Renewable energy and jobs up in rural areas

Bill Knight column for 2-21, 22 or 23, 2019

While an ambitious “Green New Deal” to convert the country to 100-percent renewable energy by 2030 is discussed in Washington, the rural Midwest is already heading that way, according to a new report verified by area experts.

Renewable energy is growing, says “Green Energy Sweeps across Rural America,” an 18-page study from the Natural Resources Defense Council, with support from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The report shows how wind, solar and other energy-efficiency efforts are dominating the rural economy, growing jobs and investment.

Such green-energy sources outnumber coal, gas and oil, combined, says the study, using 2017 data from the Dept. of Energy. In Illinois, for example, the percentage of fossil-fuel jobs fell to 0.8 percent of all jobs; clean-energy jobs grew to 2.6 percent.

“Clean energy plays an outsize role in rural areas relative to the size of rural economies,” say the report’s chief authors, Arjun Krishnaswami and Elisheva Mittelman. “In 2017, more people in the rural Midwest were employed by clean energy than by fossil fuel power plants, extraction, refinement and transportation combined in 10 of 12 midwestern states.

“Clean energy is booming in the Midwest as a whole, but most of the recent additions are in rural areas,” they add. “Across the 12 Midwestern states [Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin], about 2.3 gigawatts of new renewable capacity was added in rural areas in 2017 – an increase of more than 10 percent over 2016.”

Peter Schwartzman, an environmental studies professor at Knox College, said, “I am not surprised to see that renewable energy is providing tons of jobs in our region. There are tremendous solar and wind resources available to us in the Midwest, and we have only just begun to harness it.”

The study also documents higher rates of growth in clean-energy jobs in rural areas, outpacing rural employment in general and also cities in particular. In Illinois, rural clean-energy jobs comprise 2.6 percent of total employment (compared to 2.0 percent in urban areas), and such jobs increased 5.5 percent in rural Illinois (compared to a minus 0.6 percent economy-wide), and 4.7 percent in cities (compared to up 0.9 percent economy-wide).

Also, “wind energy development has considerably increased the tax base in many rural places in Midwestern states,” the study shows, and “wind projects also often directly invest in infrastructure improvements and attract investments from corporations seeking renewable power for new facilities.”

Several energy developers are active throughout Illinois, including BHE Renewables (in Bureau County), Cypress Creek (Peoria County), Invenergy (McLean), Geronimo (Bureau, Lee and Whiteside Counties), Horizon (Tazewell County), and Orion (Stark County).

Federal and state incentives help, from Illinois’ Future Energy Jobs Act to the reauthorized Farm Bill.

Opposition remains, concedes Schwartzman, who’s also a Galesburg Alderman.

“The public wrongly assumes that since the sun isn't out all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time that these two energy sources are inadequate for our energy-demanding society,” he says. But “both energy sources can be stored (for later use) and used to do things differently and better, such as electric cars/buses/trucks or electric furnaces.

“The recent shift has been getting little attention in the news,” he says. “So, most people, including local government agents, are surprised. Some have been reluctant to take the ‘jump’ despite the obvious advantages. The more we hear about it, the more ‘no-brainer’ this investment becomes.”

Individuals against such ventures tend to have two reasons, says Schwartzman, co-author of “The Earth Is Not for Sale” with his father David Schwartzman, a retired Howard University environmental scientist.

“From my experience, they 1) have a strong economic incentive for maintaining things the way they are; for example, those highly invested in fossil fuels or nuclear energy,” he says.

And “2) they generally are opposed to change; thus, I don't expect this news will do much to change their minds.”

However, energy companies are willing to invest in rural areas.

“I have been contacted by several solar developers – many who have historically been located on the coasts, where electricity is more expensive,” Schwartzman says. “They recognize the enormous potential for continued growth in this area. Many have set up large offices in Midwestern cities. They know that the next 10 years will see a dramatic shift to renewable-energy sources in the Midwest (and beyond).”

Hail to the Chiefs – in the movies

Bill Knight column for 2-18, 19 or 20, 2019

Since 1971, Presidents Day has been the third Monday of February, a good time to reflect on how movies have shown U.S. presidents. Viewers might smile at “Saturday Night Live’s” impersonation of President Trump (Alec Baldwin) or George H.W. Bush (Dana Carvey), but it’s hard to think of someone starring in a film about Trump’s administration (“National Emergency: The Apprentice”?) However, Sam Rockwell is impressive as George W. Bush in “Vice,” so casting possibilities exist.

Presidents are political figures who make interesting subjects for historical dramas, unusual comedies or even thrillers. For instance, Woodrow Wilson’s struggles with his illness and his wife were the basis for 1944’s “Wilson,” and Andrew Jackson’s real-life marriage to a controversial woman the theme of 1953’s “The President’s Lady.”

Historically, Hollywood has promoted the presidency, from deference to reverence, and movies aren’t history but make-believe, of course (although “Nixon” director Oliver Stone was criticized for linking Richard Nixon to plots to murder Fidel Castro and John F. Kennedy).

Presidents are incompetent or cruel, sinister or silly in comedies (“Head of State,” “First Family,” “Dr. Strangelove,” “First Kid” and Comedy Central’s series “That’s My Bush”), thrillers (“Absolute Power,” “Murder at 1600”), and dramas (“Primary Colors,” “Running Mates”). But for every fool, there have been several heroes (“The Contender,” “Young Mr. Lincoln,” TV’s “West Wing,” “Jefferson in Paris,” “Air Force One,” “Independence Day,” etc.)

Throughout most are conflicting demands of voters – and audiences – shown in Stone’s climatic White House scene where a disgraced, drunken Nixon stares at a painting of Kennedy and slurs, “They look at you and see what they’d like to be. They look at me and see what they are.”

Consider the following 10 films a cinematic Super Tuesday; “primary” presidential films:

“Abe Lincoln in Illinois” (1940). Raymond Massey was nominated for an Oscar starring as the Great Emancipator in this 1940 biopic. Based on Robert Sherwood’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play, it’s worshipful but fairly accurate. Ruth Gordon and Howard Da Silva co-star.

“The American President” (1995). Widower President Michael Douglas starts dating a liberal lobbyist, and a political foe (Richard Dreyfuss) attacks. Rob Reiner directed the romantic comedy co-starring Michael J. Fox and Martin Sheen.

“The Best Man” (1964). Based on Gore Vidal’s book about maneuvers at a political convention, this is one of cinema’s best political dramas. In showing the threat of exposure – a progressive’s past nervous breakdown, a Right-winger’s homosexuality – it’s timely and timeless. As the liberal, Henry Fonda heads an impressive cast including Cliff Robertson as his conservative opponent, Lee Tracy as a dying incumbent, plus Kevin McCarthy and Mahalia Jackson.

“Dave” (1993). Kevin Kline’s character looks like the president (without being grouchy), so aides enlist him to occasionally double for the Chief Executive. When the real prez dies, the duplicate continues the masquerade (and improves the nation). Sigourney Weaver, Frank Langella and Charles Grodin co-star.

“Gabriel over The White House” (1933). This may sound like Mike Pence’s vision, but it’s actually a charming fantasy set in the more-liberal mindset of the Great Depression. Walter Huston stars as a corrupt politician who’s elected president and turns around his life, fighting crime and working for peace. Franchot Tone co-stars.

“John Adams” (2008). Paul Giamatti stars in this acclaimed miniseries about the president. Laura Linney (as Abigail Adams) and Tom Wilkinson (as Ben Franklin) are great in HBO’s production.

            “Lincoln” (2012). Steven Spielberg’s screen biography, based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals,” is a revealing glimpse of Honest Abe struggling with politics as Civil War casualties and resistance to Emancipation mount. Sally Fields and Tommy Lee Jones co-star.

“Nixon” (1995). Filmmaker Oliver Stone created an epic about the corrupt 37th president (Anthony Hopkins). Joan Allen co-stars in a psychological yarn that’s part myth and part mystery, part history and part journalism. Ed Harris and David Hyde Pierce are in the superior cast.

“The President’s Analyst” (1967). An often-overlooked comedy, this satire stars James Coburn in the title role, sought by agents of various interests when he resigns as the White House’s “secret shrink.” Godfrey Cambridge heads a supporting cast including Will Geer and William Daniels.

“Sunrise at Campobello” (1960). Made late in Eisenhower’s era, this tribute to Franklin Roosevelt has the feel of something from the ’30s. Reprising his award-winning stage role, Ralph Bellamy stars as the New Deal-maker, struggling against political foes and polio. He’s magnificent, and the supporting cast outstanding. Featured are Greer Garson, Hume Cronyn and Lyle Talbot.

Farm subsidies hurt by shutdown, and they’re substantial

Bill Knight column for 2-14, 15 or 16, 2019

Somewhat overlooked during the holidays’ government shutdown caused by President Trump’s demand for $5 billion to partly fund a border wall that Democrats don’t support was the delay of some farm subsidies and other payments to farmers.

That sparked a couple of thoughts this week, when the country waited for another shutdown or Trump’s refusing to agree to a compromise and threatening an unconstitutional declaration of a National Emergency to unilaterally build a wall without Congressional approval.

First, aren’t farm subsidies taxpayer-funded, government assistance programs – a form of socialism? There is nothing improper or illegal about receiving benefits to which farmers are entitled, of course. But neither is receiving Social Security or government pensions, food stamps or aid from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), housing allowances or Medicaid/the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), all of which are too often criticized as “handouts.”

Next, are everyday Americans aware of the extent of the subsidies, authorized once more in the $867 billion Farm Bill signed by Trump in December?

The most recent data (from Fiscal Year 2017) is revealing, according to a report published by OpenTheBooks.com, part of American Transparency, an independent watchdog group and database.

Headed by conservative Illinois politician Adam Andrzejewski, it’s a Burr Ridge, Ill., organization that defines "farm subsidy" as benefits from 60 federal farm programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture including marketing assistance, agricultural risk, conservation, and crop disaster.

“During the Great Depression, when most Americans lived in rural areas and many families risked losing their farm, Congress passed the Agriculture Adjustment Act in 1933 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation,” wrote Andrzejewski and co-author Thomas W. Smith. “Farm subsidies were created to keep the small family farm afloat and ensure a stable national food supply.”

But times changed.

Writing in Forbes magazine, Andrzejewski – endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and some Tea Party figures in Republicans’ 2010 GOP primary for Illinois Governor – said, “Today, these subsides have grown so lucrative that wealthy investors, large corporations and farm-estate heirs use taxpayer money to maximize their return on investment. It was never the intent of Congress to create a new class of millionaires through federal farm subsidies.”

Perhaps campaign contributors and lobbyists could be blamed for tainting what started as a way to help family farms feed the country. And advocacy groups such as the Farm Bureau continue to say that farmers “feed the world.”

But do they? U.S. agriculture no longer grows food for hungry people, says Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She reports that 40 percent of the biggest crop – corn – goes into fuel for cars. Most of the second-biggest crop – soybeans – is fed to animals.

Indeed, besides fuel, corn is harvested for “a range of high-value uses including plastics, solvents and fibers,” conceded Dan Wesely, chair of the National Corn Growers Association.

Agriculture could feed more people, according to Congressional Quarterly’s “Farm Products in World Trade” report, which notes, “An acre produces six to seven times as much food when planted to crops for direct human consumption as when used to pasture milk animals, and about 19 times as much as when used to raise poultry for egg production.”

Andrzejewski says, “The nation’s food supply is not in jeopardy. The U.S. is the world’s largest food exporter and produced more food than the entire European Union combined last year.”

As far as FY 2017 federal farm subsidies, they’re not abstract or distant. For example, OpenTheBooks reports these downstate-Illinois recipients of farm subsidies, by counties – Fulton: Brian Lehman $1,393.730; Henderson: Country Farms (Biggsville) $606,541; Henry: Baum Farms (Geneseo) $1,631,183.68; Knox: Inness Farm R & R (Galesburg) $756,555; Livingston: Robert Trainor (Fairbury) $356,488.42; McDonough: Stephen Paul (Bushnell) $276,520.60; Mercer: Jeffrey Kirwan (New Windsor) $1,095,560; Peoria: Kirk Kimble (Chillicothe) $2,096,498.01; Tazewell: Kent Cornwell (Mackinaw) $778,670.26; Warren: Jenks Family Farm (Monmouth) $7,639,564; and Woodford: J&D Farms (Roanoke) $2,473.665.06.

OpenTheBooks’ other findings include:

* one out of every four dollars in farm subsidies went to someone who received $250,000 or more that year; and

* residents of the nation’s five biggest cities received nearly $17 million in farm subsidies over a three-year period, including Chicago ($7.7 million), Miami ($4.5 million), New York City ($2.8 million), Los Angeles ($1.6 million) and Philadelphia ($309,000).

Information and background on American Transparency’s report, “Harvesting U.S. Farm Subsidies,” is online at www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_%E2%80%93_harvesting_us_farm_subsidies/