Category Archives: Uncategorized

[Originally posted 12/20/07]

Is coal or wood worse for the environment? Which fuel produces greater air pollution? Should wood, or any bio-mass, be considered an acceptable fuel? These questions are matters of hot debate in the Twin Cities today, and I wish I could say we have tracked down the answer. I can’t say that, but I can describe the process of turning what looked like an easy answer into a series of unanswered questions.

Dan Gordon’s District Energy: An empire built on wood is well-researched and sheds light on important energy and environmental issues. While digging for answers, Dan came up with interesting statistics from MPCA, which looked like proof for one side in the wood-burning vs. non-woodburning debate. The MPCA statistics pointed toward a conclusion that wood generates less of some greenhouse gases, but more particulate emissions (PM-10) than coal.

The MPCA statistics on District Energy showed that the total amount of particulate matter the plant’s smokestacks have released has more than doubled since 1990. The amount of ultra-fine particulates under 10 micrometers, which the EPA labels “inhalable coarse particles”, has also increased. In 1990, when District Energy was still burning coal, it produced about 14 tons of these particles. In 2005, the most recent year in which data for the plant is available, it released just over 176 tons.

I have a nasty, suspicious mind, which is a great asset in this job. When I read this paragraph in the original article, I immediately wondered whether the increase in PM-10 emissions actually was attributable to the switch from coal to wood, or whether other factors were in play.

Dan had already spent far more hours on the article than justified by the amount we pay free-lance writers. Moreover, the statistic affected just one paragraph in a lengthy article. I asked him if it would be okay if I tracked this statistic the rest of the way, and he agreed.

I checked the PCA website and verified the numbers, but that raised more questions. The PCA figures showed 176 tons of PM-10 emissions – ultra-fine particulates under 10 micrometers. But it showed TOTAL particulate emissions as 120 tons. How can the total be less than one of the components?

Since the PCA website raised more questions than it answered, I called District Energy. Four or five phone calls and e-mails focused on both the general question—Why are particulate emissions so much higher in 2005 than in 1990?—and detailed, specific questions about the numbers.

More information generated more questions, and fewer answers.

1) Back in 1990 (and probably continuing through 2001), regulators used a set of guidelines called AP 42, which list different kinds of combustion technologies and what industry-standard emissions rates were for each kind of technology. In other words, the amounts in the PCA tables for early years were arrived at by multiplication rather than measurement. Today’s numbers are based on sampling (how often? what kind?) and on modeling from that sampling (how accurate?)

2) District Energy today produces MUCH more heat and energy than it did in 1990. How much more? Is the increase in emissions directly proportional to the increase in heat and energy?

3) Even though District Energy today burns wood to generate heat and electricity, it also burns coal. DE personnel say that most of the PM-10 emissions today are atrributable to the coal-burning, rather than the wood-burning operation. (Non-District Energy sources confirm this.) Skip the next quote if you want to avoid head-spinning numbers:

District Energy says:

For example in 2006, particulate emissions (PM-10) resulting from burning wood at the wood-fired combined heat and power facility in St. Paul comprised only 25 percent of the total PM-10 emitted at the facility (29 tons of total of 117 tons in 2006) and yet wood was 63 percent of the total fuel consumed at the facility (on a heat input basis). Coal is utilized to a limited extent (only 13% of the total fuel consumed at the facility in 2006 on a heat input basis) in separate boilers designed for coal and which supplement the primary fuel source, wood. The use of coal makes up the majority of the remaining PM-10.

Complicated? Oh, yes! And that’s only the beginning. District Energy and independent sources agree in saying that the real determinant for PM-10 emissions is not the type of fuel used, but rather the type of emissions control system in place. Better emissions control = less PM-10 emissions. What emissions controls are out there? What is the state of the art?

Stay tuned – this is not the final word on the issue.

[Originally published 12/27/07]

‘Do you put a disclaimer on your articles to identify the ones written by citizen journalists?’ I’m sure the questioner didn’t mean to sound insulting. She really believed that there is a huge gap between ‘real’ journalists and citizen journalists, and that ‘real’ journalists are much more trustworthy. Similar criticisms distinguish between bloggers and ‘real news.’ Many people are confused about where the lines are drawn, who to trust, and where the TC Daily Planet fits in all of this.

The Daily Planet gets news from a variety of sources. The overwhelming majority of our articles are written by citizen journalists, ranging from a volunteer producing a news story for KFAI to a free-lance writer who is paid for a story we have asked him/her to write. (We ONLY pay for assigned stories.) We have different standards for each of those sources.

First, we re-publish news from community media partners. We publish only original content from our media partners – not wire services, not syndicated material, and not press releases. We look for articles that have strong local interest or ties. We do not do fact-checking on these articles. That is the responsibility of the media partner that originally published the article.

Second, we publish articles from “our” bloggers and opinion columns or essays in our Voices section. Generally, these articles are the responsibility of their authors. We may do minor editing for grammar and style. We will not do major fact-checking. If something in a blog or Voices submission looks factually questionable, we might ask the author to clarify, or we might decide not to publish. We try to publish Voices articles that are interesting and well-written. While we prefer local content or local ties, there’s a little more latitude in Voices for commentary on national or global issues. We do not publish press releases in Voices. [Opinion or commentary articles from our media partners also go in Voices.]

Third, we publish articles submitted by citizen journalists in the community. An example is the recent article on St. Paul’s best-kept Christmas secret. Louise Ernewein submitted this article. I had never heard of her. I had heard of the Jackson Street Roundhouse, but did not know about the Christmas program. The article was interesting and well-written, the photos were great, and a few minutes of on-line checking verified the basic facts. Great! Louise told an interesting story with strong local interest, and she told it well. I want more stories like that! And I hope to meet Louise in the future and to get more stories from her. (Turns out she is a journalist from Britain, now married to a Minnesotan and living in the Twin Cities area.)

Finally, we assign articles to free-lance writers and interns. Some of these writers are paid, but nobody is getting paid enough. They are citizen journalists, who live in and write about our community. Their articles have to meet our highest standards for fairness, accuracy, and accountability.

Some stories are easier. An interview with a local figure or a story about a new theater opening may require the reporter’s vigilance to spell names correctly and double-check dates, but they do not stir deep controversy. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, but the Daily Planet and our citizen journalists do as well as—and sometimes better than—any professional media. (One recent example: as Joel Grostephan worked on our story on local observance of Eid ul-Adha, I heard the morning report from National Public Radio incorrectly identify this Eid as “marking the end of Ramadan.” We got it right—they got it wrong. Happens to the best of us, but we try not to let it happen often.)

Other stories are tougher. They focus on issues that deeply divide communities or reveal facts that an institution or official would rather not see in print. Tough stories require a lot of work—research, writing, and sometimes lots of back-and-forth between editor and writer. That is just as true for citizen journalists as for professionals.

Keeping our reporting truthful and transparent is a big part of my job as editor, and a continuing challenge. I have to play devil’s advocate, question assertions, ask for documentation, and make the final decisions on when something is ready for print. I have a nasty, suspicious mind, which is a great asset in this job.

Our biggest assets, though, are the commitment and hard work of our citizen journalists. Dan Gordon, for example, digs deep for facts. Many of his articles focus on hot-button issues. That means repeated rounds of questions and discussion, sending articles back and forth, checking for facts, re-checking his careful notes of interviews, double-checking public documents, and spending lots of his time, and mine, before an article goes to print. (Look for a new report from Dan in the first week of January.)

No, we do not put any disclaimers on articles written by our citizen journalists. The Twin Cities Daily Planet is designed as a tool for citizens who want to share information, create community, hold the powerful accountable and work together for the common good. We strive for high standards of fairness, accuracy, and accountability. If you share those values, you are welcome to sign on as a citizen journalist and contribute articles, photographs, audio or video reporting.

If you would like to know more about writing for the TC Daily Planet, come to our writers’ group at Rondo Community Center and Library in St. Paul (University and Dale) on most Monday afternoons at 4 p.m The next meeting will be Monday, January 7, and it is open to anyone.

[Originally published 12/12/07]

Immigration raids around the country target workers in their workplaces. Their focus highlights the immigrant roots of U.S. unions and labor organizing. This week in Minnesota two events focus on immigrant workers in Minnesota: a December 13 gathering commemorating last year’s raid in Worthington and an award to this year’s successful Justice for Janitors campaign.

Remember the raids?

• Remember 230 workers seized, and all workers who “looked like” immigrants detained and locked down until they could prove their immigrant or citizen status.

• Remember the thirteen-year-old girl, left without parents when her mother was shipped to Mexico and her father disappeared) Days later, he was found in detention in Atlanta.

• Remember the twelve- and thirteen-year-old U.S. citizen children, the only safe members of their families, who had to look for missing relatives, shop for groceries, seek help.

• And remember the response of the union and of Minnesotans who supported the devastated families and community.

Remember them all on December 13, at an event commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Worthington meatpacking raid. The program will run from 7 to 9 p.m. at St. Joan of Arc Church, 46th St. and 3rd Ave., Minneapolis. The theme is “Remembering the Raids: Reclaiming Our Community.”

The Minnesota community spotlighted a victory for workers at the Take Action Minnesota dinner December 8. Chants of “Sí se puede!” from Latino workers were joined by “Ha waan awoodnaa!” from Somali workers as Take Action Minnesota honored the successful Justice for Janitors campaign. The janitors, organized by SEIU Local 26, demanded more full-time work and better health care coverage. Their previous contract had such high prices for health care coverage that only 14 of 4200 workers were covered. Under the new contract, monthly insurance premiums dropped from $750 to $75.

In November, the union launched a new campaign to improve contracts for security guards and window cleaners. The goals of the campaign–affordable healthcare, income that can support families, and improved training and safety—were tragically highlighted this month December by the death of 52-year-old union leader Fidel Sanchez-Flores, who fell through a skylight at the IDS Center while he and other workers were clearing snow from the roof. The union has set up a fund to help the Sanchez-Flores family at:

The Family of Fidel Sanchez-Flores Memorial Fund
c/o Union Bank & Trust
312 Central Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55414

A crowd of union members stood at the front of the banquet hall to accept the Take Action Minnesota award. Immigrants and U.S.-born workers stood shoulder to shoulder, as they had throughout last year’s successful campaign.

“We stood together,” a union leader told the audience. “No matter when we got here, we all are Minnesotans today.”

No, not the holes in the highways–those can be filled and good riddance to them, though I know they will come again every spring. The potholes we need to preserve are the prairie potholes, those sloughs and swampy mini-lakes that dot the countryside, growing cattails and providing homes for ducks and egrets and herons.

Photo by Pete Baer, licensed by Creative Commons.

Tom Meersman has a good article in the Strib about prairie potholes. He describes the way that millions of these humble wetland areas across Minnesota and the Dakotas absorb rainwater and run-off, thereby slowing sedimentation of rivers, preventing soil erosion and purifying water. For years, farmers have been paid to keep these potholes alive. No more.

Farmers in the area signed 10- to 15-year conservation agreements in the 1990s to set aside grasslands and prairie potholes for wildlife habitat, he said, but many are converting the land back to crops as soon as those contracts expire.

Between the expiration of the conservation easements and the rising prices of land, farmers are finding it tough to justify keeping any land out of production. While corn prices were high this past winter, that’s not enough to make up for decades of uncertain pricing. Moreover, high corn prices drive land prices higher. Higher land prices mean higher property taxes, since the taxes are based on the land’s market value. Farmers have to produce saleable crops in order to keep the land.

Habitat for wildlife, clean water, saving the land for future generations — priceless. But property taxes, mortgage payments, fuel for tractors and, yes, feeding the family — these all come with hefty price tags. And some farmers will be draining and plowing the potholes to pay the price.

I’ve read, researched and written extensively on Rock-Tenn, the paper recycling plant, and plans for its energy future. I spent more hours this weekend editing articles about Rock-Tenn, and more hours continuing to read the e-mails that flow back and forth along the Rock-Tenn Community Advisory Panel listserv.

Last year, the questions and answers about Rock-Tenn seemed a lot simpler. The plant was losing its steam line because Xcel was closing the coal-powered High Bridge plant. Rock-Tenn’s alternatives were to burn fuel oil and natural gas in its existing but long-unused boilers or to build a new power plant that would use a less expensive fuel. With the support of the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County and the St. Paul Port Authority, Rock-Tenn planned to build a plant to burn refuse derived fuel (RDF).

Most people living near the plant found it easy to oppose burning RDF. RDF is processed garbage (municipal solid waste.) There are many good reasons to oppose RDF. Concerns include potential health effects from emissions and tax subsidies required for processing RDF. Opponents point to the inefficiency of RDF as a fuel. Critics also say that focusing on incineration means de-emphasizing strategies for reducing and recycling waste.

As public consensus against RDF grew, the questions about power for Rock-Tenn multiplied and got more complex:

1. What kinds of fuels are available and economical?

2. What kinds of fuels are unhealthy and what kinds are safer?

3. What is the impact of various fuels on global warming?

4. What is the right size for a Rock-Tenn power plant? Should it just produce enough heat for Rock-Tenn’s manufacturing process or should it also produce enough energy for a district heating and cooling system in the immediate area?

5. Would a district heating and cooling system significantly reduce overall emissions by eliminating individual, inefficient HVAC systems?

Ramsey and Washington County governments like RDF. They should — they keep agreeing to pay millions of tax dollars to the Newport processing plant to convert municipal solid waste into RDF. Subsidies have to flow to garbage haulers to pay higher tipping fees at the Newport plant. More subsidies go to Xcel Energy to induce them to take the processed RDF from the Newport plant and burn it (in Red Wing), because RDF is an inefficient fuel.

Early in the debate, it looked like the environmentally-friendly answer was that the plant should burn “real” biomass. (The legislature classified RDF as biomass, but most people don’t buy that designation.) “Real” biomass might be corn cobs and stalks or oat hulls or wood and wood waste or prairie grass. Today, many involved in the debate are denouncing any kind of burning and insisting that no kind of biomass is good fuel.

RDF clearly has enormous problems — economic, environmental and political. The quickest way to move the process forward is by unequivocally taking RDF off the table. The Port Authority, District Energy and Rock-Tenn need to renounce the use of RDF. So far, they have refused to do so.

Even if RDF were taken off the table, the next question is right-sizing the energy operation. The debate started with Rock-Tenn’s need for steam. A plant large enough to provide steam for peak operations needs also would produce surplus heat and energy. That opens the door to a new level of energy politics.

Xcel Energy (privately owned, for-profit company) wants exclusive rights to purchase any excess energy generated at Rock-Tenn. They almost got the legislature to sign on to this deal last year. Any time a seller (in this case, Rock-Tenn) has just one buyer, that buyer can set the price. Being the sole eligible buyer of Rock-Tenn’s surplus energy would put Xcel in a good position to bolster its bottom line and increase its profits.

The St. Paul Port Authority (quasi-governmental, non-profit municipal corporation) wants a district heating and cooling system, like the one that District Energy operates in downtown St. Paul. The Port Authority distributed a propaganda piece called “The Energy Independent” in several neighborhood newspapers in early November, saying that a district heating system will be built in the area.

That raises a political problem. The Rock-Tenn Community Advisory Panel has not made any recommendation on a district heating and cooling operation. Now it seems that the Port Authority has made a decision to proceed regardless of what the panel recommends. What does that say about the whole process of citizen input and, when you come right down to it, about participatory democracy?

A district heating and cooling system would mean building — at Rock-Tenn — a plant that is significantly larger than needed just to supply Rock-Tenn with steam. Within the panel, and within the community, there is significant opposition to building such a plant.

Facts and figures are missing. What area would the Port Authority plan cover? What are the current and projected heating and cooling needs of that area? Who lives there? What businesses operate there? How are they now heated, and what kind of air emissions do they now generate?

Until that information is on the table, no one can know whether a district heating and cooling plant, located at Rock-Tenn, would increase or decrease air polution.

A whole set of related questions come back to the fuel issue. What kind of fuel would be used? Where would the fuel come from? How would it be transported to the plant? What is fuel availability for the smallest-size plant– one that would be adequate to generate steam for Rock-Tenn and nothing more? What is fuel availability for the district energy option? What are the comparative costs for various fuels? What kinds of environmental impact (both on air quality and on global warming) does each fuel have?

These questions are complex and require a fair degree of research by people with technical backgrounds. One step, however, is simple: taking RDF off the table would help everyone to focus.

On November 8, NPR aired the story of a waitress who talked to Hilary Clinton on the campaign trail.

“Anita Esterday, a waitress at the Maid-Rite in Toledo, Iowa, told NPR’s David Greene in a report that aired on Morning Edition Thursday that “nobody got left a tip” on Oct. 8, when Clinton sat at the lunch counter and ordered up the restaurant’s famous loose-meat sandwich.”

The tip, or non-tip, was part of an eight-minute story on the campaign, but it quickly became the focus of bloggers across the country. The Clinton campaign responded quickly, insisting that a $100 tip had been left at the diner. The controversy continued, with another report on November 9 analyzing who had or had not been tipped and who had said what about tips. Perhaps the most interesting part for reporters and editors was a small piece of the November 9 report that dealt with the way the story was reported. [Transcribed from NPR media player. Full clip is 4:19. This interchange runs 3:23-3:52. Emphasis added.]

Renee Montagne: David, would some of this have been avoided if you had taken it to the campaign beforehand, especially about the tip, I mean, wouldn’t that be a pretty basic thing to do?

David Greene: Yeah, I .. I .. since Anita Esterday had said on our air that nobody got tipped that day, which is different from saying that just she did not get tipped, she said that no one was tipped. I should have asked the campaign before the story aired if they could say if anyone was tipped and how exactly that happened. That would have made the tip, I think, a lot more of the focus of our story than I had intended, but it’s clear I should have gotten their reaction up front. That’s the way it’s done.

Renee Montagne: David, thanks.

David Greene: Thanks, Renee.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16143435
Clinton Campaign Says It Tipped Maid-Rite Waitress

by Renee Montagne and David Greene

Morning Edition, November 9, 2007 · A waitress causes a stir on the political blogs. The waitress at a Maid-Rite restaurant in Iowa says she did not get a tip after serving presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton, a Democrat from New York. But the Clinton campaign says a $100 tip was left at the diner.
Election 2008

Editor’s Note: The Tale of the Tip

NPR.org, November 8, 2007 · It started as an aside in a longer interview, but it became an Internet sensation within hours. [for full story, click here.]

Did you read about the Finnish musicians who were harassed, detained, intimidated and generally mistreated by U.S. immigration/homeland security agents at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport? Rich Broderick broke the story in the Twin Cities Daily Planet.

This is a prime example of citizen journalism. Broderick spoke directly to the people who were involved. He wrote the story and, since it included a heavy dose of his opinion about the way that immigration and homeland security function, the story ran as a blog, not in the news columns.

Some people questioned the accuracy of the report. They seemed to feel that the story was suspect, because they had not seen it in the mainstream media. In fact, the story finally was published in the Star Tribune more than two weeks later.

Broderick’s report shows how citizen journalism works and why it is important.

Citizen journalism works because individual people have information to share, and believe their information is important. In this case, Broderick heard about a newsworthy event. He spoke directly to the people who were involved and investigated the story. His account linked the individual incident to broader concerns about civil liberties in the post-9/11 “security” regime.

Without Broderick’s reporting (and without a Daily Planet to publish the story), this incident may never have been known outside the small circle of those immediately involved and their friends and families. The mainstream media has relatively few reporters. All of us walking around in our communities, talking to our neighbors, listening to musicians at Tillie’s Bean, talking to workers at the Hard Rock Café, snapping photos of the new Midtown Greenway bridge – all of us together have more information about our communities than a few reporters can gather. To put it another way, all of us together are better-informed than any one of us.

One reason that citizen journalism is important is that citizens use it to report important news. That’s part of the reason the Daily Planet exists.

A second reason is that the mainstream media listens, at least some of the time. Journalists look for news. Many of them read the Twin Cities Daily Planet and other citizen journalism sites.

I am glad they do. I want them to pick up our stories and, with their far greater resources and audience, take those stories to the world.

I feel rich tonight, though I don’t have a dollar more than I did before I sat down at my computer. I feel rich because there’s a new issue of Minnesota Women’s Press and a new issue of the Park Bugle and they both have wonderful writing that brings comfort and challenge and humor.

Want to read about hummingbirds, flashing like jewels in the Andes and in a St. Paul yard? Or about the meaning of home, and two people who open their very different homes to a late October home tour? Check out the Park Bugle, which will also tell you about horses at the U of M’s farm campus.

For intensely personal articles about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a fantastic book group opportunity to read about women and war with Toni McNaron and Susan Cygnet, and a refugee woman making Minnesota her home, read Minnesota Women’s Press.

And if reading doesn’t make you rich, it may make you feel that way.

Bush visited Anbar Province this week, in a photo op that his handlers insisted was not. Now newspapers are reporting that Anbar demonstrates a modicum of success for the “surge.” One problem with that analysis: the surge was not aimed at Anbar. The surge was supposed to make Baghdad safe. Here’s what Bush had to say on January 10:

So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs. …

The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

Not Anbar province — Baghdad. Eight months later, Baghdad remains mired in violence.

The big bridge breaks in half, falls in the Mississippi. The skies open over southern Minnesota, sweeping houses away as people cling to the roof, opening a road to swallow cars. We come together to respond, to give aid, to console the bereaved and one another.

And yet. Every day small tragedies play out. A teenage boy is thrown out of his home by his parents, again. An elderly mind drifts deeper into the fog of Alzheimer’s. A young father/brother/son dies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia.

The big disasters are safer. The bridge and the flood are contained, defined. Such disasters happen only once in a long while. By focusing on the big ones, we can pretend that disasters do not lurk in daily life.