|
Environment update
Plan would lift gun ban
The Bush administration has proposed lifting a ban on concealed weapons in national parks, and a state politician well-known for his gun-rights positions has applauded the move.
"When I'm in a state or national park, I'm armed," Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said. "An unconstitutional rule promulgated by a federal bureaucracy is not sufficient to deny me that right."
It's illegal on most national park land to carry guns. But under the proposal by the federal Interior Department, people could carry concealed weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges if they were authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state where the national park or refuge is located.
Patterson gained attention last year when he put the state-owned Christmas Mountains tract up for sale and said he would not turn it over to Big Bend National Park until the National Park Service assured him that visitors would be able to bear weapons on the land.
National Park Service employee advocacy groups and the National Parks Conservation Association have opposed lifting the ban.
Christmas testimony
Arguments over what to do with a rugged tract of 9,200 acres in West Texas has gone before state lawmakers, with conservationists still pushing for the area to be added to Big Bend National Park.
The House Land and Resource Management Committee heard testimony on the future of the so-called Christmas Mountains wilderness area, which shares a mile-long border with Big Bend.
The National Park Service has expressed an interest in acquiring the land.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson had previously sought a private bidder for the property. He has been reluctant to turn the land over to the park service in part because federal parks are generally off-limits for hunting. Patterson is a fierce gun-rights activist and wants to allow hunting on the property.
Last month, Patterson granted an easement that allows public access to the hard-to-reach area for hikers and campers.
If the area's future is not resolved, the Legislature could step in when lawmakers meet for the 2009 session in January.
Nukes coming back
With eight power plants on the drawing board, Texas could lead the way in an American renaissance of nuclear power, according to industry leaders and some policymakers, says a story by R.A. Dyer in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
That would increase the reactors in the state from four to 12, and more than triple its nuclear output.
Largely spurred by new loan guarantees and other federal incentives, plus a new regulatory scheme in Washington, companies are floating plans and partnering with overseas firms on construction and design.
Serious questions remain:
€ No solution has been found for the radioactive byproducts of nuclear energy.
€ The stuff is expensive. While utilities reportedly have priced the cost of a kilowatt of nuclear power at $3,000 to $4,000, Moody's Investors Services said in October that a more realistic price would be $5,000 to $6,000. That puts the cost of a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant at about $9 billion, according to reports.
The renaissance of the anti-nuclear movement could also be in the offing.
"We think that nuclear power is the wrong way to go and we're certainly going to be opposing these new nuclear power reactors," said Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club.
Texas nuclear plants produce about 13.4 percent of the annual output on the Texas power grid and have a combined generating capacity of 5,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for about 3.5 million homes.
All told, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it expects as many as 30 permit applications for reactors across the country. The agency has already received 14 applications, the first since 1979.
"The catalyst has been the [federal] Energy Policy Act, which provided loan guarantees and production tax credits," said Dave Knox, a spokesman for NRG. "It was needed to kick-start the nuclear industry. After we stopped building nuclear, most of the infrastructure had gone overseas to France and Japan. ... The loan guarantees were needed to rebuild the industry."
A megawatt is enough power for 500 to 700 homes under normal conditions. Currently, the power plants on the grid can generate about 73,500 megawatts, and grid operators say that Texans will need an additional 70,000 megawatts by 2028.
That means the state must look to nuclear power for at least part of its long-term power needs, says Barry Smitherman, chairman of the state Public Utility Commission.
Environmentalists say the state can align supply and demand through conservation, energy efficiency and more aggressive use of alternative power sources, such as wind and solar.
Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, warns of more cost overruns with nuclear power, and of unacceptable pollution with coal.
Pros
€ Unlike coal and gas-fired plants, nuclear plants create no harmful greenhouse gases associated with global warming.
€ Nuclear power plants provide so-called baseload generation; that is, nuclear plants can continue running around the clock and provide a stable source of power.
€ Nuclear fuel is relatively cheap.
Cons
€ Highly radioactive byproducts from nuclear reactors can remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
€ Nuclear construction is expensive and, critics say, so far impractical without taxpayer help.
€ Uranium mining can harm the environment and poses a potential public health risk.
Constitution & guns
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has accused a philanthropic group that donated the pristine Christmas Mountains to the state for conservation purposes of being on a "jihad" relating to his handling of the tract, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
Addressing a panel of House lawmakers, the land commissioner also suggested that he would not honor an expected U.S. Supreme Court ruling if it contradicts his views of Second Amendment gun rights.
Patterson has also been criticized for his reluctance to transfer the property to the National Park Service, which has expressed interest in managing the land.
Patterson said that he expected the property to remain in state hands unless his concerns about gun rights and other issues are addressed.
He also said he believes that firearms restrictions enforced by the park service are unconstitutional and expects that the Supreme Court will agree when it rules on a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
Asked whether he would defer to the Supreme Court if it ruled against his Second Amendment views, Patterson answered simply "no."
|
