Email us!
Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums
Lowell Politics
Mass Bloggers
- - Leftyblogs MA Blogroll - Almost all of my favorite lefty blogs in Massachusetts can be found here. Linking here keeps my own blogroll short but still up to date! Below are some other MA blogs which are not listed at LB.
- H2Otown (Watertown, MA)
- MargeBLOG (Williamstown)
- Michael Forbes Wilcox (Western MA)
- The Gazebo (Worcester area)
Media in Lowell
- Community Connections The online archive of many of WUML's radio shows.
- LTC :: Our community cable access channel (8 & 10). Excellent people, I've worked with them before.
- Open Source :: Chris Lydon's new show, broadcast on WUML and WGBH locally.
- The Lowell Sun :: Love it or hate it, it's the big newspaper in town.
- WCAP radio :: Talk radio in Lowell - still locally owned, and in transition.
- WUML :: The student- and community-run radio station of UMass-Lowell. Lynne hosts a radio show, Thinking Out Loud, 10am on Fridays.
Media in MA
Other Daily Reads
Politics Online
- City Council Agenda Past City Council agendas, posted in a mostly timely manner
- Lowellma.gov Official city website
Progressive Local Orgs
Snark and politics
The Arts in Lowell
- 119 Gallery - Art gallery with exhibitions of many local artists, interesting events, and living, breathing culture.
- Arts League of Lowell (ALL) - Artist community group, a recent but welcome addition to the arts scene in Lowell.
- Brush Art Gallery - Come and meet working artists in their natural habitats!
- Cultural Organization of Lowell (COOL) - Great local calendar of events.
- Lowell Opera Company - Community opera.
- Lowell Philharmonic Orchestra - Local community orchestra.
- Lowell Poetry Network
- Lowell Rocks - List of live music events
- Merrimack Repertory Theatre - A local theatre "presenting an exciting mix of contemporary and new plays in historic downtown Lowell."
- OUtlET - Paper and online 'zine making a splash locally with events in art, poetry, music, and everything in between!
- Revolving Museum Contemporary, local, public art space with a plethora of children's programs and art by and for the community.
- The Fine Print - Socially aware, themed, arts and issues periodic publication available throughout Lowell.
- The Image Theater - Theatre company which puts on all original works by local playwrights.
- Whistler House Museum - A great collection of contemporaries of Whistler at his historic birthplace.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
We should not be burning our fuel to create electricity.
All new electricity generation should be from clean, renewable sources.
I haven’t looked at the details of the recently signed bill, but the current MA policy of National Grid with respect to “green” energy incentives leaves a lot to be desired. The individual user may specify a portion (50%) or all of his electricity to be from “green” sources, but must pay a premium for that option. Not a great incentive.
I would propose that the pricing be changed to a premium to cover the investment in the “green” infrastructure, but with a provision that the portion of your bill so directed will not increase more than the CPI index of a period of 10, 15 or 20 years. That would be a sufficient incentive to create support from the bottom up, and in so doing would provide more funds for the green energy producers to get off the ground. The result would likely be a savings to the consumer as the fossil fuel prices continued to increase at a rate far exceeding basic inflation, and a quicker conversion by the suppliers to the generation of clean, renewable energy.
In any case, a moratorium on fossil fuel electric generation is certainly warranted.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
From one of the biggest agitators on the power plant thread in the past…
Well Said Lynne
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Lynne, you forgot one little problem: Your so-called green solutions are still more expensive then our current sources of energy!
If you really cared about the poor then you’d see that expansion of our current energy sources is our best bet right now. As technology changes, so will the situation, but trying to force it on everyone now is unfair and counter-productive.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Josh, you forgot one little problem: we’re already near or at the tipping point of “no return” for global climate crisis. I think it’s worth paying for the mitigation of that, even though you’re wrong, those technologies are rapidly becoming cheaper, all the while fossil fuels are becoming insanely expensive to use (even natural gas, the “savior” of fossil fuels, ain’t looking so attractive now). The new wave of solar already is promising to be at par with conventional electrical generation.
AND you just ignored a KEY COMPONENT of the bill, Josh. Key. The fact is, conservation and energy efficiency will save money, even just in the short run, certainly in the long run. The bill also has provisions to help mitigate the difference in cost for renewables, which, as they come on line more and more, will take advantage of economies of scale and become cheaper and cheaper. However, if we don’t incentivize companies to invest in the renewables, it’ll NEVER become cheaper.
We can’t wait. It’s now or never. The poor will find it much harder to cope in a world with rising sea levels, severe and frequent storms, and water shortages and droughts. You drag out the same, debunked straw man that all conservatives use in order to stand in the way of progress. Well guess what? The future is coming even if you don’t like the look of it.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
“I think it’s worth paying for the mitigation of that…” That’s right, “you think” and you’re imposing that belief (and the costs that come with it) on everyone else.
“The new wave of solar already is promising to be at par with conventional electrical generation.” That’s right, “promising” with means it is not yet viable (aka cheaper and more efficient).
“The bill also has provisions to help mitigate the difference in cost for renewables, which, as they come on line more and more, will take advantage of economies of scale and become cheaper and cheaper.” That’s right, because it does cost more, so instead of some people paying for it through the market (like yourself), everyone else subsidize that few through their taxes.
“However, if we don’t incentivize companies to invest in the renewables, it’ll NEVER become cheaper.” It’s a little thing called the profit motive! As the price of other energy resources rise or are expected to rise (which they are), it gives entrepreneurs the incentive to find cheap, efficient alternatives. It is utterly unnecessary to have Deval “The Environmental Savior” do anything. Politicians simply come along and take credit for natural market forces.
“We can’t wait. It’s now or never. The poor will find it much harder to cope in a world with rising sea levels, severe and frequent storms, and water shortages and droughts.” And here we go again with the doom and gloom scenarios. You know, I saw “The Day After Tomorrow” too. Your fear-mongering is on par with Bush here.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
OK, so let’s wait 50 years and have it cost 200 times more than it would have to prevent it now. Gotta love short term thinking.
And why don’t you stop going to the dentist to prevent cavities while you’re at it? I mean, it’ll save you pennies in the short run, so why care that you could pay thousands later on?
Josh, it’s not worth arguing with you, it really isn’t. Suffice to say, most people do not think like you, thank god.
Gloom and doom? Honey, the entire mainstream scientists talk about the BEST case scenario as being extremely expensive. The worst case is worse. And we’re already past the points in models that they thought we’d be in 10 years. So you tell me about gloom and doom? Our own military analysts say it’s a greater threat to our security than terrorism.
But you can go ahead and put your head in the sand if you want. The rest of us want to work on solutions. The end result also has the happy side effect of getting us off of mideast oil, which not only costs us blood and treasure and economic dependence but also will someday run out. Hence, even if global warming wasn’t happening (and only insane people think it’s not), we need to get on the stick fast on this one on many levels.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Lynne, you just don’t get it. I DO go to the dentist to prevent cavities. It’s in my best interest, so Deval Patrick doesn’t need to make a law forcing me to do it. For some unknown reason you believe a bunch of scientists whose field has been around for about 50 years now and who downplay their projections with each new UN Report, but you think you can ignore a science (economics) which has been around for hundreds of years because it gets in the way of your social engineering schemes.
Wake up, no one outside Massachusetts thinks like you.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am
It seems like an alternate method can reconcile the differences between the two of you. For those private enterprises whose hands are untied by our government to pursue the generation of clean, renewable energy, they can contract with companies and individual citizens to supply electricity which starts out more expensive in the first years of the contract, but becomes significantly less expensive (than fossil fuel sourced electricity) in the mid and later years of the contract. Such contracts would support the extraordinary start-up costs, yet offer the promise of non-escalating prices in the long run. If there is to be any government investment, it should be limited to basic research with widespread applicability to improve efficiency and develop more effective means for energy generation and storage.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Lynne, I don’t know what’s worse:
Your shameless fear-mongering, or the fact that you support politics which will cause thousands of poor people to die in the street. Like, tomorrow and stuff.
Have I got that about right, Josh?
July 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Economics is a not magic word that you can invoke to make inconvenient observations disappear, Dungeons and Dragaons style, Josh.
Economics is a field of study which goes far beyond shouting “Demand Curve!” and hi-fiving your buddies.
Do you know what an externality is, Josh?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
joe is right - our energy costs have NOT reflected the actual cost of what that energy costs society. If it did, it’d be twice as expensive, especially now.
Big energy (and most of business really) is completely supported by the central government. They externalize the cost of insuring seniors, they externalize the cost of environmental damage, they externalize the cost of war which we fight to try and keep our energy cheap. Big corporations get to make all that profit and ignore many the costs associated with it, which the public bears. Especially now with capital gains taxes, estate tax and corporate taxes being cut. They have shifted the burden onto us, and get to make money free and clear.
So, it’s OK for corporations to steal from us the public who has to clean up their mess, but not OK for government to ask them to shoulder their fair share of the burden?
Either energy has to keep rising in price to reflect the cost of cleaning up after it (ie a REAL tax on energy like Europe has to build out mass transit infrastructure, incentives for moving to clean energy, and helping us to get more efficient in energy use) or else we will be screwed down the line. Our shortsightedness is only going to end up costing our economy a LOT more later, and individuals cannot deal with a problem all on their own (like you can with your teeth and the dentist) that has such a global scale. It takes leadership and a massive effort that is coordinated and demands that Big Business takes part, not gets away with murder.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“Lynne, you forgot one little problem: Your so-called green solutions are still more expensive then our current sources of energy!”
“‘I think it’s worth paying for the mitigation of that…’ That’s right, ‘you think’ and you’re imposing that belief (and the costs that come with it) on everyone else.”
Paying off your credit card always puts you in a better long term position than getting by with the monthly payments, even though it is much more expensive. The up front costs of investment are a necessary cost for our long term position.
“‘The bill also has provisions to help mitigate the difference in cost for renewables, which, as they come on line more and more, will take advantage of economies of scale and become cheaper and cheaper.’ That’s right, because it does cost more, so instead of some people paying for it through the market (like yourself), everyone else subsidize that few through their taxes.”
Yeah right… like conservatives don’t subsidize anything. Like oil isn’t subsidized.
“‘I think it’s worth paying for the mitigation of that…’ That’s right, ‘you think’ and you’re imposing that belief (and the costs that come with it) on everyone else.”
“Lynne, you just don’t get it. I DO go to the dentist to prevent cavities. It’s in my best interest”
The dentist example probably isn’t analogous. Really, it’s easy when you put it in an individual context. The problem with energy is that if everyone only looks at what they do by their own ‘beliefs’, we all lose because the problem isn’t one of individual choice. The problem is systemic and the whole system needs looking at. As such, ‘big picture’ address of the problem is necessary, not just individual choices.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
May I ask, if overnight we sprinkled some pixy dust and converted all forms of energy creation to “green” energy production, however its defined, assume we all agree what green energy production is. What on earth would all the greenies talk, advocate, donate, write about? Also do you “progressives” think that Karl Rove stole from the White House on his way out the above mentioned pixy dust that the President had in his desk drawer labeled “Big Oils Downfall-Only Use if You Divest First”??