Most rational people would hesitate to trust me with their money, at least without evidence. Skeptics would challenge: “Why should we trust you?”

Randomly put 100 climate scientists in a room, and 97 would say that humans affect Earth’s temperature. Out of that hundred only three disagree.

Now, honest people are free to disagree. And we know that the scientists’ conclusions are only opinions. Their opinions are informed by the evidence, however. And after looking at the available evidence, 97% agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.

Farmers will be hit hard by a changing climate. Pests and crop-yields will fluctuate wildly. And climate-change will create uncertainty in global markets, which affects local producers. Even Monsanto is concerned.

Additionally, we know that a renewable wind industry can bring billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to Nebraska and the midwest. Ignoring the facts on climate change stifles these opportunities, sending the jobs elsewhere.

Experts and scientists can be wrong. Science is “the belief in the ignorance of experts,” after all. We shouldn’t trust someone because they’re an “expert.” We should trust them because they share their evidence and reasoning. They have to earn our trust, just like financial traders have to earn our investment.

You wouldn’t hand over your money without proof. Nobody wants to end up like Jack in the story, selling the cow for a handful of promises. Despite the enchanting fairytale, we know there are no magic beans. We live in a world of cause and effect.

So while we may (partially) be causing climate-change...we can also affect it.

The beanstalk of green energy is a step towards our bright future.

---

You can reach Paul Mansoor via telephone (402-687-2103 x 1028), or email (paulm@cfra.org), and you can follow him on Twitter @paul_at_cfra

Most rational people would hesitate to trust me with their money, at least without evidence. Skeptics would challenge: “Why should we trust you?”

Randomly put 100 climate scientists in a room, and 97 would say that humans affect Earth’s temperature. Out of that hundred only three disagree.

Now, honest people are free to disagree. And we know that the scientists’ conclusions are only opinions. Their opinions are informed by the evidence, however. And after looking at the available evidence, 97% agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.

Farmers will be hit hard by a changing climate. Pests and crop-yields will fluctuate wildly. And climate-change will create uncertainty in global markets, which affects local producers. Even Monsanto is concerned.

Additionally, we know that a renewable wind industry can bring billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to Nebraska and the midwest. Ignoring the facts on climate change stifles these opportunities, sending the jobs elsewhere.

Experts and scientists can be wrong. Science is “the belief in the ignorance of experts,” after all. We shouldn’t trust someone because they’re an “expert.” We should trust them because they share their evidence and reasoning. They have to earn our trust, just like financial traders have to earn our investment.

You wouldn’t hand over your money without proof. Nobody wants to end up like Jack in the story, selling the cow for a handful of promises. Despite the enchanting fairytale, we know there are no magic beans. We live in a world of cause and effect.

So while we may (partially) be causing climate-change...we can also affect it.

The beanstalk of green energy is a step towards our bright future.

---

You can reach Paul Mansoor via telephone (402-687-2103 x 1028), or email (paulm@cfra.org), and you can follow him on Twitter @paul_at_cfra

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method to harvest natural gas. Chemicals are shot underground to break up rocks, releasing embedded gas. Residents living near fracking sites have reported polluted groundwater and other health dangers.

The new regulations target air pollution. Specifically, when the underground gas rises to the Earth’s surface, it tends to “flare” up before being collected.

Imagine a burst fire hydrant. The water surges out of the ground, until someone shuts the valve. Most of the water is conserved, but that initial squirt is lost.

Natural gas acts in a similar way. Usually, the initial flare up is just absorbed into the atmosphere. And natural gas, or methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas.

The EPA has focused on minimizing the air-pollution effects of fracking. The new regulations compel frackers to capture the methane at the source, instead of letting it slip away.

The biggest benefactors are the people living near natural gas wells. Methane (and other toxic releases) from fracking can cause irreparable harm to humans. On a grander scale, minimizing air-pollution serves us all.

But gas companies will benefit from these regulations too. Methane collected from flare-ups can be sold to consumers like normal. In fact, its estimated that the industry will save $11 to $19 Million per year by following these rules. Most companies haven’t installed collectors because of the initial costs involved. The EPA ruling removes this roadblock.

The standards go into effect in 60 days, but companies have three years to comply. Beginning in 2015, all companies must capture methane. The sooner they install capturing technologies, the better.

The new EPA regulations don’t address all the health concerns of fracking.

But they’re a good start, for both the people living near the wells, and the companies that profit.

Energy is on everyone’s mind, from politicians to our neighbors, but we are not helpless! The uncertain economy is a perfect time for you to evaluate your own energy use--and find the savings.

Andrew Carnegie spent heavily in down economic times. He built new factories and tuned up his company. When the economic depression ended, Carnegie Steel (later renamed U.S. Steel) was stronger and ready to grow. This is a classic lesson of winter preparation leading to a strong spring.

We Nebraskans are facing a tough “winter” of our own. High energy prices affect everything, from the price at the pump to the cost of commodities. Yet several communities are following Carnegie’s example by wisely investing in energy efficiency, despite the economy.

Recently, rural Tecumseh spent money to save money. Partially using funds from the Recovery Act, Tecumseh installed nearly 100 LED outdoor light fixtures. LEDs, or “light-emitting diodes,” are lights that use a fraction of the energy other light bulbs use. They are bright, require less electricity, and can produce light in a pleasing spectrum.

The new lights are expected to save Tecumseh more than $6 thousand per year. But LEDs are expensive to purchase and install; the project cost almost $187 thousand. That’s where government loans come into play, according to Brian Chaffin, Tecumseh’s city engineer.

“Without additional funding and support, a lot of these smaller, more rural towns would not be able to get these projects done.” Brian said.

Big government grants can help rural communities improve their energy infrastructure. Tecumseh only invested $37,000, a sliver of the project’s total cost. There are smaller loans available for individuals, farmers, or ranchers.

The Nebraska government has resources on available funding for energy improvements. Visit their website, at http://www.neo.ne.gov/loan/ for more information.

There are several professionals who can help guide you through energy efficiency options for your home or business. The non-profit Energize Nebraska educates customers and helps install solar, wind, and efficiency upgrades for residential and commercial properties.

Improving your energy efficiency is a great way to save money in the long term. Remember: it’s always cheaper to conserve than to generate.

Focusing on energy efficiency investments is like tilling your soil before seeding. It takes a little extra investment in the beginning, but you get a much better outcome. Andrew Carnegie earned immense wealth following this strategy. Tecumseh is likewise investing in the “off-season.”

You and your communities can do the same, and come out of this recession energized.

Ask nearly anyone how much they spend on gas and the answer’s the same. Americans are spending a fortune to fill our tanks these days, and high prices could stall any hopes of economic recovery.

Rural residents are hit especially hard. We often drive further distances than our urban counterparts, and can’t rely on public transportation. The high prices disproportionately hurt the rural community.

We’ve been here before: in June of 2008, gas prices crept past $4 per gallon for the first time, and 25% of polled Americans thought gas prices were the number one problem facing the country.

Yet a recently conducted Gallup survey indicates our attitudes have shifted.

Only 7% said high gas prices were the biggest problem we face as a nation. Respondents were much more likely to say the economy or unemployment are the toughest difficulties we currently face.

We should not expect to solve a “crisis” like higher gas prices with a silver bullet. (Unless you’re Bob Seger.) Economists, politicians, academics and informed-people agree that there isn’t one simple solution. Instead, they advocate for a portfolio of solutions, that vary over time.

In baseball terms, we’re not going to lick this problem with a fence-clearing home run.

We know that the gas issue--like others--sticks around and affects generation after generation of Americans. We also know that it won’t be solved by one generation at one time.

Instead of swinging for the fences, desperate for a game-winning homer, we should focus on small ball--getting people on base, putting runners in scoring position.  We should be doing our part to give the next generation the best chance to win.

As we step up to the plate to tackle high gas prices, our game plan should be easing peoples’ suffering today, without sacrificing the people of tomorrow.

It comes down to our country making a choice: do we want to delude ourselves and be satiated in the short-term, or play smart and ensure America is strong for generations to come?

If you want to spend less on transportation--which is really the heart of the gasoline issue--support overhauling our infrastructure. Support clean transmission development, electric cars, new bio-fuel research, improvements to city-layouts and new designs for refueling stations.

We take our current infrastructure for granted. Before gas stations, before standardized fuel nozzles or a distribution system, our country relied on horses. The horse lobby was powerful, and reluctant to give up its watering troughs, feed supplies, street cleaners and veterinarians to a new, disruptive technology.

Our forebears invested in the future, and we reap the benefits of a streamlined, integrated transportation network. Let’s make sure we don’t let the voices of a few naysayers compromise our children’s future.

Rural residents, farmers, and ranchers who spend fortunes to run their machinery should be pushing Caterpillar and John Deere for more alternative fuel models, like those that run on natural gas or bio-diesel.

As our country uses less gasoline, prices will decrease. So rural stakeholders who don’t want to retrofit or replace their expensive machinery will still benefit from other consumers reducing their oil needs. Supporting clean energy infrastructure will reduce overall costs for everyone.

We’re all in this together, playing on the same team. Our best chance at winning comes from trusting in each other and the future.

Time to play ball.

Ask nearly anyone how much they spend on gas and the answer’s the same. Americans are spending a fortune to fill our tanks these days, and high prices could stall any hopes of economic recovery.

Rural residents are hit especially hard. We often drive further distances than our urban counterparts, and can’t rely on public transportation. The high prices disproportionately hurt the rural community.

We’ve been here before: in June of 2008, gas prices crept past $4 per gallon for the first time, and 25% of polled Americans thought gas prices were the number one problem facing the country.

Yet a recently conducted Gallup survey indicates our attitudes have shifted.

Only 7% said high gas prices were the biggest problem we face as a nation. Respondents were much more likely to say the economy or unemployment are the toughest difficulties we currently face.

We should not expect to solve a “crisis” like higher gas prices with a silver bullet. (Unless you’re Bob Seger.) Economists, politicians, academics and informed-people agree that there isn’t one simple solution. Instead, they advocate for a portfolio of solutions, that vary over time.

In baseball terms, we’re not going to lick this problem with a fence-clearing home run.

We know that the gas issue--like others--sticks around and affects generation after generation of Americans. We also know that it won’t be solved by one generation at one time.

Instead of swinging for the fences, desperate for a game-winning homer, we should focus on small ball--getting people on base, putting runners in scoring position.  We should be doing our part to give the next generation the best chance to win.

As we step up to the plate to tackle high gas prices, our game plan should be easing peoples’ suffering today, without sacrificing the people of tomorrow.

It comes down to our country making a choice: do we want to delude ourselves and be satiated in the short-term, or play smart and ensure America is strong for generations to come?

If you want to spend less on transportation--which is really the heart of the gasoline issue--support overhauling our infrastructure. Support clean transmission development, electric cars, new bio-fuel research, improvements to city-layouts and new designs for refueling stations.

We take our current infrastructure for granted. Before gas stations, before standardized fuel nozzles or a distribution system, our country relied on horses. The horse lobby was powerful, and reluctant to give up its watering troughs, feed supplies, street cleaners and veterinarians to a new, disruptive technology.

Our forebears invested in the future, and we reap the benefits of a streamlined, integrated transportation network. Let’s make sure we don’t let the voices of a few naysayers compromise our children’s future.

Rural residents, farmers, and ranchers who spend fortunes to run their machinery should be pushing Caterpillar and John Deere for more alternative fuel models, like those that run on natural gas or bio-diesel.

As our country uses less gasoline, prices will decrease. So rural stakeholders who don’t want to retrofit or replace their expensive machinery will still benefit from other consumers reducing their oil needs. Supporting clean energy infrastructure will reduce overall costs for everyone.

We’re all in this together, playing on the same team. Our best chance at winning comes from trusting in each other and the future.

Time to play ball.

Wind developers want to develop: to procure land rights and install as many profit-generating turbines as possible. Landowners and community members might favor financial compensation, but not at significant cost to the land, serenity and/or aesthetics they value.

I’ve written before about stakeholders asking developers detailed questions. Since both sides can economically prosper, they both have a mutual interest in fair negotiations.

To reach a balanced, lasting compromise, both stakeholder groups must be honest and patient when negotiating siting.

Wind developers in particular should:

• Offer credible, peer-reviewed facts.

• Promote outreach education.

• Adhere to contracts.

• Engage as many affected stakeholders as possible/relevant.

• Support community engagement and review of project plans and policies.

• Allocate the time/space for meaningful information-exchanges.

• Learn from past experiences.

Patience is a must for both sides. Developers must do their best to ensure a fair and credible review process with local stakeholders. Creating meaningful information-exchanges takes commitment and discipline. Developers who respect stakeholders have a much better chance of seeing their projects move forward.

Landowners whose opinions aren’t garnered, or whose questions remain unanswered, are unlikely to approve any new development on their land.

When both parties engage honestly and patiently, the benefits are tremendous. Wind is a valuable commodity that creates jobs and clean energy.

There’s an Oklahoma saying: “If you aren’t seated at the table, you’re on the menu.”

Landowners and developers can work together, and there are countless success stories across the Midwest. But concerned stakeholders must have a seat at the discussion table--or everyone could go home hungry.

Spanning the state of Kansas, the new transmission wires will bring electricity from areas abundant with wind to demand centers where that electricity is needed most.

The Grain Belt Express will deliver 3,500 megawatts from wind farms in rural Kansas and Oklahoma to states further east.

Midwest states like Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan will be connected, in addition to states further south and East like Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, and New Jersey.

This new transmission project will yield millions of dollars in property tax revenues for communities, while reducing the amount of pollutants in our environment. And it will deliver enough clean energy to annually power 1.4 million homes.

Constructing, installing, and maintaining the wind turbines will employ thousands in western Kansas. Thousands of jobs will also be needed to erect towers and lay cable for the project, creating economic growth in the eastern Midwest.

The Grain Belt Express project is still in the planning stages. Clean Line Energy is securing property rights and meeting with stakeholders for feedback. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2014.

Check out The Center for Rural Affairs’ database to learn more about transmission, and for ways to make your voice heard. You can follow the progress of the Grain Belt Express and other clean transmission developments on our website, www.cfra.org.

Comments or Questions? Contact Paul Mansoor, of the Center for Rural Affairs, at (402) 687-2103 ext 1028, or paulm@cfra.org

In my life, it’s affected my family. Both my brothers were able to stay on my parent’s health care plan. They could afford health care and to work on the home farm, instead of taking jobs in town. I certainly have appreciated seeing my brothers happy, and working at jobs they love, instead of miserable, insured on a plan that covers little and eats up paychecks.

For others, the Affordable Care Act offers choices. If you have a pre-existing condition, you can still qualify for an insurance plan that will cover people who otherwise have no options. Another benefit: increased payments to rural health care providers. That keeps them available to serve our communities.

Healthcare.gov (the official governmental web site) gives a timeline of what’s changing and when. It allows us to see what’s already in place, and what’s coming, like rate review standards and medical loss ratio (MLR).

What the heck are those? Their purpose is to make insurance companies more accountable. You wouldn’t let your mechanic raise her prices over 10 percent without understanding why. Insurance companies should be held to the same standard. Rate review is either the state or federal government reviewing rate (premium) increases by insurance companies. If they can’t prove a good reason for the increase, they aren’t allowed to raise the rates!

Also, they must spend 80% of the money they collect from their customers on benefits (MLR). If they can’t meet that goal and their profits are too high, they must REBATE the money to consumers!

So, here’s what I think. I’m happy my brothers have access to health care plans. I was too old to qualify. But I still had to deal with medical issues. I’m looking forward to the day when more of the Affordable Care Act is implemented, and I get to share in the bounty of being protected, and having Affordable Care.

Although the energy goals mentioned during his recent State of the Union address were laudable, President Obama must now turn attention to the improvement of our nation’s electric transmission system. Upgrading and expanding clean energy transmission will create jobs, spur new industries, and lead to a more-sustainable future for rural America.

The input of folks in Nebraska and across the nation made a strong contribution to the State Department’s decision. “We received comments on a wide range of issues including the proposed project’s impact on jobs, pipeline safety, health concerns, the societal impact of the project, the oil extraction in Canada, and the proposed route through the Sandhills area of Nebraska, which was one of the most common issues raised,” said the State Department. This conclusion was developed after a “transparent, thorough and rigorous review of TransCanada’s application.”

Perhaps indicating concern over the State Department’s handling of the project, last week President Obama expressed his thoughts on Keystone XL’s route in an interview with Omaha station KETV: “They’ll be giving me a report over the next several months, and, you know, my general attitude is, what is best for the American people?” said Obama, “We need to make sure that we have energy security...but there’s a way of doing that and still making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected, and that’s how I’ll be measuring these recommendations when they come to me.

A delay in the decision-making process allows the State Department to properly consider alternatives to TransCanada’s preferred route while also providing relief to Nebraska representatives concerned with the legal fallout of any rerouting legislation passed.

This development would not have taken place if not for the concern of individuals and groups who attended meetings, submitted comments, and rallied against an intimidating foreign corporation. You should be proud.

The Center for Rural Affairs would like to thank everyone for their hard work. Each letter, call, statement and message made a difference. Though the battle is far from over, this is a win for our citizens, our environment, and for the institution of democracy.

This figure highlights the trend of growth in the renewable energy sector of the American economy.  Currently, 35% of all architects, engineers, and contractors are employed in the renewable energy field, and this number is expected to increase to 45% for all design and construction jobs by just 2014.

Manufacturing is another segment being bolstered by renewable energy, claiming 26% of all clean energy jobs.

 “Clean” energy, or “green energy” are terms which are not always uniformly defined.  Generally, it refers to those who develop and implement technology in the solar, wind, fuel cell, geothermal, smart grid, and biofuel industry.  It can often times be used to reference only renewable energy, while other times can reference industries that focus of fossil fuel efficiency, such as hybrid vehicles.  No matter the definition used, it is a growing industry.

This industry’s workers are well-paid, too.  The median wage for all clean energy jobs is 13% higher than the median wage for U.S. jobs across the board.  This higher level of pay transcends education and location, applying to each and every worker at all levels.

Much of the job improvement in the green economy comes from various subsidies, bonds, grants, loans, and tax deductions that help nourish the high start-up costs of many green energy undertakings (projects). This is a model the United States has consistently used to bolster new energy endeavors, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.

But behind this support lies a strong, palpable demand for energy efficiency and renewable resources which continues to grow.  Think of the extra costs as being worth it in terms of both job creation, conservation of natural resources, national security and environmental protection, particularly clean air.

Given the progressive and innovative nature of green energy, some projects will inevitably fail.  One of these cases is Solyndra, a solar panel company that had its once-bright future collapse due to its inability to stay competitive in its market.  Solyndra failed because international solar panel companies could produce the same good more efficiently at lower costs.  Many of the contracts Solyndra, and by association the Department of Energy, relied upon were cancelled for this reason.

While disappointing, this is the nature of capitalism. This experience shows that clean energy companies are assuming a healthy role in the free market. Trial and error will inevitably lead to an improved product and a resilient industry, putting the United States in a better position to capitalize on a demand for green energy moving forward.