Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Conservation - Energy's Best-Kept Secret

Energy is never far from the newswire.  Should we build the Keystone Pipeline to help Canada move its oil to the U.S. and also to international markets via Houston?  Do we dare to apply sanctions to Iran that might disrupt world oil supply?  Will the projected increases in fuel prices this summer derail our economic recovery?  Can we ignore the effect that burning fossil fuels has on global climate?  Is fracking (hydraulic fracturing) for natural gas safe?  Should we stop building coal-powered power plants that are known to be major polluters?

In most of our discussions about energy, we all seem to be die-hard supply-siders.  We focus most of our attention on how to obtain more energy and very little on how to make better use of what we have.

It is difficult to know how much energy we waste in the United States.  Information provided by the Department of Energy[1] and Lawrence Livermore labs[2] has been used to argue that we waste more than half of the energy we use. That may an overstatement since conversion and transmission of energy inevitably lead to some loss.
Nevertheless, we do use an extraordinary amount of energy, and much of it is unnecessary. In 2009, the U.S. consumed 9.4 quadrillion BTUs of energy.[3] That is enough energy to heat all of the water in the Atlantic Ocean by more than half a degree.[4]  We also know that the U.S. uses more than twice as much energy per person as does the European Union and more than four times as much as the world average.[5]

We spend a lot of time, money and effort trying to find clean and renewable ways to produce energy, and we should.  However, it appears unlikely that any of these will be game changers in the near future. 
We wring our hands about energy independence, engage in wars over energy resources, and support horrible governments to get access to their oil. We dig in places that would be better left undisturbed. We pollute our environment with the byproducts of burning unbelievable amounts of fossil fuels. We flirt with unimaginable disasters by using nuclear energy.  We extract oil from sources like tar sands that are known to be environmentally damaging.  We extract natural gas using fracking techniques that pump thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into our underground aquifers and may increase the odds of earth quakes.   And all the time the real payoff is simply to quit wasting energy. Conservation doesn’t mean sitting at home in the dark with your coat on. It simply means stopping the flow of energy that isn’t needed.

The opportunities are everywhere and include insulation, smart lights, smart power grids, black pipes on roofs to heat water, heat pumps, high mileage vehicles, goods shipped by train rather than truck, passengers moved by train or bus rather than by plane or car, high efficiency furnaces and air conditioners, and smart buildings. The opportunities are almost endless, and the government can have an enormous impact on facilitating their implementation by providing incentives and assistance. Doing so will create jobs, increase our quality of life, reduce pollution, improve international relations, and improve our business climate.
Conservation may not be as cool as some sexy new technology, but it sure makes a lot of sense.

References
[1] http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm#summary
[2] https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2010/images/energy-flow-annotated.pdf
[3] http://www.pennenergy.com/index/articles/display.articles.pennenergy.power.operations-reliability.2010.05.us-energy_consumption.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html
[4] http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-gallons-of-water-are-in-the-atlantic-ocean
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Model Shoot Photos

I was lucky enough to be able to participate in an amateur model shoot through my camera club.  I took a lot of pictures.  Here are some of my favorites.  Having great models, lighting, and backdrops really makes things easier.



 







Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The Catholic Church and the Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Ammendment

In November, Minnesota voters will be asked to decide whether or not to join 31 other states that have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.  Even though Minnesota already prevents same-sex marriage through its Defense of Marriage Act, this amendment would extend the prohibition to the constitutional level thus barring challenges to the law’s constitutionality. 

Specifically, the proposed amendment states, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."

According to a recent report from the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, the Catholic Archdiocese of Minneapolis & St. Paul and the Catholic Dioceses of New Ulm contributed $700,000 last year to support passage of this amendment.  Half of that money, $350,000, was donated to Minnesota For Marriage, an organization that is spearheading the push to get the constitutional amendment approved.

According to Catholic World News, Archbishop John Nienstedt and other church leaders in Minnesota are enthusiastically supporting this amendment and he has warned his priests that open dissention will not be tolerated.  One priest who has challenged the archbishop on that point, Father Mike Tegeder, has reportedly been warned that he could be suspended from ministry if he continues to oppose the amendment campaign.
The Catholic Spirit reported that as part of a statewide effort by the Catholic bishops of Minnesota, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis provided $650,000 in 2011 to the Minnesota Catholic Conference for that organization’s activities to get the amendment on the ballot.

More than 400,000 DVDs have been mailed to the homes of Minnesota Catholics, courtesy of Catholic bishops in the state.  The 18-minute DVD includes an appearance by the Archbishop in which he says it is time for Minnesotans to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

So the question is this.  How can this possibly not invalidate any claim the Catholic Church has to tax exemption?

Austin Cline provided an overview of the tax exemption laws in About.com.  To paraphrase (emphasis mine):

Tax exemptions are not a right.  No group or church is owed a tax exemption. These exemptions on various taxes are not protected by the Constitution.  They are created by and regulated by the legislatures and can be taken away by them. Tax exemptions are provided in exchange for groups’ providing services to the community.  Church tax exemptions are in jeopardy if they engage in direct political activity either against or on behalf of a political candidate or in an attempt to directly influence the passage of particular legislation. Losing tax-exempt status can mean both having to pay income taxes and that donations to the group will not be tax deductible by the donors.

This excerpt from the IRS Tax Guide for Religious Organizations describes what churches must do to retain their 501(c)(3) statuses that allow them to be tax exempt and allow people contributing to them to deduct the contribution.

In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation.  Legislation includes … a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure.  A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation … if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

How could this be any clearer?  The Catholic Church has attempted to influence whether or not the constitutional amendment is passed by contributing large amounts of money to lobbying organizations, by trying to influence voters who are members of the Church on how to vote, and by muzzling its own leaders’ ability to discuss the issue.

The Catholic Church must lose its tax exempt 501(c)(3) status, and contributions to the church by individual tax payers must not be deductable.  This is a fight we must engage in if we expect the separation of church and state to mean anything.