[Geysers] Geyser killers

[GOSA Store]

When in a hurry I don't always express things fully.  Such was the case
earlier, so permit me to elaborate.

 

Political activity can take many forms.  Educational and informational
activity falls under the scope of the GOSA charter and is not prohibited.
Nor is advocating for a cause specific to the interests of the organization
as long as it does not favor or oppose candidates for elective office.  That
is, since GOSA is a "subject matter expert" our opinions can be expressed
publicly when discussions over geothermal things like powerplants are made.
Of course individuals can do and say as they please independent of the
organization.

 

Let's say a company wishes to build a plant in Island Park, which is quite
likely (pick the low hanging fruit first) since it's already been studied.
By the time an EIS is done, it's probably too late - the discussion is
basically over.  Opinions opposing such a plant should be brought up long
beforehand, even before a preliminary EA is being put together.  That's what
I meant by becoming politically active.  Find out who's doing what, when and
where and basically cut 'em off before they get too far.  If solid
opposition is known to exist, firms are less likely to waste time and money
even on the early stages of a project.  However, once a sizeable investment
is made they are far less likely to let go.  Although I'm not an attorney I
do think that can be done entirely out of the scope of supporting or
opposing political candidates for election, which would cause the IRS to
rescind the non-profit status.

 

Since the organization is still relatively small and has limited resources I
think aligning ourselves with other larger organizations would be
beneficial.  Cooperation with an outfit that has a publicist and perhaps an
attorney would be ideal, providing they agree with our viewpoint.
Yellowstone Association, Yellowstone Foundation, National Parks Foundation,
Sierra Club(??) are some that come to mind.  I think it would be wise for
GOSA to put together a policy statement with facts and figures that
irrefutably support the position.  Then publicize it however best we can -
website and other media.  Right now there are Wall Street firms pushing
investments in geothermal corporations.  This seems to be in concert with
the administration's effort to "go green."  BTW, I am all for going green,
just don't mess with my geysers in the process!  What I'm saying is the
opponent will likely be well financed and well supported politically.
However, David did slay Goliath.  We just need a solid rock, a great
slingshot and proper aim.

 

IRS website states: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly
participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or
in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to
political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or
written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to
any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against
political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in
denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain
excise taxes. 

 

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the
facts and circumstances.  For example, certain voter education activities
(including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides)
conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political
campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage
people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration
and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign
activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

 

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence
of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a
candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or
group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or
intervention."

 

 

Udo Freund

GOSA Store

www.gosa.org

 

From: geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu
[mailto:geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Strasser
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:36 PM
To: 'Geyser Observation Reports'
Subject: RE: [Geysers] Yellowstone Science article

 

As a group, GOSA can express scientific opinion.  We cannot engage in
political activity or we lose our 501(c)(3) status.  

 

This does not stop any individual who subscribes to the Sput from expressing
his or her opinion as vociferously as they choose. 

 

I personally cannot imagine the Obama Administration from even beginning to
consider anything that would affect Yellowstone.  As much as they want to
consider alternate forms of energy, the environmental movement, which is a
huge supporter of this administration, would vehemently oppose any such idea
of tapping Yellowstone.  

 

I will concede, however, that certain "environmental" groups have been known
to sacrifice environmental sensibilities for political expediency.  But
Yellowstone's geysers?  Them's fightin' words.

 

Paul Strasser  

 

  _____  

From: geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu
[mailto:geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu] On Behalf Of Freund, Udo
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:11 AM
To: Geyser Observation Reports
Subject: RE: [Geysers] Yellowstone Science article

 

Here's Tami Blackford, the editor's, response to my mentioning the reversal
of that image to her: "Yes, that image was transposed. Thanks for noticing!"
Sad that those who live in Mammoth don't notice these things beforehand.
Either they don't know better or don't look at details carefully, both are
poor excuses when portraying science.  But we humans do make misteaks (sic).

 

As for the content of the article, I too found it greatly under-researched.
If I recall correctly it is a condensed version of a master's thesis,
probably written some time before being reproduced in YS.

 

But at least this type of info is getting published, hopefully leading to
more media attention on the subject.  Which brings up a point.  Media are
portraying geothermal as a green energy source with seemingly little adverse
impacts.  The Obama administration is pushing this agenda and they are
essentially the boss of those who might object, namely NPS and USGS.  I'm
sure most of you are aware that using geothermal aquifers kills geyser
activity.  That proven fact should be brought to the media's attention
whenever the subject comes up.  In the USA we've already lost geysers at
Steamboat and Beowawe in Nevada and Mammoth in California.  In my opinion,
since few others will advocate for this cause, GOSA and its' associates
should take up the task.  In other words, I believe that it's time for GOSA
to become politically active rather than being a passive hobby club.

 

Thanks, 
Udo Freund 
Blessed are those that run around in circles for they shall be called big
wheels! 

 

 

  _____  

From: geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu
[mailto:geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu] On Behalf Of TSBryan at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:54 PM
To: geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
Subject: [Geysers] Yellowstone Science article

The Curmudgeon here, at least for item #1... this e-mail will also respond
to some off-list stuff, on which I've been a bit delayed because of my
step-daughter's surgery for a badly herniated disk. (She's much better
today, thank you.)

 

1. The first 2009 issue of "Yellowstone Science" contains a nice article by
Alethea Steingisser and W. Andrew Marcus, titled "Human Impacts on Geyser
Basins" (www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/ys17(1)p1.pdf and click on
the top (part 1) link -- the article starts on page 7). Good enough (except
for a couple of minor comments below)

 

BUT... how about that title photograph. If I was the authors I'd be severely
disappointed; if I was anybody with the NPS who has anything to do with
Yellowstone Science, I'd be really (really) upset. If you haven't seen it,
here's a scan of that image (small jpg, embedded and attached)

I trust you see what is wrong. The scene might look better if you hold the
picture to a mirror.

 

Sorry, folks, but that's bad.

 

2. In Table 1 of the article, several places are noted with asterisks ("No
data available"). This is, I guess conservatism by the authors, but I must
say that since there has been zero geothermal development (other than use of
natural runoff) in Kamchatka's Valley of Geysers, then the asterisk in the
table's first column should be replaced with "No." Same for Umnak. Also, in
this table, there most definitely was a negative effect of tourism on the
geysers and springs at Steamboat Hot Springs (that, by the way, being the
proper name for the place). There were what amount to tourism activities
there at least as early as the 1860s plus there was the resort (I don't
recall its date offhand), and there were some substantial alterations to the
valley springs at Beowawe. I could make note of some other asterisks but
won't.

 

3. Here comes a point at which it is unfortunate that the annotated
bibliography, that appeared in editions 1, 2, and 3 of my book had to be
deleted from edition 4 (where the discussion about places around the world
was significantly reduced, too) due to cost constraints. Anyhow, regarding
the note on page 17 of the article, I wish it stated something a bit
stronger -- not just records, but written records. I possess numerous
reports, often including maps, that were never actually published -- I
recall significant trials in obtaining several unpublished reports from the
National Library in Australia. Anyhow, if it is in my book, it can be
documented.

 

4. I know there are always delays from manuscript to print, but still -- the
4th Edition of my book did come out around August 1, 2008, several months
prior to this publication, so I find it too bad that it did not find its way
into the "Literature Cited." I think some slightly-different numbers might
be found there.

 

T. Scott Bryan

 

  _____  

Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try
<http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027>  the
new Email Toolbar now! 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20090428/2e856c6a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20090428/2e856c6a/attachment.jpg>