Spring 2001First Amendment ProtectedA GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT PUBLICATION

www.ctgreens.org The Only Source For Green News & Information 1.888.877.8607

NEW HAVEN DROPS LONG WHARF MALL.by Tony Santini

A sad and potentially disastrouschapter has been closed in thecheckered history of urban dev-elopment in New Haven. OnDecember 13th, 2000, the citygovernment pulled out of theproposed Long Wharf Mall deal,effectively killing the project.Lawsuits by competitors and agrassroots organization of down-town merchants, plus protest rallies by the New Haven CountyGreen Party Chapter helpedconvince Nordstrom's, one ofthe four chain anchors, to re-consider its role in the mall. Thisled Democratic mayor JohnDeStefano to ask New EnglandDevelopment, one of the pro-ject's corporate welfare recipi-ents, to formulate a strategy bywhich the city could pull out.

In return for dropping itslawsuits against the city and de-velopers, Westfield Corporation,the multinational owner ofother malls in the area, will purchase the old Armstrong/Pirelli building on Sargent Drivefor $14 million. Furthermore,Westfield agrees not to put any retail development on the site atthe interchange of I-91, I-95,and Route 34.

New Haven’s small business owners as well as its citizens are victorious in their struggle against theLong Wharf mall project. New England Development was forced to abandon the project.

The project would have cost an estimated total $450 to$500 million to complete. Itwould have attracted as many as40,000 polluting vehicle tripsper day to an already overcrow-ded section of the highway. Stu-dies commissioned and ignoredby the State of Connecticutshowed that the mall would havestolen up to 28 percent of thebusiness of downtown merchants,who would have been forced tosubsidize their own demise. Themall would have been built on aformer toxic waste dump next toNew Haven, Harbor not far from

the City Point neighborhood,whose residents worried for theirhealth if ground was broken onthe project.

The unlamented death of theMall project has saved the taxpay-ers of New Haven, Connecticut,and the United States approxi-mately $94 million in corporatewelfare from city, state, and federal sources. New EnglandDevelopment and its executivesand architects donated over$40,000 to Governor Rowland'slast re-election campaign. FuscoCorporation, the minor partner

by John Battista & Tom Sevigny

As some of you may know, therehave been two active green partygroups in the United States: The Association of State GreenParties (A.S.G.P.) and GreenParty/Green Party U.S.A.(G.P.U.S.A.). The reasons forthe existence of two separate or-ganizations are complex and goback to decisions made in the late1980s; however, Against All Odds, ahistory of the Green Party in the UnitedStates by John Rensenbrink, doesan excellent job of explaining the historical and philosophical reasons for the split.

by Pete Karman

One of Ronald Reagan's favoritejokes was about a little kid madlydigging through a pile of manurebecause "there must be a ponydown here somewhere."

The pony, if there is to beone, from our reeking presiden-tial election is a renewed popularfight for democracy sparked bythe fraud in Florida and givenimpetus by the gallant campaignof Ralph Nader and WinonaLaDuke and the Green party.

Let's start out with the obvi-ous. The whole world knows thatthat election was stolen.

But the robbery didn't justhappen at the creaking and dis-criminatory polls on November 7,or during the slick and nastyG.O.P. post-election blitz thatrolled over the characteristicallywimpish Gore Democrats, or witha wink and a nod from five reac-tionary Supreme Court Justices.The theft was also in the shamefulagreement by corporate Repub-licans and Democrats long beforethe election to, as usual, keep thiscountry's political options as nar-row and meaningless as possible.This, with the aid of the cor-porate media, was what we got.

The American voter wasrobbed of any serious considera-tion of real issues or honest al-ternatives to know-nothing Bushor know-it-all Gore and their overlapping corporate patrons.

Greens Move Towards National Party

Paid for by the Green Party of Connecticut, Christopher Reilly, Treasurer

Continued on pg 5

INSIDEpage 2....page 3....page 4....

page 4....

page 7....

page 9....

page 11...

page 12...

Kitty Giannini gives us theinside story on:The F. T. A. A.-The Silent Killer

page 10

Peter Karman tells us aboutthe military buildup inColumbia in:What If They Gave A War?

page 2

Continued on pg 3

Continued on pg 5

Tom Ethier on:Holding Corporations Accountable ForTax-payer Subsidies

page 7

Mike DeRosa tells us about:SHOCK THERAPY-Electric PowerDeregulation in California.page 6

Letters To The EditorElection ResultsUpdate on ConnecticutHealthcare LegislationCommon Cause and Clean ElectionsScrapbook: CT GreenFundraiser in HartfordNew Haven’s EnglishStation ReopeningNewtown’s ImpendingClean-upChapter Locations and Information

Democracy is Curefor U. S. Elections

Now that the Green Party isin the national spotlight, the ex-istence of two Green Party organizations has led to embar-rassing and harmful confusion.For example, although bothgroups backed Nader for presi-dent, the two groups had theirown separate platforms. Naderran only on the A.S.G.P. plat-form, and as a result, many people were confused. The mediaused this confusion to misrepre-sent Nader’s positions on a varietyof issues and continues to use thefactional split as an example of theGreen Party’s inability to be-come a legitimate political party.

Recognizing the problemswith two active green groups,members of A.S.G.P. andG.P.U.S.A. met in Boston inearly October and developed adocument to combine the twogroups. A.S.G.P. will becomethe electoral green party which

On The Fast Track? War In The Andes?Corporate WelfareNow It Can Be Told

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:45 PM Page 1

Spring 2001 > The Green Times2

Editor In ChiefMike DeRosa

PublisherRich Triblets

Contributing WritersPeter KarmanTom EthierTony SantiniKitty GianniniJohn Battista M. D.Tom SevignyKaren Hobert Flynn

Submissions are always wel-come but cannot bereturned and are subject toeditorial changes.

What If They Gave A War?by Pete Karman

Will war be the Bush administra-tion's cure for the looming eco-nomic turndown? It's lookingmore that way every day.

The Pentagon is in themidst of a multi-billion dollarbuildup in the Andes,pouring weapons andadvisors intoColumbia andspending $64million justto improveone air basein Ecuador.Can morebillions andbody bags befar behind?

Why war? Thecover story is to combatcocaine. But it's thin cover atbest. The real enemy, accordingto surprisingly frank statementsby Trent Lott and other G.O.P.leaders, is Hugo Chavez, thedemocratically-elected populistpresident of oil-rich Venezuela,Columbia's neighbor. In yearspast, he would have been labeledanti-American or communist.Nowadays, the charge against himis being anti-globalist.

A tough former paratroop-er, Chavez is off the reservation asfar as Washington is concerned.Elected two years ago with a pow-erful mandate for change fromthe poor who form the greatmajority in Venezuela, his regimehas been busy reforming thecountry's corrupt political struc-ture and realigning its economicand foreign policies for the ben-efit of Venezuelans rather thanmultinational business.

His other offenses includeurging O.P.E.C. to raise oilprices, opposing the brutal tradeembargoes against Cuba andIraq, and maintaining good rela-tions with the strong guerrillamovements in Columbia. Takentogether, they add up to the car-dinal sin of disobeying los grin-gos, the penalty for which is met-ed out in the form of death squads,coups and, when all else fails,direct U.S. military involvement.

Typically, Washington spon-sored a murderous coup in 1973against Salvador Allende, Chile'selected socialist president, forsimilarly defying its imperial writ.Allende and thousands of un-armed officials and supporters ofhis government were butcheredor imprisoned by Chile's militarywith, as newly released evidenceshows, expert coaching from U.S.Naval Intelligence and the CIA.

Then in 1989, the firstBush administration attackedPanama, with air raids andtroops, killing hundreds if not

thousands, to bring AntonioNoriega to heel after the dictatorbroke his CIA leash.

Venezuela, however, wouldbe a far tougher nut to crack forWashington. Chavez came topower as leader of a nationalistand populist faction in the armed

forces. Though, accordingto the New York

Times, "the[Bush]administration

is expected to solidifyc o n t a c t swithin theVenezuelan military," it

would obvi-ously be far

more difficult forit to mount an anti-

Chavez grab for powerfrom within its ranks than it wasin Chile, where the civilianAllende and his followers had nobase in the military.

In other words, it maytake U.S. troops to save vitalVenezuela from its own citizensand make it safe for our corpo-rations again just as in Panama,only far bigger. The most likelyscenario is increasing U.S. mil-itary involvement in Columbia,accompanied by charges thatChavez threatens "our" oil, has"betrayed" his people and isaiding the "Castro-narco ter-rorists" attacking our troops.For icing on the cake, the mediacould no doubt cook up a fewstories about Chavez eatingbabies, a la the horror tales spunabout Noriega.

Saner heads in the Pentagon and the Bush Ad-ministration should appreciatethat any major U.S. militaryinvolvement south of the RioGrande would set off LatinAmerica's worst nightmare andquite possibly a cataclysm ofIndochina proportions.

But hardliners can beexpected to argue thatVenezuela, one of the world'sgreat oil-producers, is farmore important than Cuba,Panama or just about any otherLatin American country, andtherefore worth at least theeffort the U.S. made in thePersian Gulf war.

If calmer heads don't pre-vail, and Washington looks likeit is getting ever more deeplyinvolved in the Andes, the peo-ple of the United States andLatin America will be obliged tointervene. Only they can makesure that Venezuela andColumbia do not turn intoVietnam and Cambodia.Connecticut's Greens shouldready themselves to become partof a powerful peace effort.

The CT Green Times ispublished 4 times a year.20,000 copies of this issuewere published.

CT Green Times is paid forby the Green Party ofConnecticut, ChristopherReilly, Treasurer.

The entire CT Green timesis protected by the FirstAmendment of the U.S.Constitution.

To obtain Ad rates or submitarticles please send to CT Green Times, PO Box 231214, Hartford, CT 06123

Dear Editor:

I received my copy of the Times theother day, and was enjoying theintelligent articles and messagesconveyed through the text of loftyideals, of justice and fairness for thegeneral populace and the environ-ment. I had reached an agreeablestate of friendly comraderie with thepaper and the party, when I wasrudely jolted from this comfortableposition by what I saw on page three. There was an ad for BarrieLtd. Booters. A shoe store, sellingleather. I called them to confirmthis and they indeed bragged thatthere were no man-made productsin their store. All items wereleather. Leather which comes fromand strongly supports the beef in-dustry. An industry based on suchcruelty to animals as could only bedevised in hell. An industry whichsustains world hunger because everypound of meat sold takes fifteenpounds of grain away from hungrypeople. An industry which dumpsthousands of pounds of excrement,much of which finds its way into our waterways and ground water.

An industry which destroys wholeforests to create grazing land. Andwith these forests go priceless ani-mals, plants and herbs, destroyedwith their home, some never to beseen again. The leather industrymay be one step removed, but it isstill a byproduct of and inexorablylinked to the beef industry. Buyingleather is buying beef with all thepain which accompanies it. Thismessage was so contrary to the spiritof the Green Party, it was like seeinga McDonald's ad in a vegetarianmagazine. Now I'm not suggestingthat one small ad is going to exertany influence over any party actions,but I am suggesting that when youshake hands with contributors suchas this, you send the message thatthe Green Party condones and ap-proves of pain and pollution-basedbusinesses, if it means dollars intheir pocket. I wonder, would youcozy up to a fur company if theyoffered money for ads or anythingelse?

Very Sincerely YoursBarbara N. ServiceStorrs, CT

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

“In other words, itmay take U.S. troops to

save vital Venezuela fromits own citizens and makeit safe for our corpora-

tions again...

“h”

We have replaced the main sign with a temporary generic one, butthe rest of the frontage still reflectsthis years' elections. Its use will bebroadened in the coming monthsto include committee meetings, astaging area for local actions, out-reach activities now being developedand campaign office for future elections to name a few.

Chapter meetings will continueto be held at the University ofHartford at least until we improvethe seating capacity of the office. Ap-proximately 14 people can sit com-fortably, expandable to around 20.

Public reaction to the officehas been positive with the occasion-al drop-in. This is expected toincrease as we develop a system ofcoverage. For now, the "closed" signhangs most often. Of course, theweather, holiday season and cam-paign fatigue all tend to delay theregrouping that is imminent.

Pete Magistri is coordinator for theHartford Area Green Chapter.

by Pete Magistri

The Mike DeRosa for State Senatorcampaign office is now the officialoffice of the Hartford Chapter ofthe Connecticut Green Party. Theoffice is located at 418A New BritainAve. next to Roma Bakery in aneighborhood reflecting the ethnicdiversity of the city. The location isconsidered to be one of its greatestbenefits since our party is structured to be all-inclusive.

As we worked our way throughthe "how to best use this space learning curve" for Mike’s' cam-paign, so too are we faced with asimilar task for the new designation.

Hartford Green Party Office: A Natural Progression

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:45 PM Page 2

also for those who meant to butdecided instead to vote "strate-gically." Citizens riled by theelectoral sham, as well as thoseconcerned with basic Greenissues like the environment andhealth care, will be looking forclean alternatives. It's up to theGreen Party to supply them.

A likely starting pointshould be a major effort to push I.R.V., or Instant RunoffVoting. The measure would en-sure that any candidate runningfor state office would win by asimple majority by allowing vot-ers to rank their preferences forall the candidates for a givenoffice. Candidates with the few-est votes would be automaticallyeliminated and their totals trans-ferred to the voters' next choices.

If such a system had been inplace on November 7, additionalmillions of citizens could havevoted for Ralph Nader or otherthird party candidates withoutthe fear that they were "wastingtheir vote" or helping the candidate they least preferred.

Pete Karman is a contributingeditor to In These Times, aChicago-based national newsmagazine.

The Green Times < Spring 2001 3

Instead, they were served up threebillion dollars worth of mindlessblather barely disguised as demo-cratic discourse. Rarely, if ever,had more been spent for less.Depending upon the strategicvalue of their states, voters eitherhad to suffer countless instantlyforgettable campaign commer-cials or wonder if there was anational election happening at all.

Those who dared consideranything more substantial, likeNader-LaDuke and the Greens,were branded spoilers and trou-blemakers. The election becamethe equivalent of building agiant supermarket just to selltwo pre-packaged turkeys, onewithout a head and the othermissing his giblets.

Then, in Florida on electionnight, that supermarket was hit bya hurricane. All the displays anddecorations blew away, leaving thetwo turkeys and those whotrussed and dressed them nakedamid the wreckage. Americanslearned that, hey, their votesreally didn't count for verymuch, that the electoral systemwas decrepit when it wasn't cor-rupt, and that the real decisionsabout who ran the country didn’t come from public ballotsbut rather from private deals.

Caught in the open withtheir chicanery hanging out, themedia and the politicos made the best of their embarrassment.Defensively, they favorably com-pared America's system to thoseof tinpot regimes where thevotes were transported by tanksrather than Ryder rental trucks.Understandably, they avoidedany such comparison to demo-cratic first-world countries.

Consider our next doorneighbors. Canada called a national election right in themiddle of our endless campaign.Canadians had a choice of fivemajor parties and several smallerones from left to right. They gotto watch lively televised debatesthat included all comers. Theparties did their politicking andthe citizens voted with no furtherado. The ballots were countedon election night and everyonewent to sleep. They woke to findthe incumbent party still incharge and that the big loser wasa rightwing party that shot itselfin the foot by merely hinting that it might weaken or, God forbid, try to AmericanizeCanada's beloved single payerhealth care system (the other parties were busy promising togrant it much needed budget in-creases). The whole process fromstart to finish took 35 days andcost less than Al Gore's wardrobeadvisor or George Bush's tab for take out. How dare they?

Of course, Americans wouldnever stand for that kind of wild-eyed extremism. Thirty-five days,indeed. The 2004 U.S. presi-dential election started evenbefore the 2000 one was over.Let's figure $10 billion this timearound. Our elections have be-come permanent because theyare good business, you know.

Or maybe you don't. Whatthe mainstream media carefullyomitted from the mind-numb-ing coverage of the mess inFlorida was that billions of bucksin corporate welfare were ridingon whether Bush or Gore gainedthe oval office.

The fats cats that poured allthat money into the campaigndid it not only to improve theiralready happy lot generically, but to gain specific favors anddeals from their candidate ofchoice. Bush, who won with thefewest votes, is tied to Southwestfinancial interests and big oil,while Gore, who lost with themost votes, was the favorite of the Wall Street bond traders and California computer titans.Who do you think paid for allthose zillion dollar-an-hourlawyers arrayed from Tallahasseeto Capital Hill?

It's true that, amid all this

electoral extravaganza of emptyexcess, the Green Party and theNader-LaDuke candidacy here inConnecticut and nationwide didnot fare quite as well as they hadhoped when it came to sheernumbers. Just under three mil-lion Americans voted Green,64,000 of them here in theNutmeg state, for 2.7 percent ofthe total vote and 4.6 percent ofthe vote in Connecticut. Not badat all for a bottoms-up politicalmovement that offers its con-stituency not tax breaks or starwars, but only the satisfactionthat comes from making a full-hearted effort at civic virtue.

Still, it could have been bet-ter. By any reckoning, the Greenvote should have been twice thesize it was. The powerful, fear-inducing anti-Nader propagan-da effort by nominally liberalDemocrats had its effect. Voterswere scared off from the Greenseven in states where Democratswere expected to–and did–coast tooverwhelming victories.

Nevertheless, with itsgrassroots organization andbottoms-up approach todemocracy, the Green Party isuniquely able to provide ahome not just for those whovoted for Nader-LaDuke, but

Continued from page 1

Democracy Is Cure For U. S. Elections, Continued

Election ResultsCurrent CT Green Elected Official

Federal Office Candidates

Elizabeth Horton SheffOffice: Hartford CityCouncil

Winona LaDukeOffice: Vice Presidentof the United States

2,716,200 votes (3%)

CT State Senate Candidates

Mike DeRosaOffice: State Senator,1st District

1435 votes (10%)

Timothy BowlesOffice: State Senator,18th District

1499 votes (5%)

Audry ColeOffice: U.S. House ofRepresentatives

7207 votes (3%)

Presidential CandidateRalph NaderOffice: President ofthe United States

2,716,200 votes (3%)CT: 36,200 votes(4.4%)

CT State House of Representatives Candidates

Tom SevignyOffice: StateRepresentative, 17th District

661 votes (5%)

Tony SantiniOffice: StateRepresentative, 92nd District

253 votes (4%)

Paul BasslerOffice: StateRepresentative, 142nd District

768 votes (11%)

Tom EthierOffice: StateRepresentative,65th District

923 votes (12%)

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 3

Spring 2001 > The Green Times4

by Karen Hobert Flynn

The 2000 elections havedemonstrated clearly that ourdemocracy falls short of itspromise to live up to the princi-ple of one person, one vote.Thousands of votes were invali-dated in the presidential electionbecause many of our states' voting systems are outdated,inconsistent, and inaccurate.Even worse, voting irregularitiesoccurred more frequently inpoor and minority districts,leading to the disproportionatedisqualification of black votes.

Our representative system of government is further undermined by special interestdomination of our electoral and legislative processes.

The new President and thenew Congress will be coming intooffice on heels of a record $3 bil-lion spent on federal campaignsduring this election. The politicalparties collected and distributedsome $450 million of unregulat-ed soft money from corporationsand wealthy individuals. Theselarge donors and their lobbyistsare already lining up to cash intheir chips for access and favorsfrom those they elected.

Despite the bleak news aboutvoting irregularities and the

dominance of special interests in Washington and many stateCapitols, there is one hope-ful development of the 2000 election season.

In Maine, Vermont andArizona, candidates were able torun for office withoutbeing beholden tospecial interests.Each of thesethree states-passed a CleanElection law,which reduces the influence ofspecial interestmoney and pro-vides a level playingfield by offering qualifiedcandidates a limited and equal amount of public funds for the2000 election.

In Maine, 16 out of 352general election candidates optedinto the Clean Election pro-gram. Sixty-three percent of theparticipating candidates wereDemocrats and 34 percent wereRepublicans. Thirty-two percentwere incumbents and almostone-half of the races had at leastone candidate running "clean."

Maine saw a 40 percentincrease in the number of con-tested primaries and an overallincrease in the number of

women running for office thisyear. Many candidates cite thereform as a key factor in theirdecision to run.

Clean Election reform notonly enhanced participation andcompetition in Maine races,

but it also liberatedmany candidates

from special in-terest funding.One-third ofMaine's legis-lators wereelected without

ties to specialinterest money.

In the Senate, 17 of 35 members won

their seats without privatefunding. In the House, 45 out of 151 winners participated asClean Money candidates.

In Maine races where aClean Election candidate ranagainst a privately-funded oppo-nent, Clean Election candidateswon 53 percent of the time.

In Maine, Arizona andVermont, we are beginning to see the benefits of a bold newexperiment in campaign fin-ance reform that could helprestore the principle of oneperson,one vote. We hope toreplicate that kind of programhere in Connecticut.

Connecticut has made sig-nificant progress on moving aclean-election style bill throughthe legislative process. Last year,a coalition of more than 40organizations, including CommonCause/CT and the Green Party,pushed a public financing billthrough the state House andSenate. Unfortunately, GovernorRowland vetoed the strong cam-paign finance measure.

Those who founded ourcountry had a vision of govern-ment of, by, and for the people.As long as candidates must relyon raising private money to getelected to public office, candi-dates and our legislatures will bethe captive of special interests. AClean Elections system will allowcandidates to compete by show-ing broad support from votersinstead of narrow support fromwealthy interests.

We will continue to fight forelection reform that ensures thatevery citizen's vote counts. Andwe must not rest until we open up our election system for anycandidate who wants to run foroffice–from any party.

Karen Hobert Flynn is a Con-sultant and a former ExecutiveDirector of Common Cause/CT

by John R. Battista, M.D.

Green Party members through-out the state are lobbying locallegislators and members of thePublic Health Committee tosupport the Connecticut HealthCare Security Act which would:

The Connecticut Health CareSecurity Act would save money by:

The health care insurance wouldbe paid for by:

There would be no cost forfamilies up to 185 percent of thefederal poverty guidelines. Fourof five Connecticut residents areexpected to save money on healthcare under the proposed legisla-tion. Overall, Connecticuthealth care costs are expected todecrease by up to 10 percent.

The health insurance pro-gram would be administered by a health care trust under the control of health care advocates

and health care providers re-sponsible to state government.The Connecticut Health CareSecurity Act would improvequality of care by:

The Connecticut HealthCare Security act is consistent withthe Green Party platform callingfor single-payer, universal healthcare throughout the United

States. This type of health insur-ance program exists in all otherindustrialized countries in theworld. It is associated with betteroverall health care statistics, equalquality of care for acute illnesses,and costs on average less than one-half of what the United Statescurrently spent on health care.

Two years ago this legislationpassed out of committee but wasnever raised for vote. This yearthe bill never made it out of com-mittee! Call your legislators anddemand that the ConnecticutHealth Care Security Act get a fair hearing in the health com-mittee and on the floor of bothhouses of the ConnecticutGeneral Assembly.

To help the cause and obtain more information contactthe Connecticut Coalition ForUniversal Health Care web site athttp://cthealth.server101.com,call Dr. Battista at 860-354-1822,or contact your local ConnecticutGreen Party chapter.

Green Party Works For ConnecticutUniversal Health Care Legislation

Clean Elections = Campaign Finance Reform

Provide comprehensive health care insurance for allConnecticut residents.Cover all inpatient, outpa-tient, and long-term healthcare, all diagnostic tests, allmedications, and all medicalequipment recommended by a licensed health care giver.Provide free choice of anylicensed health care provider.End managed care pre-approval requirements.

•

•

•

•

Decreasing administrativeexpenses by at least one-half.Decreasing costs of medica-tions and durable medicalequipment by 30-50 percentthrough bulk purchasing.Emphasizing preventivehealth care.Negotiating fees with allhealth care givers.Establishing global budgetsfor all Connecticut hospitals

•

•

•

•

•

and health care organizations.Coordinating medical servicesthrough out the state.

•

Pooling existing state and fed-eral health care dollars usedfor Connecticut residents.Ensuring the state and fed-eral government pay for allresidents eligible for exist-ing health care programs.Health care payroll pre-miums paid by all employersof Connecticut residents.Family health care premiumscollected through the stateincome tax system.Excise taxes on activitiesdetrimental to health, such as tobacco products.

•

•

•

•

•

Eliminating the poorer qual-ity of care associated withfor-profit, managed healthcare insurance.Providing higher quality healthcare to the poor and uninsured.Educating health care givers tothe latest research on the treat-ment of all medical conditions.Ending disruption of thecontinuity of care associatedwith managed care programs.Returning decision makingback to health care givers.Ending disruptions of patientconfidentiality associated withmanaged care.

•

•

•

•

•

•

“As long as candi-

dates must rely on raising private money...our legislatures will bethe captive of special

interests.

“a”

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 4

The Green Times < Spring 2001 5

in the project, is one of MayorDeStefano's biggest contributors.

The Mall project was prob-ably the most divisive issue inNew Haven politics in recentmemory. Lawsuits and bad pub-licity had delayed groundbreak-ing for over a year. The sheersize of the project's corporatewelfare price tag caused the stategovernment to hold up moneyfor more worthy projects aroundthe city. Even city democratswere beginning to question thewisdom of putting all the city'sdevelopment eggs in one basket.

The proposed 1.5 millionsquare foot retail project was thebiggest part in the democrat ad-ministration's continuing ef-forts to gentrify and suburbanizethe city. The city is consideringthe so-called Buckley Plan to re-place stores and buildings thatcater to New Haven's poor andminority shoppers and developdowntown into a pricey retail di-strict aimed at attracting out-of-towners. There is a noticeabledearth of commerce on DixwellAvenue and in the Hill District,two of the city's largest African-American neighborhoods. Thethrift and dime stores, and the merchants who market toAfrican-American New Haveners

in downtown, are often the onlyplace many city people can shopwithout leaving town to go to theextensive strip malls in Orangeand Hamden. Even now, the citygovernment is planning to buydowntown properties that do nothave businesses that are up-mar-ket enough for the city'sPlanning Department.

In sharp contrast, the NewHaven County Green PartyChapter leans toward develop-ment that does not push out thepoor or smack of the racism in-herent in catering to suburbanites.The Local Issues Committee ofthe New Haven County GreenParty Chapter will be tacklingdowntown development later thiswinter. By summer the Chapterwill have an alternative downtowndevelopment plan for New Haven.

Tony Santini ran for StateRepresentative in the 92nddistrict (New Haven-West End)

will be known as The Green Partyof the United States. G.P.U.S.A.will serve as a grass roots advoca-cy group within the Green Partyof the United States.

The A.S.G.P. coordinat-ing committee endorsed theBoston agreement in its bienn-ial meeting in Georgia inDecember. G.P.U.S.A. will consider the agreement in itsnext annual meeting in May.

A.S.G.P. also moved towardapplying for national party recog-nition. Each state is collectingdata to support the application,which will be made after theG.P.U.S.A. meeting in May.Legal advisors believe that theapplication will be successful.

In accord with the develop-ment of a national party pres-

ence, A.S.G.P. will begin to raise money to establish a na-tional green party office inWashington, D.C. This officewill function as an informationcommunication center forGreen Party activities in theUnited States. In addition, theoffice will assist in formingGreen parties in those areas ofthe country where none current-ly exist. The hope is to have functioning Green parties inevery state by the year 2002.Currently there are about 40active state Green parties andover 900 Green Party groups oncollege and university campuses.

John Battista M. D. & TomSevigny are CT Green PartyRepresentatives to A.S.G.P.

Continued from page 1

Unified Green Party16,000 Ralph Nader supporters at Madison Square Garden Super Rally.

I.M.S. CAPITAL CT, L.L.C.

I.M.S. Capital has been in business since 1984 helping people with mortgage financ-

ing. Our policy is to assist our potential clients with a FREE personal consultation, a

FREE Financial analysis Report and a FREE Credit Report. With over 300 mortgage

programs available, I.M.S. capital’s goal is to find affordable solutions to real estate

financing circumstances. Our rates and point quotes are extremely competitive. Try us.

We come to you - Mortgage funding anywhere in the U.S.A.

MORTGAGE LENDERGREEN PARTY MEMBER OWNER

No Income/No Asset Verification LoansPurchase F.H.A. 1-4 FamilyRefinance Jumbo CondosConstruction Land Coops

Debt Consolidation Cash-Out Home Improvement

483D Monroe Turnpike (RT. 111) - Monroe, CT 06468 - Phone: 203.452.0077 - Fax: 203.459.2835C A L L T O L L F R E E : 8 7 7 . 4 5 2 . 0 0 7 7

SPECIAL OFFER WITH THIS AD$300 Cash Back Toward Closing

(Present this ad for credit toward closing costs at loan funding)

103% Financing Any Credit-OK

Mall Project Terminated

New Haven’s Historic Shopping District.

continued from page 1

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 5

months. Energy experts say that amargin of 14 percent is considered more than adequate.According to the consumer groupThe Foundation For Taxpayer &Consumer Rights (F.T.C.R.-www.consumerwatchdog.org), theenergy demand in California wasactually lower during four of the lastsix months in 2000 as compared withthe same period in 1999 when therewere no blackouts or price increases.

A DOMESTIC O.P.E.C.?There is growing evidence that

suppliers of electricity in Californiaare manipulating the electric marketby running plants at less than fullcapacity, shutting down plants forquestionable maintenance, sellingelectricity to out-of-state buyersduring the "crisis", and engaging inother unfair business practices. TheAttorney’s General of California,Oregon and Washington State arenow investigating the actions ofelectric power plant owners inCalifornia. Municipal officialsthroughout the state are also inve-stigating what is really behind thisnew "energy crisis". According tothe North American Electric Re-liability Council (N.A.M.E.R.C.)the national average for plannedand unplanned shutdowns is 10percent. In California the rate isnow on average above 20 percent.Profits for the in-state and out-of-state energy producers in Californiahave soared to as high as 500 per-cent and more.

According to F.T.C.R., Cal-ifornia's utilities recently used energy blackouts and the threat ofbankruptcy as a weapon to forceGovernor Davis and the CaliforniaLegislature into allocating $800million to buy electricity during the"crisis.” F.T.C.R. goes on to say thatCalifornia ratepayers could havepurchased all of the plants that weresold to private companies under the1996 "restructuring" legislation forthe $2 billion of taxpayer moneyspent since mid-January to buy high priced electricity. The state isspending around $50 million a dayon buying power to keep the lightson in California and guarantee thatlocal utilities will pay their bills andnot go into bankruptcy. TwoHouston, Texas based energy gen-erators selling electricity inCalifornia, Reliant and Dynergy,have even argued in court that thestate should buy electricity at anyrate the generators determine dur-ing California's electric emergency.

THE NEW OLIGOPOLYOnce again we are reminded

that electric restructuring legisla-tion, whether in California orConnecticut, takes us from the eraof regulated monopolies to the age

by Mike DeRosa

Electric deregulation is in the newsagain as the state of California experiences electric power black-outs and huge increases in electricrates. California was the first state to"restructure" the generation part ofits electric energy system in 1996. A very similar plan was rammedthrough the Connecticut legislaturein 1998 by our legislature andGovernor and will go into full effecton January 1, 2004. In both Cal-ifornia and in Connecticut ratepay-ers were saddled with paying off"stranded costs.” Stranded costs arethe money that utilities say is owedthem for the cost of their powerplant investment when deregulationtook away their electric marketmonopoly. In California the bailout for utilities is costing consumers$20 billion, and in Connecticut thecost will be over $2 billion. Strand-ed costs are paid by you on yourelectric bill each month and are asubsidy to an incumbent electricutility. This same incumbent utilitymay have a subsidiary, which alsosells you electricity. In this way theincumbent utility’s parent companycan really never lose.

California was also the firststate to actually implement this new electric deregulation and cre-ate a "free market" where "competi-tion" among generators would setthe price and where governmentregulation would be eliminated.The results of California's experi-ment are now routinely referred toin the press as a debacle. Californiais now in the process of spendingbillions of dollars more on furtherbailouts and subsidies for utilitiesand Connecticut may do the samein the future.

ENERGY CRISIS?California is having an "energy

crisis" according to recent newsreports. We are told that the Golden State does not have enoughpower plants and that is whyCalifornia is having a shortage of electricity.

Is California really having an"energy crisis"? Many experts andconsumer groups are pointing tothe fact that California has a largewinter reserve of electric power and has had that reserve for manyyears. According to the CaliforniaEnergy Commission (C.E.C.), gen-erating plants within Californiahave the capacity to produce about52,500 megawatts of electricity. Yethuge price increases and blackoutsrecently occurred when the demandwas less than 34,000 megawatts.Dividing unused capacity bydemand shows that California actu-ally has an electric reserve of morethan 24 percent during the winter

Spring 2001 > The Green Times6

of unregulated oligopolies. By defi-nition, oligopolies do not competethey collude. In the 'free market' ofderegulation, electric generators setthe price at whatever the market willbear, sell to out-of-state buyers at a higher price, and operate with afree hand in tightening supplies anddriving up the price of electricity.Since collusion is hard to prove andelectric "restructuring" legislationdoes not provide for practical ways to protect the public health and safety, we in Connecticut maysoon find ourselves in a similar sit-uation with our own electric dereg-ulation law. Unfortunately, our ownofficials here in Connecticut aretaking a wait-and-see attitudetoward the events in California andare being told in "public" hearingsthat there is nothing to get excitedabout. Recently the Union ofConcerned Scientists released areport that found a nearly 50 per-cent rise in plant outages in NewEngland after restructuring.

THE POLITICS OF EXPERIENCEThe enormity of what is going

in California cannot be overstated.Electric rates in the San Diegoregion, the first area to have a totallyderegulated market, have risen 200to 300 percent. Electric bills thatwere once $50 a month are now over$140. Rates have also soared in otherparts of California. The workingpoor and people on fixed incomesare being hit hardest. In the whole-sale spot market, rates have increased2000 percent to 3000 percent. Incontrast, the much-maligned Mun-icipal Utility Districts in Californiahad an overall increase of less than10 percent in their electric rates.The M.U.D.'s ability to provide reliability and affordability duringthis "crisis" only emphasize themanipulated nature of what is goingon in California's electric market.

The Independent SystemOperator (I.S.O.), a weak Califor-nia agency with the job of managingthat state's power grid, finds itselfpowerless to maintain electricalreliability and purchase affordablepower for the California ratepayersthat it serves. This agency has plantshutdown "coordination control"over less than 20 percent of the 1011power plants in California. Theother 800 plants in the state seem tobe able to shut down for just aboutany reason. The I.S.O. is also ham-pered by a ("real time") short-termpower purchase contract scheme,which requires the I.S.O. to buyelectricity at fantastically high rateson the spot market without sealedbids. The California I.S.O. is alsounwilling to exert the little regulato-ry power that it has. No wonderconsumer groups have requestedGovernor Davis to seize the electricgenerator's power plants using thestate's eminent domain statutes inorder to protect the public healthand safety. This is not likely to hap-pen, since millions of dollars aredonated to the campaign coffers ofpoliticians by the very electric gen-erators and utilities that thesepoliticians are supposed to oversee.Millions more are used by the lob-

byists of these electric generatorsand utilities to pass legislation andbuy influence and access to the cor-ridors of power.

Similar events happened herein Connecticut when legislatorsallowed lobbyists from utilities andelectric generators from around thecountry to spend millions of dol-lars to pass Connecticut's electricrestructuring legislation. Thesesame legislators allowed the "leader-ship" of both parties to overrule twocommittees in the legislature whovoted down restructuring and thenallowed the bill to be reintroducedinto the legislature and passed withthe help of the Governor all duringthe last week of the session. If com-mittees in the legislature don't havethe power to stop legislationthrough public hearings and voting, why bother having them?These same legislators are nowasleep about what is happening inCalifornia and are willing to acceptthe reassurance of people who have a vested interest in continuing theflawed and dangerous experimentcalled electric deregulation. Someeconomists see signs that electricderegulation in California is act-ually having an adverse effect onCalifornia's economy. Some thinkthat it might be a factor in slowingdown economic development anddraining billions of dollars to the oil and natural gas rich south of the United States. Similar effectscould happen in Connecticut overthe next two or three years as we move toward a totally deregulated electric market.

OTHER EXAMPLESIn New York City and in

Westchester County a deregulatedmarket in electricity has lead to 40percent increases in electric ratesand the specter of brownouts andblackouts. Recently the mass mediahave extolled Pennsylvania's electricderegulation effort as "successful.”A closer look at Pennsylvania's elec-tric restructuring shows that truederegulation will not take place until2010 when rates are totally"unfrozen" and price controls areremoved. Pennsylvania's plan didnot require utilities to sell theirpower plants and has offered "shop-ping credits" to all retail customerswilling to move to a new generator,thereby subsidizing its own con-sumers’ rate decreases. The whole-sale price for electric energy hasrecently increased significantly inPennsylvania. Energy experts saythere is no physical justification forsuch increases. Some people specu-late that it is only a matter of time till rates rise in Pennsylvania as electric generators discover ways topass on these costs to consumers (orget out of the "market").

FIGHTING BACKThe time for action is now. On

January 1, 2004 the price controlswill come off our electric rates inConnecticut. Already a member ofthe legislature has suggested that weincrease rates to encourage morecompanies to "compete" in our

SHOCK THERAPY: Electric Power Deregulation In California

Continued on Page 7

NOW IT CAN BE TOLD

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 6

The Green Times < Spring 2001 7

"deregulated" electric market. Thisis perverse economics. Competitionis supposed to be the driving forcebehind price reductions not theother way around. If you have toartificially raise rates to encouragemarket entry, then you don't have amarket, at least not one that shouldbe left unregulated. What is thepoint of competition if the resultisn't price reductions? Better cus-tomer service? It is not yet clear toour elected officials that there is nomarket in electric energy inConnecticut and there probablynever will be.

There is a solution to the elec-tric deregulation mess. We call itdecentralized and democraticallycontrolled public power. This in-cludes a real energy policy forConnecticut, which subsidizes con-servation and reduces demand forelectricity at its source. We need thewill to make major investments inclean and renewable energy plants,which use solar, wind, and tidalpower for energy sources. We need a strong state power author-ity, which will oversee the entireprocess of supply and demand inelectricity use and will keep our hardearned money and energy inConnecticut. We need an electedD.P.U.C., which will answer to usand will re-regulate the electricindustry. We need a Citizens' UtilityBoard, which will research and rep-resent consumers before the legisla-ture and other government agen-cies. We also need Municipal Utility Districts, which will produce clean and affordable energy and will belocally controlled.

If we do not move in this direc-tion we will find ourselves spendingtens of billions of dollars on morebailouts and subsidies, which will goin the pockets of greedy corpora-tions. In just a few years we may oneday wakeup to a spoiled environ-ment and a nation without liberties.

Mike DeRosa ran for State Senatorin the 2nd District and hosts theradio show New Focus (wwuh 91.7)

Continued from Page 6

Pictures from a Post Election Fundraiser

On Saturday,

November 25th Ralph Nader came

to the Trout Brook Brew House in

Hartford, CT to speak and raise money for

The CT Green Party. Over one hundred people

attended and a wonderful time was had by all!

Ralph spoke about the aftermath of the election and

the future of the Green Party. Ralph also spoke

eloquently about the future of democracy and how

people can make a difference. Thanks to Ralph

Nader for his leadership and courage! And special

thanks to all those who made this event a success

by Tom Ethier

One of the key issues for theConnecticut Green Party in 2001and indeed one that we discussedduring the past election is corporate welfare. Corporate wel-fare–loosely defined as public subsidies such as low interest loans,loan guarantee, grants, corporatetax breaks and other tax giveawaysand incentives has risen dramatical-ly over the last twenty years. As a category, Federal spending on corporate subsidies exceeds gov-ernment spending on housing andeducation combined. Though thefeatures and effects of corporatewelfare–or corporate subsidies ifyou prefer, are rarely discussed inmost political debates and cam-paigns, it does make its way into thepublic discourse once in a while.

In 1999 the state ofConnecticut giveaway to the NewEngland Patriots football team was astriking example of corporate wel-fare and one that was able to graband hold the attention of the publicprimarily because it was so brazenand done in such an undemocraticfashion. When moves such as theseoccur they tend to arouse the publicfor the moment but are then oftenforgotten while other giveawayscontinue unexamined.

Public assistance to corpora-tions is not always bad for citizensand taxpayers or at least it doesn'thave to be. Most calls for theseforms of aid and support arecouched in the language of increas-ing jobs and sometimes they even doproduce these benefits. That theyare used at all should at least makepeople realize that we don't actuallylive in a free-market economydespite the usual rhetoric frommany politicians, intellectuals andbusiness leaders. Given all this anddespite some limited successes, therecord of public giveaways inachieving their purported goals inConnecticut is generally poor.

From 1992-1998, there were

Holding Corporations Accountable for Tax-payer Subsidies

Continued on pg 11

441 corporations in Connecticutthat received more than $250,000in state aid. Half of these companieseither eliminated jobs or created nonew jobs. During this time, the cor-porate beneficiaries were also prettybad at projecting the number ofjobs that they did create. While theyclaimed they would create over24,000 jobs, more than two-thirdsof the companies fell below theirprojections in job creation.

Another measure of the valueof corporate subsidies is cost per job created; this is also weak. TheFederal government specifies$35,000 or below in subsidies perjob created as an adequate bench-mark for corporate subsidy pro-grams. (Just as a comparison, thePatriots Stadium deal was literally"out of the ballpark" in this catego-ry, with some estimates as high as$250,000 per job created.) InConnecticut since 1992, the averagesubsidy per job clocked in at nearly$55,000–more than 55 percentabove the Federal government'slimit. In the end, only about one-fifth of the companies receivingassistance were able to meet theirjob gain projections and keep thecost at less than $35,000.

Given the history of these cor-porate welfare programs, it is in theinterest of citizens and taxpayers tosee that these programs are effectiveand accountable. One way to ad-dress this concern is through legis-lation. Moderate legislation to holdcorporations accountable for the taxdollars they receive was introducedin the State Senate last year. In the2000 session it failed to pass by anarrow margin–it tied 18 to 18.There is a real opportunity for it topass in 2001 if ordinary citizenscontact their legislators and let themknow that it is important.

This legislation is of concern toboth labor organizations and to bus-iness groups such as the C.B.I.A.Labor and unions like the idea,while business groups oppose it. Itcan bring some accountability to the

recipients of these programs whilespecifying the parameters that thesecompanies can operate to be con-sidered a "good" corporate citizen.

The legislation applies to com-panies that receive over $500,000in state aid and commits these com-panies to certain standards. Theyneed to create or maintain full-timejobs in Connecticut–they don't even have to promise to create newjobs–just not eliminate old ones.Any company that moves more than25 percent of their workforce out ofstate within five years of receivingthe assistance must repay what theyreceived to the state. It further spec-ifies that the corporate recipients oftaxpayer-funded job subsidies mustpay at least industry standard wagesto their employees. Lastly, they mustcomply with state and federal laborand environmental laws. If a com-pany is out of compliance with anyof the provisions they will be given180 days to resolve the problem. All violations and responses will be reported in the ConnecticutGeneral assembly.

The Connecticut Green Party,along with the U.A.W. and Citizensfor Economic Opportunity andother labor organizations, will belobbying legislators and educatingcitizens on this legislation. Citizensfor Economic Opportunity is astatewide coalition of community,labor and religious organizationsthat has been leading the charge on this issue for years. I encouragevoters to contact their legislatorsand ask them where they stand onthis issue. Tell them that you want tosee your tax dollars used fairly, wisely and in a way that makes corporations responsible for the assistance they receive.

If you would like more infor-mation on challenging corporatewelfare and holding the recipientsof taxpayer subsidies accountable,watch for educational sessions to beheld on the topic throughoutConnecticut. These sessions will

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 7

Stat1.html#Reserves). In 1995,the U.S.G.S. estimated thatthere were 110.5 billion barrelsof petroleum, both known andundiscovered (there it is again). Idecided that this figure would bethe best I could do. I decided tosay, for the sake of this estimate,that the total amount of U.S.petroleum in reserve remainedconstant from 1995 to 2000, i.e.just as much new supply wasfound as was used.

So we started off in the year2000 with a total of 2230.5 billion barrels of petroleumspread throughout the insides ofMother Earth. Considering thatsome of that petroleum remainsas yet undiscovered, this seemslike as good an estimate as any.There could very well be no

Spring 2001 > The Green Times

by Tom Sevigny

If we have learned one thingfrom this year's presidential elec-tion it is this: Our Democracy isfailing. The belief that our votewill be counted, the fundamentaltenet of any democracy, has beencalled into question by events inFlorida and has forced us to ask ifsimilar voting discrepancies arecommonplace in other states. Ithas also become quite obviousthat a systematic attempt to dis-enfranchise minority voters wasalso undertaken in Florida as evi-denced by reports of intimida-tion and obstruction by whitecrowds and officials, lack of bal-lots and working voting machinesin majority black precincts,refusal of assistance and foreignlanguage translation to voters,and failure to process registra-tions and ballots.

In addition, the Americanpeople learned that our currentwinner-take-all voting systemenables candidates with less thana majority of the votes to winelection, relegates third partycandidates to the role of spoiler,and keeps the United States at thebottom of the list when it comesto voter participation. The vitalsigns of our Democracy areindeed weakening.

All of these problems,including the Florida debacle,could have been avoided if theUnited States enacted InstantRunoff Voting. Instant RunoffVoting (I.R.V.) is an electionreform that is rapidly gainingattention throughout the UnitedStates. Major efforts to replaceexisting plurality election lawswith this more democratic alternative are under way inAlaska, New Mexico, Vermont,Washington, California, andelsewhere. Instant Runoff Votingallows for better voter choice andparticipation by accommodatingmultiple candidates in single seatraces, while assuring that a "spoil-er"-effect will not result in undemocratic outcomes. Instantrunoff voting allows all voters tovote for their favorite candidatewithout fear of helping elect theirleast favorite candidate, and itensures that the winner enjoystrue support from a majority ofthe voters. Plurality voting, usedin most American elections, doesnot meet these basic require-ments for a fair election systemthat promotes wide participation.

Instant Runoff Voting is awinner-take-all system thatensures that a winning candidatewill receive a majority of votesrather than a simple plurality. Inplurality voting–as used in mostU.S. elections–candidates canwin with less than a majoritywhen there are more than twocandidates running for the

office. John Rowland's victory in1992 is an excellent example ofthis. In that election JohnRowland received only 36 per-cent of the vote while the remaining 64 percent of the vote was split among three can-didates. In other words, themajority of the people did notwant John Rowland to be gover-nor, yet that is exactly what hap-pened. In contrast, I.R.V. electsa majority candidate while stillallowing voters to support a can-didate who is not a front-run-ner. I.R.V. is a sensible methodin single winner elections.

I.R.V. allows voters to rankcandidates as their first choice,second choice, third, fourth andso on. If a candidate does notreceive a clear majority of voteson the first count, a series ofrunoff counts are conducted,using each voter's top choicesindicated on the ballot. The can-didate who received the fewestfirst place ballots is eliminated.The ballots are then retabulated,with each counting as a vote forthe top-ranked candidate listedon the ballot that is still in con-

tention. Voters who chose thenow-eliminated candidate havetheir vote transferred to their sec-ond choice candidate–just as ifthey were voting in a traditionaltwo-round runoff election. Thisprocess continues until a candi-date achieves more than fifty per-cent of the vote. Therefore,Instant Runoff Voting:• Ensures majority rule, in

contrast to plurality voting.• Increases voter turnout by

giving voters better choices. Experience around the worldshows that voter turnout goesup when voters have a wider range of choices.

• Promotes positive, issue-based campaigns because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes.

• Creates a clearer mandate fora winning candidate's agenda,giving better direction for policy-making.

• Solves the problem of groupings of voters splitting their votes among similar candi-dates, which allows a candi-

FLORIDA NEVER HAD TO HAPPEN

8

date with only minority support to win.

• Minimizes "wasted" votes, votes that don't help electa winner.

In other words, to the fullestextent possible, your vote willcontribute to electing a candi-date that you like. Sounds likeDemocracy at its best to me.

by Tony Santini

Recently, as a small researchproject of my own, I have tried tofind out how much petroleumthere is left in the world. Thefirst thing I found out is thatthere are a lot of different opin-ions on the matter. They rangefrom ignoring the matter to aslittle as 20 to 30 years. Finally, I decided to do the calculationsmyself. I went out on the World Wide Web and did some of the research it is supposed tobe useful for.

I should mention that thislittle project only produced anestimate of when we might runout of petroleum. It is impossi-ble to exactly know several of thequantities I used to calculate thefinal estimate.

The first quantity I foundwas the amount of petroleum leftoutside the U.S. In a U.S.Geological Survey press release issued earlier this year, ThomasAhlbrandt, U.S.G.S. World Petroleum Assessment projectchief, said

"There is still an abundance of oiland gas in the world. Since oil be-came a major energy source about100 years ago, about 539 billionbarrels of oil have been producedoutside of the U.S. We now estimate

the total amount of future techni-cally recoverable oil, outside theU.S., to be about 2120 billion bar-rels."(http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/WorldEnergy/WEPnewsRelease3_13.htm)

So I started my estimate with this figure of 2120 billionbarrels of oil outside the U.S.This, strangely enough, includesknown reserves as well as undis-covered reserves. How one goesabout estimating an undiscov-ered quantity, I know not, but Iwill trust that the experts have away to do just that.

But, of course, the U.S. also has a large amount of petroleum. The most recent figure I could find on theInternet was a U.S.G.S. assess-ment from 1995 (http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/

An Estimate of Global Petroleum Reserves

Annual Petroleum Usage in Barrels Total Global Reservesyear developed countries developing countries in barrels2000 15933635752.08 11671502982.88 2230500000000.00

2005 16663672285.73 13530470816.17 2084830230784.44

2010 17427157138.95 15685524030.26 1925244935223.52

2015 18225622824.18 18183821350.09 1749953185419.95

2020 19060672069.52 21080032662.86 1556898298287.90

2025 19756175456.62 23725762477.13 1388087917154.50

2030 20661350526.08 27504661332.74 1156865540325.32

2035 21415260945.43 30956738646.07 953822484442.71

2040 22396450870.39 35887344537.27 674536056147.18

2045 23422596290.92 41603268117.52 363247043300.31

2050 24495756947.50 48229590134.80 15430087097.85

2051 24716218760.03 49676477838.84 0.00

Abbreviated chart, please see article to inquire about getting statistics year to year.

Continued on page 11

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 8

The Green Times < Spring 2001

THE TIME HAS COME!The Drug War has caused a massive prison surpluswith over 2 million people now incarcerated in the U.S.

IT’S TIME TO END THE WAR ON DRUGS!The Drug War is not working.Use and abuse levels have risen over the thirty yearsof the Drug War.

The Drug War disproportionately affects minorities and the poor.While 13% of drug users are black, over 50% of people incarceratedfor drug crimes are black.

European nations are successfully implementing programs based onalternatives to the War on Drugs. In South America, the Presidentof Uruguay recently declared the Drug War a failure and voiced supportfor legalization of drugs.

Legitimate capital investment can never be more profitable thanprohibition-induced drug trafficking or cultivation.

Alternatives to the Drug War have to be as far-reaching and pervasiveas the problem itself.

E F F I C A C YThe tide is turning in the War on Drugs

With public sentiment rising for sensible drug policy, a youth movement demanding anend to the insanity and prominent politicians decrying the US’s failed approach,

Want more information? Want to help?Contact Efficacy, PO Box 1234, Hartford, CT 06143 860-285-8831

9

by Tony Santini

In the wake of electric deregulation,the New Haven area is faced withgaining a sibling to its filthy fiveplant. Quinnipiac Energy plans toreopen English Station on GrandAvenue in Fair Haven.

English Station is an ancientpower generating facility built on anisland in the Mill River over a cen-tury ago. The United IlluminatingCompany expanded the generatingfacility throughout the last centuryuntil it presented a Dickensian fa-çade dominating New Haven's innerharbor. U.I. closed the plant in1992 because it was too antiquatedto continue operating. When the company considered decommis-sioning the plant, they found out itwould cost over $6 million, which itwould have to pass on to its stock-holders. Instead, it found an easyway to weasel out of it. QuinnipiacEnergy, a new partnership formed spe-cifically to operate English Station,agreed to take over the plant if U.I.would give it $4.5 million. In thisway, U.I. could pass the cost on to itsratepayers in the form of strandedcosts (euphemistically listed as "lostassets" on customers' bills).

Quinnipiac Energy will resur-rect English Station in two phases.First, Q.E. plans on burning oil inthe old building 22 days a year fortwo years. In the meanwhile, Q.E.will construct four new gas turbinegenerators to replace the oil burn-ers. A byproduct of the gas genera-tors will be steam and hot water,

which the company would like to sell to nearby factories to replacetheir own oil-burning generators.

This sounds good in theory.The New Haven County GreenParty Chapter and other environ-mental and environmental justicegroups in the area have severalproblems with the plan. First, byQ.E.'s own estimate, burning oilwill increase local air pollution by 2percent to 5 percent. This will hap-pen in an area of the city that alreadyhas air quality reminiscent of a drivealong the highway through Newark,New Jersey, and a childhood asth-ma rate that is already shameful. Arecent study for the Health EffectsInstitute was conducted by Dr. JohnSamet, professor of epidemiology atJohns Hopkins School of PublicHealth. Dr. Samet found that a 0.5percent increase in particulate mat-ter emissions, a type of pollutiontypical of oil-burning facilities, willresult in a 1 percent increase inmortality rates and 2 percent to 4percent increase in hospital admis-sions of senior citizens. Particulatematter is a type of pollutant emit-ted by oil-burning power plants. The study is available online athttp://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/Samet.pdf.

Second, there is nothing inQ.E.'s permit from D.E.P. thatwould limit them to burning oil foronly two years. Q.E. will be sellingelectricity at peak times and, calcu-lating with recent peak electricprices, the company stands to makeanywhere from several million to a

NEW HAVEN COUNTY CHAPTER OPPOSES BURNING OF OIL AT ENGLISH STATION

hundred million dollars a year in anincreasingly tight energy market.Q.E. claims that the gas-firedphase, if successful, will decreaselocal pollution greatly, and no onedoubts this. But the key words hereare "if successful". There is also aquestion of whether the SouthernConnecticut Gas Company will beable to pipe enough natural gas toEnglish Station and how this willaffect homeowners' rates. Also,many people in the coalition work-ing on the issue simply do not trustQ.E. to follow through on its planto phase out oil burning. Even ifone does not believe Q.E.'s princi-pals to be heartless, greedy people,the sheer amount of money thatcould be made from selling oil-gen-erated electricity may be blindingthem to the bad that they could do.

In all fairness to Q.E., and itsmain partner Mark Minnenberg, ithas been more responsive to theconcerns of the community thanwould be expected from a companythat stands to make as much moneyas it does. Mr. Minnenberg,although he lives in Killingworthnow, is originally from Fair Haven,which is now a mainly Latino

neighborhood. His mother still livesnearby and his family roots in FairHaven go back several generations.Mr. Minnenberg has been willing togive tours of the plant to anyonewho wishes to see it, including thoseopposed to its reopening, and hastalked with several activists aboutusing a large, empty building on theproperty to develop renewableenergy sources. There is also thequestion of money. A functioning,profitable English Station may con-tribute an estimated $3 million inlocal property taxes to cash-strappedNew Haven, and could contributemany tens of millions of dollars tothe local economy in the form ofconstruction and permanent jobs.

Still overall, the Green Partychapter has decided to oppose theoil-burning phase. A press releasewritten by the Local Issues commit-tee was recently used for an article in Tiempo, a Spanish-languageweekly. And we continue to work incoalition with other like-mindedgroups in New Haven.

Thanks to Laura Smith and TomAmatruda for research

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 9

NO POISONS

NO HARMFUL CHEMICALS

SAFE AROUND CHILDREN & PETS

Be Mosquito Free WithoutHarmful Chemicals

Spring 2001 > The Green Times10

by Kitty Giannini

The Free Trade Area of theAmericas (F.T.A.A.) could bethe most important trade agree-ment in modern history, but youare certainly not going to hearabout it on your local news sta-tions. The F.T.A.A., often called"N.A.F.T.A. on steroids," is anexpansion of the N.A.F.T.A.(North American Free TradeAgreement) to the entire West-ern Hemisphere, excludingCuba. The F.T.A.A. was firstdiscussed during the Summit ofthe Americas in Miami inDecember 1994, after the suc-cessful passing of the N.A.F.T.A.earlier that year. This new agree-ment, which will affect the lives ofover 800 million people, is set togo into effect by the year 2005. Itis difficult to predict the ultimateeffects that the F.T.A.A. will havebecause the entire process of itsformation is being done behindclosed doors, and negotiatorsrefuse to make the documentsaccessible to the public or even tomembers of Congress, who willeventually have to make a deci-sion on whether or not to passthis agreement. It is predictedthat the Bush administration willattempt to get fast-track legisla-tion within the first 100 days ofhis presidency. Fast-track em-

powers the executive branch bybarring Congress from chang-ing a bill that involves othercountries, allowing Congress tovote only yes or no. Fast track iswhat the Clinton administrationused in 1994 to pass theN.A.F.T.A. unchanged and withvery little public support. Duringthat session Congress had a maximum of 20 hours of floordebate and was allotted 60 leg-islative days to decide on a docu-ment containing over 600 pages. It is obvious why the Bushadministration wants fast-track-ing back under their belt as theU.S. now seriously delves intoF.T.A.A. negotiations.

Because all talks are beingdone in secret, we can only lookat what we know, the N.A.F.T.A.and the W.T.O., as examples ofwhat the F.T.A.A. will look like.Negotiators have already made itvery clear that the F.T.A.A. willbe modeled after the N.A.F.T.A.and will be "W.T.O. compati-ble." Taking a look at theN.A.F.T.A.'s track record, ap-plying this failed model to 31more countries is most definitelya recipe for disaster. Accordingto the consumer advocacy groupPublic Citizen, since theN.A.F.T.A., over one millionU.S. jobs have been lost due tocompanies relocating to Mexico

for cheaper labor, the U.S. tradesurplus with Mexico has nowbecome an $18.6 billion deficit,eight million Mexicans have fall-en from middle class to below thepoverty line, and about 44 tonsof toxic waste are disposed ofimproperly every day along theU.S. Mexican border, creatingenormous environmental andhealth problems to U.S. andMexican citizens alike. It is clearthat the promise of more jobs,less poverty and a healthier environment through theN.A.F.T.A. have all been bro-ken. Why then would the U.S. be pushing so hard to write asimilar trade agreement for theentire Western Hemisphere?The answer is fairly simple; theU.S. always protects its corporateinterests and the almighty dollarabove all else. Trade agreementslike the N.A.F.T.A. liberalizeborders, make it possible forcorporations to sue governmentsdirectly and undermine basicenvironmental, labor and safetystandards. The N.A.F.T.A. hasits own separate court system,which can rule on cases betweengovernments and corporations.In a case between a U.S.-basedcorporation and the Canadiangovernment, Ethyl Corporationforced Canada to pay $13 millionin reparations and drop the ban

on MMT, a gas additive thatattacks the human nervous sys-tem, claiming that the ban was anunfair "trade barrier" and hadcaused a significant loss inpotential profits.

There are steps that we cantake as U.S. citizens to make ourvoices heard in opposition to theF.T.A.A. The next Summit ofthe Americas in which 34 headsof state and corporate represen-tatives will be meeting on theF.T.A.A. is this coming April 18-22 in Quebec City, Canada.People all over the hemisphereare currently planning a massmobilization to protest theF.T.A.A. in Quebec.

On April 11th from 4-8PMat the Hartford Public LibraryAuditorium C.G.A.N. is host-ing a teachin/direct action train-ing given by "A Call to ActionCaravan" that are experiencedactivists from all over the U.S.This event is open to the public.The event will focus on localissues and linking globalizationand the F.T.A.A. to local strug-gles and local action planning. Ifyou would like to become activewith this campaign please contactKitty at 860.768.6380 orsmashthestate@riseup.net!

Kitty Giannini is a member of C.G.A.N

The FTAA: The Silent Killer

Be Mosquito Free WithoutHarmful Chemicals

Mosquito Barrier® is the natural way to keep yards, parks,campgrounds and grassy areas free of annoying mosquitos.

North American Organic Products

860.379.0817860.379.9304

Easy to use for home, commercial or public applications.

Distributed Locally by:

Product is made in the U.S.A.

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 10

undiscovered petroleum, but ifU.S.G.S. let that one out, itmight cause an internationalpanic, don't you think?

Next thing was to find outhow much petroleum Homosapiens (which may be a taxo-nomic misnomer) use. That'swhere our second branch of thefederal government comes in. In1996, the Department of Energyspent your tax dollars to find outthat the developed countries ofthe world were using petroleumat a rate of 41 million barrels perday in 1993. Furthermore, thatrate was rising by 0.9 percentevery year and would reach justunder 50 million barrels per dayby 2015. Less developed coun-tries were using less, but theywere making great strides in fos-sil fuel consumption. In 1993,developing countries used 26million barrels per day, and thatfigure would rise by 3 percent per year and would pass thequantity used by developedcountries sometime around2015.(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo96/oil.html). These fig-ures are per day, so if you addthem together and multiply by365, you get a Gaia-wide total of27,605,138,734.96 barrels of oil

The Green Times < Spring 2001 11

by Barry Piesner

A massive environmental reme-diation (clean up) question is theissue being fought over by GreenParty activists David Eliscu andmyself with Newtown's Firstselectman and its LegislativeCouncil. The former State men-tal institution, Fairfield Hills,which is located in the middle ofthe Town of Newtown is an idyllic country setting of rollinggreen hills and 1930s-era rusticcampus style buildings which is,in reality, an environmental time bomb that is projected by experts to cost over $25 millionto clean up.

At the Newtown LegislativeCouncil meeting held onDecember 13, 2000, I made a30 minute presentation withassociate Erwin Potter of theNewtown Property OwnersAssociation, which warned thecouncil of the dangers of buyingthe Fairfield Hills facility withoutdoing a complete Phase II envi-ronmental survey to identify thelocation of all of the contamina-tion problems and the amount ofpollution present at the site.

Previous State reportsshowed massive amounts of As-bestos, Lead and P.C.B.s in the

1.2 Million square feet of build-ing space, as well as high levels ofArsenic, Lead, Chromium andNickel in the grounds surround-ing some of 17 buildings on the185-acre site. Soil and water test-ing also showed alarmingly highlevels of Chlordane, Aldrin andDieldrin. The acceptable level ofDieldrin is 36, ppb while the soiltests showed a dangerous level forDieldrin of 1900 ppb.

With Newtown's FirstSelectman pushing for the pur-chase of Fairfield Hills withoutconducting a complete Phase IIsurvey, my argument is thatNewtown is playing RussianRoulette with the town's finances.There is no way to quantify theamount of contaminated materi-al that needs to be removed dur-ing the eventual remediationprocess without a Phase II andsubsequent cost estimates.

How can the First Selectmanmake the state an offer when hedoesn't know what the clean-upwill cost? What if the remedia-tion jumps up to $25 millionfrom his current $10 millionestimate? If Newtown buys theproperty, it will be too late to goback and renegotiate a lower cost.

The Fairfield Hills complexwas built in the 1930's at a time

when the use of Asbestos andLead were considered acceptable.There are many similar struc-tures and complexes locatedthroughout Connecticut with allof the same built-in environ-mental problems.

State Public Works person-nel have stated that although theState allocates funds each year for environmental clean-up, themoney is committed in a matterof days and only a small fractionof the problems are reallyaddressed. Cleaning up just thebuildings owned by the State ofConnecticut may take over twenty years at current State allocation levels.

Eliscu made the point that asthe Fairfield Hills property islocated directly on top of thePootatuck Aquifer, the solesource aquifer for most ofNewtown's drinking water, acomplete environmental cleanup MUST be done, regardless ofwhether Newtown or someoneelse buys the property. If weallowed the Pootatuck Aquifer tobe contaminated by pollution, itsloss as a fresh water source for thetown would be catastrophic.

In the meeting I stated that,"There are additional major pol-lution sites in Fairfield Hills

Newtown’s Legislative Council Assailed By GreensOn Clean Up Of Environmental Time Bomb.

located on property still ownedby the State. Cleaning up half ofthe environmental problems onthe property they are selling andignoring massive amounts ofpollutants just across the street istotally unacceptable."

This is a national problemwith all older buildings. Withheating and air conditioning systems coming under suspicionfor bad air inside office build-ings, cleaning up environmentalproblems in work related areasshould be a much higher priori-ty than it is currently. While ournational and state governmentsare running huge fiscal surplusessome of this extra money shouldbe put to use by cleaning up thework environment in olderfunctioning buildings.

For those buildings that willbe sold by government depart-ments, title should not transferunless they are cleaned up in ad-vance, Especially Fairfield Hills.

used in the year 2000. D.O.E.didn't seem to want to commit topredicting petroleum usage after2015, but I decided to keep theannual increases the same. Afterall, I haven't heard anyone sayingdaily commutes are getting anyshorter, have you?

There. We have a baseline to start with. With the magic ofcomputers by my side, I startedplugging my figures in toMicrosoft Excel. With no helpfrom that little animated paper-clip Bill Gates provides you forassistance, I created my petro-leum spreadsheet.

According to my calcula-tions based on U.S. governmentfigures and a little fudging, thereis approximately 50 years ofpetroleum left. That's it. By 2051 it should be all gone. Ofcourse, it really isn't that simple.As I said before, how canU.S.G.S. know much of anundiscovered thing exists? AndD.O.E. doesn't trust itself topredict more than 19 years in thefuture (if only I could find a tarot reader with that kind ofchutzpah!) I guess the only pointto this exercise is to show thatpetroleum really is a non-renew-able resource like we've been saying all along.

Continued from Page 8

provide citizens with informationon how these subsidies work andhow they compare with otherforms of public spending. Pleasewatch for these meetings. You canalso get more information atUnited for a Fair Economy Website at www.ufenet.org andCitizens for Economic Oppor-tunity at www.ceo-ct.org. U.F.E.is a Boston based non-profitstudying economic justice issues.

Tom Ethier Torrington, CTNW Chapter

Don’t Waste ConnecticutNEW HAVEN • SINCE 1991

Nuclear Destroys! Solar Employs!

ENERGY ISSUESL I B R A R Y

audiovideoprintspeakers

e-mail: upthesun@cshore.com • 203.389.2067

Petroleum Supplies, Continued Corporate Subsidies,Continued In Lieu of Money Please

Consider Donating

chairs, tablesor any other kind of

office furniture.

It’s needed for use in our Hartford

and New Haven

Headquarters.

Beep Mike at 203.836.3400

Continued from Page 7

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 11

Chapter Locations, Contact Information and Meeting Times

Green Ten Key Values

New Haven ChapterMeets on the 1st and 3rd Wed. ofeach month at 6:30 p.m.161 Park St. 2nd floor203.777.0627

SCSU ChapterSouthern CT CampusDHarayda@aol.com203.944.9073

Fairfield ChapterMeets on the 3rd Wed. of eachmonth at 7 p.m., BorroughsCommunity Center, 2470 FairfieldAve., Bridgeport, CTjimwellington@snet,netwww.ctgreens.org/fairfield

Central CT ChapterMeets on the 1st Sun. of each monthat 6:30 p.m., Fisk Hall, WesleyanUniversity, Middletown, CTVittorio E. Lancia: vlancia@earthlink.net311 Main St.Portland, CT 06480 860.342.3865

Northeast ChapterAlison Grey-Smithseraphinag@aol.com

Danbury ChapterJohn Battista860.354.1822

Tolland & Windham ChapterJean De Smet: demac@galaxyinternet.netMax & Chris: maxhw@hotmail.comMeets on April 9th, 6 p.m. at MainSt. Cafe, WillimanticBrainstorming-March 26th,7 p.m. at UNITE hall, Willimantic

Northwest ChapterMeets on the 2nd Wed. of eachmonth at the Torrington City Halland the 4th Wed. of each month atCornwall LibraryTom Ethier: tpethier@greens.org860.496.8947

CT Green Times,PO Box 231214,Hartford, CT 06123

S.T.D. CLASSU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT #14

NEW MILFORD,CT

Spring 2001First Amendment ProtectedA GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT PUBLICATION

www.ctgreens.org The Only Source For Green News & Information 1.888.877.8607

Hartford ChapterPete Magistre860.683.0311

Southeast ChapterMeets on the 3rd Wed. of eachmonth at Connecticut CollegePenny Teal: pteal@yahoo.com860.536.4980

UConn ChapterPlease call Tolland & WindhamChapter contacts.

If you would like to form a chapter inan area not served by one of ourpresent chaptersCall: 1.888.877.8607

Join Us in Our Ongoing Quest for Social Justice and Ecological WisdomDear Friend,Now that the elections are over, we at the Connecticut Green Party have turned our attentions to building a strong progressive political party and effecting meaningful social change–locally and globally. We are ordinary citizens who have said “enough is enough”to the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties.

The Green Party has accomplished a great deal by electing Green Party member and representative Elizabeth Horton Sheff to theHartford City Council:• We stopped the citing of a medical waste facility in Hartford.• We continue to fight against the pollution that is causing an asthma epidemic in Hartford (Hartford has the highest documented• childhood asthma levels-(41 percent)• With a coalition organized by Democracy works we’ve continued to pressure the legislature to pass a campaign finance bill.

But the quest has just begun. These are the pieces of legislation we are currently working on:• Opposing Connecticut’s “Filthy Five” Polluters.• Universal Health Care for all Connecticut residents.• Death Penalty Moratorium in Connecticut.• Living Wage/Corporate Welfare Bill.• Instant Runoff Voting.

Additionally, members are working in coalition with other groups on issues like opposing imperialistic globalization measures like theF.T.A.A. and Plan Columbia. Members are also working on National and local policy initiatives such as drug policy reform, oppositionto the prison industrial complex, supporting local workers’ attempts to obtain living wages and decent benefits, and continuing ourfight against the “Filthy Five” Hartford polluters. We will also begin the process of running candidates in upcoming elections.

1. Grassroots Democracy2. Social Justice3. Ecological Wisdom4. Nonviolence5. Decentralization6. Economic Justice

7. Gender Equity and Cooperation

8. Respect for Diversity9. Personal and Global

Responsibility10. Future Focus

In order to continue this work we need yourhelp and involvement!

*CT state law requires political committees to report the name, mailing address, occupation & nameof employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $100 in a calendar year.

Our address is:CT Green 2001PO Box 231214Hartford, CT 06123-1214

Please fill out and clip this formto mail in with your donation oftime or money.

name:address:email/phone:*employer:*occupation:

Please consider making a donation of: $25 $50 $100 $200 $500

It is up to each one of us to create a betterfuture and a “deep democracy”.

CT Green Times Spring '01 4/18/01 8:46 PM Page 12