U.S. Secretary of Energy; and a third the current president of the Greater Baton Rouge Clean Cities Coalition.
Further, I believe the conference did have the appropriate balance of viewpoints required for the discussion of a controversial public policy issue. Of the seven principal speakers, two were from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of whom are active advocates in the national debate that provided the focus for the conference. The representative from the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association whose statement “We don’t believe in global warming, period” was quoted in the letter, spoke for his organization—not the other co-sponsors or the center. David Dismukes, the center’s associate executive director, described the economic impact of the current cap-and-trade-based legislation on Louisiana as well as the opportunities it might create for Louisiana firms and entrepreneurs. Campbell’s fellow commissioner Jimmy Field talked about the same issues with respect to the state’s electric utilities and their customers.
Elaine Kamarck, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, was the sixth speaker. She opposes the cap-and-trade-based approach of the bill passed by the House because she believes it is too complicated to deal with the problem on the global scale it requires. Instead, she argues a simpler tax on carbon would be much easier to implement and monitor effectively. In response to the moderator, she emphasized that human-induced climate change was a real and very serious problem—a view she argued was supported by a strong scientific consensus. Professor Kamarck served on the President’s staff as the Director of the Domestic Policy Council during the Clinton Administration.
Tom Michels, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu’s legislative director, was the final speaker. He outlined the reasons that the senator would not vote for the cap-and-trade-based bill that the House had passed. He also explained why he did not believe the Senate would pass the bill, but he was more optimistic than others have been about the Environmental Protection Agency being able to implement an effective regulatory approach to the problem should the legislative effort fail.
In summary, neither of Commissioner Campbell’s characterizations, of the center or the recent conference, is consistent with the facts. Energy industries, including oil and gas, are important components of Louisiana’s economy. Their importance and contribution is reflected in many programs and initiatives throughout the University as well as at the Center for Energy Studies. The Center for Energy Studies conducts objective analysis of energy issues that are important for Louisiana. It does not advocate for any particular industrial, commercial or political interest.
Allan Pulsipher, Executive Director, Center for Energy Studies, LSU
What’s that smell?
To the editor:
Has Gregg Fell of “Natural Resource Professionals” ever visited Alligator Bayou Tours before his organization tried to push local authorities to drain Alligator Bayou [Daily Report AM, Sept. 10]? I have visited Alligator Bayou Tours multiple times, most recently this summer before the forced drainage of the Bayou began.
While visiting Alligator Bayou Tours with my kids [who, trust me, can smell the difference between two brands of frozen chicken nuggets] along with another three generations of my family one weekend this summer—Alligator Bayou smelled like the forest and trees. There were no pungent smells, and there were NOT any dead fish. Additionally, Alligator Bayou Tours has been feeding their rescued alligators and other animals for many years without any complaints of a poor smell.
It seems more likely that the original source of the aroma being reported was more likely “Natural Resource Professionals”—weren’t they the ones originally behind draining the swamp in the first place, which in turn killed all the fish because they had no water?
I’m no environmental expert, but I think we all know dead fish do smell.
Czarina Walker, Prairieville
