Frontpage
Facebook

October 29, 2012

 

Below is a list of endorsements for several important elections in counties where we have landowner coalition members. For each race, the list shows an incumbent, the challenger and their party. This list of endorsements is based on input from our coalition leaders and members, examination of the candidates’ records and positions on issues important to the JLC and an evaluation of who will best represent the interests that are vital to the JLC members and their communities.

 

Each candidate we have endorsed has shown a commitment to landowner rights and is vital in moving our agenda forward (we have not recommended a candidate in every race). Our endorsements signal the JLC’s strong belief that we should support those candidates who stand up for our rights in the face of tremendous pressure and misinformation.

 

This year, local elections at the county, city, town and village levels will be more important than ever. Those opposed to natural gas development are actively trying to place their candidates on local boards. Electing pro gas candidates at the local level will be crucial while we wait for our courts to determine the extent of local and state control over natural gas development.  Please contact your landowner coalition for information on local elections.

 

Voting is a personal decision based on each individual’s experience and interests. This list is meant to inform you of the candidates who support the issues important to the JLC. However you make your decisions on the political candidates, we urge you to exercise your right to vote on November 6, 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NYS Assembly

County (AD)

Current Member (Party)

Opponent (Party)

Endorsement

Notes

 

 

 

 

Madison (121)

Bill Magee (D)

Levi Spires (R)

Levi Spires (R)

 

Cortland (125/126)

Barbara Lifton (D-125)

Unopposed

 

 

Gary Finch (R-126)

Unopposed

Gary Finch (R-126)

 

Broome (122/123/124)

Cliff Crouch (R-122)

Unopposed

Cliff Crouch (R-122)

Donna Lupardo has publicly maintained a neutral position on drilling

Donna Lupardo (D-123)

Julie Lewis (R-123)

Julie Lewis (R-123)

Will Barclay (R-124)

Unopposed

Will Barclay (R-124)

Delaware (101/102/122)

Claudia Tenney (R-101)

Dan Carter (D-101)

Claudia Tenney (R-101)

 

Peter Lopez (R-102)

James Miller (D-102)

Peter Lopez (R-102)

Joel Miller (R-102) did not seek re-election

Cliff Crouch (R-122)

Unopposed

Cliff Crouch (R-122)

 

Tompkins (125/132)

Barbara Lifton (D-125)

Unopposed

 

 

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

Unopposed

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

Chemung (124/132)

Will Barclay (R-124)

Unopposed

Will Barclay (R-124)

 

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

Unopposed

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

Sullivan (100)

Aileen Gunther (D)

Gary Linton (R)

Gary Linton (R)

 

Steuben (132/133)

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

Unopposed

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

 

Bill Nojay (R-133)

Randolph Weaver (D-133)

Bill Nojay (R-133)

 

Yates (132)

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

 

Unopposed

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

 

Schuyler (132)

 

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

 

Unopposed

Phil Palmesano (R-132)

 

Chenango (122/126)

Cliff Crouch (R-122)

Unopposed

Cliff Crouch (R-122)

 

 

 

 

Gary Finch (R-126)

Unopposed

Gary Finch (R-126)

Tioga (124)

Will Barclay (R-124)

Unopposed

Will Barclay (R-124)

 

Otsego (101/121)

Claudia Tenney (R-101)

Dan Carter (D-101)

Claudia Tenney (R-101

 

 

 

Peter Lopez (R-102)

James Miller (D-102)

Peter Lopez (R-102)

Bill Magee (D)

Levi Spires (R)

Levi Spires (R)

 

 

 

 

NYS Senate

County (SD)

Current Member (Party)

Opponent (Party)

Endorsing (Party)

Notes

Allegany (57)

Catherine Young (R)

Unopposed

Catherine Young (R)

 

Madison (53)

Dave Valesky (D)

Unopposed

 

 

Cortland (51)

James Seward (R-51)

Howard Leib (D)

James Seward (R-51)

 

Broome (52)

Tom Libous (R)

John Orzel (D)

Tom Libous (R)

 

Delaware (42/51)

John Bonacic (R-42)

Unopposed

John Bonacic (R-42)

 

James Seward (R-51)

Howard Leib (D-51)

James Seward (R-51)

 

 

Tompkins (51/58)

James Seward (R-51)

Howard Leib (D-51)

James Seward (R-51)

 

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

Unopposed

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

 

Chemung (58)

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

Unopposed

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

 

Sullivan (42)

John Bonacic (R-42)

Unopposed

John Bonacic (R-42)

 

Steuben (58)

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

Unopposed

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

 

Yates (58)

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

Unopposed

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

 

Schuyler (58)

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

Unopposed

Tom O’Mara (R-58)

 

Chenango (52)

Tom Libous (R)

John Orzel (D)

Tom Libous (R)

 

Tioga (52)

Tom Libous (R)

John Orzel (D)

Tom Libous (R)

 

Otsego (51)

James Seward (R-51)

Howard Leib (D)

James Seward (R-51)

 

 

US Congress

Richard Hanna (R)  v. Dan Lamb (D), District 22 - Endorsement for Richard Hanna (R)

 

Tom Reed (R) vs Nathan Shinagawa (D), District 23 – Endorsement for Tom Reed (R)

 

Kirsten Gillebrand (D) vs. Wendy Long (R), Senate – Endorsement for Wendy Long (R)

 

 

Broome County Executive

Not all counties have a county executive. Broome County has an important race: Debbie Preston(R) v. Tarik Abdelizim (D). Debbie Preston supports drilling. Tarik Abdelizim is publicly opposed.  Endorsement for Debbie Preston

 

JLC Members

Please note that JLC members Steve Herz (D-Windsor) & Julie Lewis (R-123) are each running for election, Steve for Broome County Legislative District 9 (Windsor, Colesville, and Sanford) and Julie for Assembly District 123.

By Fareed Zakaria Monday, Oct. 29, 2012 in Time Magazine

In their second debate, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney began with a spirited discussion on energy, during which they both agreed on the goal of making America more energy independent. This has been part of presidential rhetoric since Richard Nixon declared energy independence his Administration's aim. As it happens, regardless of who is elected President, a tidal shift is taking place in energy that will matter far more to America's energy future than anything either candidate plans or imagines.

Over the past decade, America has experienced a technological revolution--not, as expected, in renewable energy but rather in the extraction of oil and gas. As a result, domestic supplies of new sources of energy--shale gas, oil from shale, tight sands and the deepwater, natural-gas liquids--are booming. The impact is larger than anyone expected.

In 2011, for the first time since 1949, the U.S. became a net exporter of refined petroleum products. Several studies this year have projected that by the end of this decade, the U.S. will surpass both Russia and Saudi Arabia and become the world's largest producer of oil and liquid natural gas.

Much of this opportunity comes from America's newfound ability to draw oil and gas from geological formations that just a few years ago geologists deemed impenetrable. The consequences of this breakthrough, both economic and geopolitical, are difficult to assess, but they range from a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S. to a decline of the geopolitical clout of Russia and the Middle East. Both would obviously be welcome news.

Romney has accused the Obama Administration of throwing obstacles in the way of this boom. But so far they do not seem to have had much effect in slowing things down.

Of course, there are many on the left who believe that the Obama Administration has gone soft on the oil and gas boom and wish he had instituted more regulations. Fracking--the procedure by which shale oil and gas are extracted from deep rock formations stretching from the Appalachians nearly to the Rockies--remains controversial and arouses great passion. The Oscar-nominated documentary GasLand suggests that unlocked gas could burst out of people's taps, allegedly because of fracking. These charges are important, but they need more thorough investigation. Gas could end up in water pipes for a variety of reasons unrelated to fracking.

The Environmental Protection Agency is doing a comprehensive study of fracking, in part because we need to better understand the ramifications of this promising new extraction method. At this point it seems the greatest harm has come from small fracking operations that don't worry that an environmental problem could damage their brand name or profit margin. This makes it an industry tailor-made for intelligent regulation, because the big companies could well support clear rules that everyone, in a growing number of states, would follow.

The environmental impact of the natural-gas boom is already clear--and positive. The U.S.'s greenhouse-gas emissions in 2011 were 9% lower than in 2007. That's a larger drop than in the European Union, with all its focus on renewables. Why? A slow recovery and lagging demand is one answer. But the main reason is that natural gas is replacing coal everywhere as an energy source, and gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal. This point is crucial. The conversation about natural gas cannot be had in isolation from the alternative. If we shut down all fracking and stop using shale gas, we will get all that energy by burning coal, which is the world's dirtiest fossil fuel--and is associated with mining deaths and respiratory illnesses as well.

As the oil and gas boom progresses, however, we should not forget that there is ultimately a better future for energy--namely wind, solar and other renewables--that provides unending supply, low price and almost no environmental damage. Most of these approaches continue to be plagued by the problems of cost and energy storage. (Bill Gates has calculated that if you took all the world's batteries, they together would have enough capacity to store 10 minutes of the world's demand for energy.) But they are gradually becoming competitive with fossil fuels.

The best bet for the U.S. is not only to expand oil and gas production but also to increase funding for research and development of new sources of energy. We need more breakthrough technologies and new designs and processes. But the government should also aid these nascent technologies by helping them achieve scale--which comes only from large deployment of these technologies. The U.S. government--the Department of Defense and then NASA--bought almost half of all the computer chips produced by Silicon Valley in the 1950s until the industry could sufficiently lower its costs to be commercially viable.

We need to expect, even welcome, some investment failures. In venture capital, if you have eight failures and two big successes, that's a ratio to be proud of. But in government, one Solyndra means the whole program can die. Wind and solar are relatively small investments and needlessly controversial. The much larger question is nuclear energy. Should the government continue to provide subsidies for nuclear power? The emotional opposition to nuclear power has little to do with the data--many more people die in coal mines every year than have ever died in nuclear plants--but it does shape the political reality. Nuclear-power-plant construction remains stalled. But if Americans want a constant supply of large amounts of energy with zero carbon emissions, nuclear is the only game in town right now.

The final piece of the energy puzzle should be the least controversial. Energy efficiency--drastically reducing the vast waste of energy in homes, offices, factories and vehicles--is good for greens and CEOs, for America and the world. Scientist turned activist Amory Lovins argues that the U.S. could grow its economy to 2.6 times its size, get completely off oil, coal and nuclear and use one-third less natural gas--all by 2050.

Efficiency means a hundred different things, like lighter (and yet sturdier) cars made from carbon fiber or similarly light and strong materials. It also means rethinking how we build things: if considered as a separate nation, America's buildings alone are the world's third largest users of energy, after the rest of America and China and ahead of every other country! And it means simple modifications like this one in every hotel room in Europe: when you leave the room, taking the key out of the slot turns out the lights. It doesn't require any sacrifice in lifestyle to have the lights off when you're not in the room. McKinsey estimates that the U.S. could save more than $130 billion annually--or $1.2 trillion by 2020--just by maximizing efficiency.

Conservation reminds us that we should think about energy not as a problem but as an opportunity. As we search for new sources of economic growth, it's worth recalling how the information revolution of the 1990s restarted America by transforming so many aspects of life and work. Energy could have a similar transcendent effect. New technologies that provide cheaper and unconstrained supplies of energy could revolutionize the world. And the country that pioneers them will be on top.

 

The Wall Street Journal Opinion dated October 22, 2012 by Daniel Yergin

The impact of the U.S. energy revolution is only beginning. It is already providing a foundation for a domestic renaissance in manufacturing.

An unconventional oil and gas revolution is under way in the United States, but its full ramifications are only beginning to be understood. The basic facts are clear enough. Half a decade ago, it was assumed that the U.S. would become a large importer of liquefied natural gas; now the domestic natural gas market is oversupplied, thanks to the ability to produce shale gas through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies.

Shale gas alone is now 10% of the overall U.S. energy supply. And similar technologies to recover so-called tight oil trapped in rock formations are largely responsible for boosting U.S. oil production by 25% since 2008—the highest growth in oil output of any country in the world over that time period.

So far more than 1.7 million jobs are the result, according to a report titled "America's New Energy Future," released Tuesday by my research firm, IHS. These jobs include people working on rigs in Pennsylvania or North Dakota, manufacturing equipment in Ohio or Illinois, and providing information- technology services in California or legal services to royalty owners nationwide. The number of jobs could rise to three million by 2020. The energy revolution will add an estimated $62 billion to federal and state revenues this year.

But the energy revolution is having other effects that get less attention. The balance of payments is one. The increase in domestic oil production over the past five years will reduce our oil-import bill this year by about $75 billion. The growth of shale gas will save the U.S. from spending $100 billion a year on imported LNG, which was the likely prospect five years ago.

There is also a geopolitical dimension. The increase in U.S. oil production since 2008 is equivalent to almost 80% of what was Iran's export level before the imposition of sanctions on the Tehran regime. Without the additional oil coming from the surge in U.S. oil output, the Iranian oil sanctions could not have worked as well as they have.

Domestically, growing natural gas supplies provide a foundation for a manufacturing renaissance, at least for industries for which energy is an important feedstock or where energy costs are significant. Chemical companies have been leaving the U.S. for years in the search for lower-cost countries in which to operate. Now they are planning to invest billions of dollars in new factories in this country because of inexpensive and relatively stable natural gas prices. The price of natural gas, which averaged $2.66 per thousand cubic feet in the first nine months of this year, is less than half of what it was five years ago.

This holds out a tantalizing prospect that the U.S. could regain market share among the world's manufacturing exporters. That prospect preoccupies companies around the world, from Europe to China. When I was in China recently I heard much talk about how China's historical advantage in cheap labor (which is becoming less cheap) could in the years ahead be offset by cheap energy in the U.S.

We're also beginning to hear a debate about the U.S. role as an exporter of liquefied natural gas. LNG exports to countries with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements require no government approval. Approvals are needed, however, for exports to a long list of countries with which we have no such agreements, including Japan, Britain, India and many others. But an investment in building export facilities for this trade won't make sense unless producers have the flexibility to ship to diverse destinations as markets change.

Opposition to LNG exports comes from a variety of sources, ranging from those concerned about the impact on domestic prices to those who simply do not like shale gas. In December, the Department of Energy is expected to issue its report on the possible effect of gas exports on the overall economy. The report will provide some guidance as to what to expect in terms of LNG exports.

Yet there are two points to be made now. First, the scale of American LNG exports would be naturally limited by the competition from other existing suppliers around the world, as well as by new supplies coming from recent large gas discoveries offshore of East Africa and Israel.

Second is a larger context. The U.S. is successfully pushing Japan to reduce its oil imports from Iran, one of its largest traditional suppliers. At the same time, Japan, still reeling from the Fukushima disaster, is buying expensive LNG from both spot markets and traditional suppliers in the Middle East and Asia to replace nuclear power for generating electricity. How can America, having asked Japan to reduce Iranian oil imports, turn around and prohibit the export of surplus natural gas to this key ally?

The economic, political and even geopolitical benefits of the energy revolution to the U.S. were not foreseen at the time of the 2008 presidential election—but they are now of clear importance. And the growing production of shale gas has led to environmental  controversy.

Last year a committee was set up to report to the Secretary of Energy on environmental questions. (I was a member of that committee.) The committee identified three major environmental considerations—wastewater, local air pollution and community impacts—that need to be carefully managed with the rapid development of this activity.

The committee recommended a series of pragmatic solutions, centered around "best practices" for both operations and regulation, innovation (e.g., reduced water use) and engagement with community stakeholders. These initiatives will help to provide a safe foundation for the further development of the industry.

The rapid growth of oil and natural gas production represents a major opportunity for the U.S. Without these energy resources, the disappointing economic picture would look worse, and so would the jobs numbers. Instead, the energy revolution is helping revitalize the economy and make the U.S. more competitive in the global marketplace.

— Mr. Yergin, vice chairman of IHS, a global market information and analytics company, is author of "The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World" (Penguin, new edition, 2012).

 

By Jon Campbell, Albany Bureau on WGRK.com

ALBANY -- Support for hydraulic fracturing is inching up among New York's voters, according to a new poll released Friday.

According to the Siena College survey, 42 percent of likely state voters support allowing hydrofracking for natural gas to move forward in "parts of upstate New York." That's compared to 36 percent who are opposed.

Upstate voters, however, remain split on the much-debated technique used to help extract gas from gas-rich shale formations, with 43 percent in favor and 41 percent opposed.

The new poll represents the first budge in Siena's polling on hydrofracking in several months. In August, 39 percent wanted fracking to move forward with 38 percent opposed, which was virtually unchanged from May.

"While it's not a groundswell of support, more voters now support (the state Department of Environmental Conservation) moving forward on hydrofracking than in any previous Siena poll," Siena pollster Steve Greenberg said in a statement. "In August, a plurality of upstate voters and women had opposed fracking, and now small pluralities of both are in support."

Permits for high-volume hydrofracking have been on hold in New York while the DEC completes an environmental review and guidelines for the industrial process. State officials have offered no timeline on when that review may be completed, but ordered the Department of Health last month to assess the DEC's review before moving forward.

The Siena poll, which was conducted between Oct. 22 and 24, also found strong support for President Barack Obama and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, both Democrats facing re-election next month.

Obama is carrying a 59-35 percent lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney in New York, according to the survey. Gillibrand, meanwhile, has a 43-point lead over GOP candidate Wendy Long.

"The last time a Republican presidential candidate carried New York was 1984 and that streak of 28 years appears to be in no jeopardy this year," Greenberg said.

Siena polled 750 registered voters in New York. The survey holds a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.

October 15, 2012  Binghamton Press Sun Bulletin

Author: Dan Fitzsimmons

The Southern Tier should shout for joy at the New York State Supreme Court decision to invalidate the City of Binghamton’s gas drilling moratorium.

Mayor Matt Ryan, his former Deputy Mayor Tarik Abdelazim, and the Democrat former members of City Council that passed this two-year moratorium should be ashamed of themselves. They tried to skirt the law and the democratic process with a lame duck city council.  The courts showed that they were wrong.

In the decision, Supreme Court Justice Ferris Lebous stated: “However, the City cannot just invoke its police power solely as a means to satisfy certain segments of the community.  Rather, the City must satisfy the well established legal requirements that show a dire emergency; that the moratorium is reasonably calculated to alleviate a crisis; and that they are taking steps to solve the problem.” He goes on to say: “In this case, there is no other conclusion that the Court can reach, however, that the Local Law 11-006, fails to meet the criteria for a properly enacted moratorium.”

This moratorium, struck down by the Supreme Court, is one example of a City Administration that seems to be doing everything it can to run our community into the ground.

 

The Ryan/Abdelazim Administration was too busy trying to illegally block gas drilling (none of which would have taken place within city limits anyway), attending town board meetings in Dimock, Pennsylvania where even the Dimock residents told Matt to go home and otherwise taking silly actions that don’t benefit City residents. They should have saved the scant resources from our strained municipal budget, and instead should have spent more time focusing on the real municipal work that matters to taxpayers like plowing roads, stopping crime, picking up trash, balancing a budget and reducing taxes.

 

If you want lower taxes, smart government and opportunities for growth, you should pass on Matt and Tarik.  On the other hand, Matt, Tarik and their friends would be a good choice if you want protesters camping out downtown for months without proper permits.

 

Our community is at a crossroads. Two devastating floods in recent years, the bleeding of jobs throughout the Southern Tier and the resulting, declining tax base have left our people dispirited and hurting financially perhaps worse than ever before. Natural gas development isn’t our only opportunity but it is our best opportunity right now. We need leaders who can serve the real and pressing needs of our community. We simply cannot afford leaders like Matt Ryan and Tarik Abdelazim who are too caught up in political activism to properly serve our community.

 

Dan Fitzsimmons is a longtime Conklin resident and is the president of the Joint Landowners Coalition of NY.

JLCNY Calendar

No events

Recent Stories

Newsletter Signup!

Signup and stay informed.

View Past Newsletters
Joomla Extensions powered by Joobi
Donations